Philosophy Forums
Forums Links Articles Gallery Chat
Style:

Powered by WSN Forum




Register | Forgot Password

Debate 10 Discussion: Whether the masses should rule themselves

printPrint


Debate 10 Discussion: Whether the masses should rule themselves
Paul
Tenured Poster
Avatar

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Mar 10, 2002
Location: Skinners, CA
Total Topics: 455
Total Posts: 11727
Posted 02/10/07 - 12:21 PM:
Subject: Debate 10 Discussion: Whether the masses should rule themselves
quote post
#1
In this debate wander argues that the masses should rule themselves, while Mr.Anonymous argues that they should be ruled over by an elite. Read the debate over here.
coolazice
Graduate
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 05, 2006
Total Topics: 21
Total Posts: 214
Posted 02/12/07 - 10:08 PM:
quote post
#2
Mr.Anonymous wrote:

First point: Throught mankind's history, society has always believed that in order to be more modern, more civilized, we must inherently be more tolerant, more understanding. The elite have more and more, with each new generation, been looked at as the enemy of this, the source of all oppression and intolerance, the enemy of all that is good.


Seems to be obviously false. Was Ancient Egypt interested in being more tolerant and understanding in order to be civilized? Was Medieveal Europe? Nazi Germany?

Mr.Anonymous wrote:
Second point: So far, humanity has had absolutely no luck creating a society without the High. The earliest human societies, though having very little in the way of an elite class still had clan leaders, who were the high at the time. And although they may have often changed if someone could sieze power from the current leader, but the clan leaders would often have the most access to wealth, food, and women. In the Soviet Union, one of the first communist nations, we had the Communist Party. The Party advocated equality and improved life-style for the proletariat, but in reality it was always amassing wealth and luxury that would be fit for an industrial middle class capitalist for its highest members. In the French Republic of Virtue, we had Emperor Napoleon Bonaparte and his wife. While Napoleon advocated republican virtues and overthrew monarchs, he himself was a monarch who amassed great wealth for himself and established various dukes in France's dependent states. In Rome, even before the ascention of Julii-Claudian family to leadership over the Empire, the Republic's Senate was made up of patrician land owners who came from upperclass families.


I'm not sure 'leader' means the same thing as 'elite'. You seem to be conflating the two.

Mr.Anonymous wrote:
Point being, human societies will always have some form of elite, even the states proclaiming equality. It is the natural way, as even in animals you will have the alpha male and alpha female in power or the beehive queen. Some form of elite, leaders of the many. The trick is not to attempt to expell the elite altogether, but have the right individuals as the elite. My ideal state would have philosophers like us in power, just as Plato imagined.



A very obvious example of the naturalistic fallacy. Showing that having elites is 'natural' has no relevance whatsoever as to the morality of it.

One of the greatest weaknesses in human nature is to be dogmatic about issues of which we are ignorant.

"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio/Than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
Buddahchuck
Bodhisatva
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 16, 2006
Total Topics: 25
Total Posts: 568
Posted 02/12/07 - 11:02 PM:
quote post
#3
First, I want to say that the debate is not what I expected from the topic heading. "Should the masses rule themselves?" This topic seems to suggest that it would be better for the masses to rule themselves than for them to be ruled by some elite leader, and thus, I expected talk of society and its ends. But there were only negative points to the topic of society, and not in the way that would make me prefer having the masses rule over having elites rule.

Now the two sides of the debate:

Pro- the masses should rule themselves.

In order for this to be true, the advocate must advocate a certain value like freedom, and explain why freedom is preferable to order because after all, we can imagine free societies where people get killed by one another, angry mobs rage up and down the street looking for outsiders to lynch. So, I am curious as to why the masses should rule themselves more than why elites should not rule.

Wander wrote:

On the surface of this issue is already a contradiction avoided in the qualifications, "general mass" and "elite". Without great exposition the question of whether or not "humanity should be ruled by itself" is managable before specifying which oligarchy by what attribute will rule whom. Humanity has always ruled itself, currently rules itself, and will always rule itself. An arbitrary subgroup thereof from this book or that has no bearing on the fact that human rulers are members of humanity - even if humanity itself deems them otherwise. If divine inspiration, benevolent aliens, sentient machines, Morlocks, or wayward celestial constructs are hereby proposed as the elite, humanity would do well to yet oppose their rule in favor of living as free humans - or at the prospect of being subtly engineered into lesser creatures by some impossibly complicated devices of Gods or the superintelligent, die finally in that, the most honest war possible a man - against beings that are truly not other man.


I do not find it tedious to make this point, but it presumes a negative result. Is it not possible to have non-human rulers that are entirely benevolent and whose leadership is unquestionably perfect? In a sense, even a human elite rulership that is formed in a utopic vision would somehow be more than human, or at least more than the average Joe. What is inherent in elite leadership that makes it less preferable to being ruled by the masses? This question is hard to answer when there is not given a reason to lead the masses, no matter how well-written it is.

wanderer wrote:

Further, assume such an arete existed - that a man could justly count himself another's master a priori due to some characteristic he exhibited. What relationship would the specialized rulers bear to their slave masses?


What indeed would give the elite such an advantage? What could justify an elite leading so many people? This question is not rhetorical, it needs to be answered. Nietzsche wrote in the genealogy of morals about how the strong, blonde beasts subduing the poor farmers, and the farmers' retaliation was to say that the blonde beasts are stupid, and that intelligence is the most important attribute. But a true elite would have both strength and intelligence, and must be a justified ruler. In order for this debate to continue justly, conflict must arise between the two utopic visions.

Con- the elites should rule the masses

Mr. Anonymous wrote:

First point: Throught mankind's history, society has always believed that in order to be more modern, more civilized, we must inherently be more tolerant, more understanding. The elite have more and more, with each new generation, been looked at as the enemy of this, the source of all oppression and intolerance, the enemy of all that is good.

Our literature depicts the upper class as glutonous pigs, or wicked hawk faced villians. While this occurs, the common man is move up in society's standing. Many of today's movies will have the common farm boy, a good-looking blonde male, embark on a quest to defeat the evil count or duke, or some form of nobility, and rescue the princess. Sometimes, the princess will even be portrayed as heroine who could easily live amoung the common folk, and will often know some martial art.

I grant that the elite have often fitted into this Hollywood-fabricated role. But are the masses any better? The answer must be no. Both the elite philosopher and the common peasant are human, thereby capable (and even predisposed) to error. Left to there own devices, the common shop keeper in ancient Rome, if not married, will most likely go to a bar or brothel, rather than a temple or library.


So the point is that even if the elites are the enemy of the people, they still make better leaders than the people themselves? I am not sure this is true. There is no reason given why one poor form of leadership is more preferable to another; so, I fail to see the relevance of this point in the debate.

Mr. Anonymous wrote:

Second point: So far, humanity has had absolutely no luck creating a society without the High. The earliest human societies, though having very little in the way of an elite class still had clan leaders, who were the high at the time. And although they may have often changed if someone could sieze power from the current leader, but the clan leaders would often have the most access to wealth, food, and women. In the Soviet Union, one of the first communist nations, we had the Communist Party. The Party advocated equality and improved life-style for the proletariat, but in reality it was always amassing wealth and luxury that would be fit for an industrial middle class capitalist for its highest members. In the French Republic of Virtue, we had Emperor Napoleon Bonaparte and his wife. While Napoleon advocated republican virtues and overthrew monarchs, he himself was a monarch who amassed great wealth for himself and established various dukes in France's dependent states. In Rome, even before the ascention of Julii-Claudian family to leadership over the Empire, the Republic's Senate was made up of patrician land owners who came from upperclass families.


If the point is that empirically elites emerge from society, then it can also be said that empirically such societies fall along with the arisen elite.

Sorry if my comments are not is what is being looked for, but it seems like that debate lacks form and is not actually adressing the necessary issues. Why is it so important to have freedom? Why would elites benefit society more than the masses? There needs to be at least some comparative analysis between the two.

coolazice wrote:

Seems to be obviously false. Was Ancient Egypt interested in being more tolerant and understanding in order to be civilized? Was Medieveal Europe? Nazi Germany?


All of these prove the point that he is making--the elite are viewed as the enemy.


I'm not sure 'leader' means the same thing as 'elite'. You seem to be conflating the two.


If you give him the benefit of the doubt, you can see how these examples are relevant to the point he is making. In Rome, the rulers of society were those with wealth and power and the intelligence to wield them. In this sense, 'elite' is an appropriate term for in the society he talking about, he is attempting to describe the truly elite as those who are reasonably justified in leading society.


A very obvious example of the naturalistic fallacy. Showing that having elites is 'natural' has no relevance whatsoever as to the morality of it.


So you think that leadership is a moral question and not one of mere utility? Nonetheless, I think his point stands because if a leader is bound to arise no matter the circumstance, then it would be best if that leader were a just and benevolent leader, and not merely another Robes Pierre.
nosos
skeptical
Avatar

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Jul 24, 2004
Location: Coventry, UK
Total Topics: 147
Total Posts: 2293
Posted 03/01/07 - 04:05 AM:
quote post
#4
The burden of proof shouldn’t be on the person arguing that people should control their own lives. rolling eyes

"The men of the future will yet fight their way to many a liberty that we do not even miss? - Max Stirner

"The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself." - JS Mill

"I'd rather be a crying little pussy than a faggy Goth kid." - Butters
acumensch
an anti-hero
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 04, 2005
Location: Seattle, Washington
Total Topics: 3
Total Posts: 31
Posted 03/21/07 - 04:50 PM:
quote post
#5
Yes, the elitist has the burden of proof. And historical arguments aren't going anywhere without psychoanalysis!


Edited by Paul on 03/22/07 - 03:49 PM. Reason: illiteracy

Man is something to be overcome. What have you done to overcome him?
http://aeconomics.blogspot.com/
Buddahchuck
Bodhisatva
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 16, 2006
Total Topics: 25
Total Posts: 568
Posted 03/22/07 - 08:13 PM:
quote post
#6
Nosos wrote:

The burden of proof shouldn’t be on the person arguing that people should control their own lives.


The debate is not over whether people should control their own lives, the question is whether "people" as a whole should rule the people (i.e. establish laws and whatnot).

acumensch wrote:

Yes, the elitist has the burden of proof.


Typically, the person who is defending the status quo gets presumption and the other opts for a change. In a debate where one person is arguing that in the status quo, elites rule the government, then we cannot say that the elitist has the burden of proof because the status quo is presumed right. My suggestion would be to drop the discussion of burden of proof altogether, and require both parties to prove their point.
Caldwell
Curator of whirligigs
Avatar

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Apr 18, 2006
Location: Under the banana tree, with Zuleiha.
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 1515
Posted 03/25/07 - 05:32 PM:
quote post
#7
Buddahchuck wrote:

Typically, the person who is defending the status quo gets presumption and the other opts for a change. In a debate where one person is arguing that in the status quo, elites rule the government, then we cannot say that the elitist has the burden of proof because the status quo is presumed right. My suggestion would be to drop the discussion of burden of proof altogether, and require both parties to prove their point.

In fact, I think the burden of proof is a very apt concern in this debate. And the rule of thumb is -- the person, or those, who make/s a controversial claim should have the burden of proof. The elite ruling the masses has been, at many different times, viewed as a controversial historical phenomenon. And so, it is only fair that the person arguing for rule by the few over the many (and I'm not talking about "representative", if you can see the irony in this) should at least shoulder the burden of providing proof that it is the right thing to do. As an aside, "proof" here, especially that this is a political/social issue, does not mean proof as in other department of studies (math, logic, natural science...I'm assuming you know what I mean).

The standard view is that doctors are not at fault if they deceive their patients for their health's sake, and that fathers are not at fault if they deceive their children for their own good. For the crime of deception consists not in the falsity of what is said but in the harm done by the deceiver.

-- Thomas Hobbes, 3rd set of objections on The Sixth Meditation, Descartes.
Buddahchuck
Bodhisatva
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 16, 2006
Total Topics: 25
Total Posts: 568
Posted 03/28/07 - 06:59 PM:
quote post
#8
But my contingency with the whole concept of "burden of proof" in this debate is that there are historically NO governments that are actually ruled by the masses, rather, there are only governments that are ruled by the elites. So, saying that the few should rule the many could be construed as non-controvercial. On the other hand, I see that in this time, many people believe that the masses should control the government, social contract etc. In such a debate, the burden of proof stays with both sides, or in other words, one person needs to prove that the advocated scenario is more desirable than the alternative. In such an idealistic debate, a reasonable conclusion can only be reached if we ignore talk of burden of proof because we are trying to say why one ideal is better than another. I see no reason to merely presume that the masses should rule themselves.
Caldwell
Curator of whirligigs
Avatar

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Apr 18, 2006
Location: Under the banana tree, with Zuleiha.
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 1515
Posted 03/28/07 - 10:43 PM:
quote post
#9
Buddahchuck wrote:
But my contingency with the whole concept of "burden of proof" in this debate is that there are historically NO governments that are actually ruled by the masses, rather, there are only governments that are ruled by the elites.

In fact, there is a system of government that allows the masses to participate -- the democratic form. I mentioned "representative" to imply this. The masses are represented by elected politicians. If we stick to the true meanings of these words, we do have rule by the masses. The "few" is understood to mean the "elites" -- the exclusive group or class that has all the power to decide how the state should be. The oligarchs exclusively belong to the ruling class.

If I miss something, please let me know. I thought this is what the debate is about. "Rule by the masses" does not literally mean, each member of the masses sits in congress or parliament.

The standard view is that doctors are not at fault if they deceive their patients for their health's sake, and that fathers are not at fault if they deceive their children for their own good. For the crime of deception consists not in the falsity of what is said but in the harm done by the deceiver.

-- Thomas Hobbes, 3rd set of objections on The Sixth Meditation, Descartes.
Buddahchuck
Bodhisatva
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 16, 2006
Total Topics: 25
Total Posts: 568
Posted 03/31/07 - 07:57 PM:
quote post
#10
caldwell wrote:

"elites" -- the exclusive group or class that has all the power to decide how the state should be.


This seems to describe the current system of democracy we are using right now.

Representative government and Elitism are not mutually exclusive. The argument presented in the debate is that Elitism is an inevitable product of Western Society. So when we talk about some leader representing the masses, we could also say that a monarchy is representative of the masses, or even facism, for both, state officials are meant to represent the people. Supposedly, a democracy allows for the people to have some decision in who their leaders might be, but empirically this is not the case. Because this argument is being presented, we cannot presume that having the power in the hands of the people is best. Perhaps if there was more topical clarity that provides a brightline as to what is ruling by the masses and what is not, then we could exlude elitism and democracy, but seeing as how the topic does not define the issue in this way, then the debate must be about the principle of having the masses rule or having the elites rule.

Caldwell wrote:

The masses are represented by elected politicians. If we stick to the true meanings of these words, we do have rule by the masses.


There is a difference between politicians and rule by the people:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governance#The_state... wrote:

Some suggest that there should be a clear distinction between the concepts of governance and politics. Politics involves processes by which a group of people with initially divergent opinions or interests reach collective decisions generally regarded as binding on the group, and enforced as common policy. Governance, on the other hand, conveys the administrative and process-oriented elements of governing rather than its antagonistic ones.


One could even argue that a politician as an elected representative of the people is a part of an exclusive group. The true meaning of your words suggests that for convenience's sake, the people do not take place in governance, or "rule", but rather they send an exclusive member of their community to choose who governs for them. This, however, is not an exact enough representation of the people to describe governing by the masses because the only decision the people truly make is which elite to send, not how their state is governed.
Caldwell
Curator of whirligigs
Avatar

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Apr 18, 2006
Location: Under the banana tree, with Zuleiha.
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 1515
Posted 04/01/07 - 05:59 PM:
quote post
#11
Buddahchuck wrote:


This seems to describe the current system of democracy we are using right now.

Representative government and Elitism are not mutually exclusive. The argument presented in the debate is that Elitism is an inevitable product of Western Society. So when we talk about some leader representing the masses, we could also say that a monarchy is representative of the masses, or even facism, for both, state officials are meant to represent the people.

It's really hard to discuss these words if we keep on equivocating. Like I said, if the debate truly meant "elitism" in its definition of rulers, then the debater meant oligarchy. But, if he meant elitism in the vulgar and common term, then I have nothing to say. I'll leave it up to the others.

Supposedly, a democracy allows for the people to have some decision in who their leaders might be, but empirically this is not the case.

This is like saying, because currently the politicians aren't acting to represent the desires and views of the people, then we cannot discuss "democracy". I thought this debate is meant to illuminate what is truly "rule by the masses" means, and rule by the elite. If this is not the purpose, but rather expose the corruption and violation of the ideals, then I'm not here to discuss these.

In essence, oligarchy and aristocracy are not representative forms of government. You say they represent the people or their subject -- this is a misrespresentation and equivocation, and they are only true by rhetoric, not by practice or meaning. Voting and political participation by the masses are required in "representative" government. It means putting politicians, issues, decisions, propositions on the ballot periodically, with defined terms, limits of office, etc. Do we vote in oligarchy or monarchy? No.

I do not see in arguing further these issues. They are out there. If we cannot agree on the definitions of "rule by the elites" and "rule by the masses", I can't think of a better way to discuss this productively.

The standard view is that doctors are not at fault if they deceive their patients for their health's sake, and that fathers are not at fault if they deceive their children for their own good. For the crime of deception consists not in the falsity of what is said but in the harm done by the deceiver.

-- Thomas Hobbes, 3rd set of objections on The Sixth Meditation, Descartes.
loveofsophia
Understanding
Avatar

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Apr 02, 2006
Location: Near Madison in Wisconsin
Total Topics: 36
Total Posts: 592
Posted 04/02/07 - 08:53 AM:
quote post
#12
Choosing mass rule or elite rule is a completely ridiculous way to formulate preference of government. Mass rule emphasizes that everyone's voice matters in a community while elite rule emphasizes that some people are more learned and wise than others.

A mobile hierarchy is what we want, one that affirms all links in the chain as interdependent and valuable as well as the evolution of ones abilities and concepts making them belong in different niches of the chain of interdependence that humans exist in. I believe the movement of democracy emphasizes the primacy of thinking beings being far more similar than different. It also emphasizes that every complex system is made of simple pieces (rationally open to realization for all thinking people if they only journey there). Science plays a central role in the peripheries or maybe even the heart of democracy and this is why: in science debate and individuals sticking to their points until agreement is communally reached, this is emphasized and I believe may underlie a fundamental truth about every individual and the methods one must employ to enable one to learn. Also, the consistency of the world informing the best explanation for data, our reason tracing the patterns and laying individual claim to the best explanation, this affirms all individuals personal involvement with the world and democracy has the same affirmative aspect...while not necessarily discounting the possibility of those with greater understanding and knowledge than most others (the elite). The emphasis on one over the other is to lose all perspective and create abstract babble.

Just some thoughts....

It is amazing how susceptible to lies we are when young. I believe people are still far more susceptible to lies as adults than they would like.

Balancing what could be, our imaginings, with what we know, this is a delicate act of mind.
Darkphilosophy
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 15, 2007
Total Topics: 6
Total Posts: 22
Posted 04/18/07 - 08:18 PM:
quote post
#13
I'm already suspect of the word "elite", I'm only making a quick take on the subject before following it up, but in my experience there are no elites...about as elite as you can get is someone with no stake in the outcome just giving advice for free, only the smartest people know this, there ain't no one who can be truly unbiased all you can do is try to do it for free and hope your not a complete idiot, everyone else falls prey to the corruption of power or money or fame,etc.. Likewise the masses ruling themselves would be biased just the same and surely result in some new damn hippie communism and probably lead to civil war.

A man who can slump it halfway across the galaxy and still has the wherewithall to know where his towel is is a man to be reckoned with.
...you know Einstein was divorced...probably the smartest man ever on this planet...so what chance do you have at a happy marriage, you think you're smarter than Einstein!
Reanna
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 23, 2007
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 1
Posted 04/24/07 - 11:31 PM:
quote post
#14
[quote=loveofsophia]Choosing mass rule or elite rule is a completely ridiculous way to formulate preference of government. Mass rule emphasizes that everyone's voice matters in a community while elite rule emphasizes that some people are more learned and wise than others.

A mobile hierarchy is what we want, one that affirms all links in the chain as interdependent and valuable as well as the evolution of ones abilities and concepts making them belong in different niches of the chain of interdependence that humans exist in. I believe the movement of democracy emphasizes the primacy of thinking beings being far more similar than different. It also emphasizes that every complex system is made of simple pieces (rationally open to realization for all thinking people if they only journey there). Science plays a central role in the peripheries or maybe even the heart of democracy and this is why: in science debate and individuals sticking to their points until agreement is communally reached, this is emphasized and I believe may underlie a fundamental truth about every individual and the methods one must employ to enable one to learn. Also, the consistency of the world informing the best explanation for data, our reason tracing the patterns and laying individual claim to the best explanation, this affirms all individuals personal involvement with the world and democracy has the same affirmative aspect...while not necessarily discounting the possibility of those with greater understanding and knowledge than most others (the elite). The emphasis on one over the other is to lose all perspective and create abstract babble.

This argument while an important point to make fails to provide any true form of a conclusion. The arguer starts by stating that neither elite rule nor mass rule is the proper way to go about formulating a form of rule but then enters into a discussion the makes references to ideas of science and the importance of a higher learning which are two aspects that have previously been referred to as attributes of elite rule. I also would like to ask the arguer where they came up with their term of the chain of interdependence. Your definition is unclear due to its circular manner. One other area that is unclear is your use of democracy. Isn’t the current US democratic system ruled by the more elite and alpha’s of America? I think it is important in this discussion to better define what the differences between elite rule and mass rule are and what the different systems that have existed under each condition are, if there are even systems that have existed under these forms of rule.
loveofsophia
Understanding
Avatar

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Apr 02, 2006
Location: Near Madison in Wisconsin
Total Topics: 36
Total Posts: 592
Posted 04/29/07 - 04:26 AM:
quote post
#15
Reanna wrote:

This argument while an important point to make fails to provide any true form of a conclusion. The arguer starts by stating that neither elite rule nor mass rule is the proper way to go about formulating a form of rule but then enters into a discussion the makes references to ideas of science and the importance of a higher learning which are two aspects that have previously been referred to as attributes of elite rule.


I am simply stating that our interdependence supersedes any sort of superiority of one person over another. One may make the same argument with regards to life and even the earth. We are dependent on other living things. Superiority is a ridiculous manner to perceive our relationship to other living things if we are dependent upon them.

Similarly, our dependence on others affirms their value independent of ours. Anyone in a position of authority needs be (should be) mindful of their responsibility to those that allow them the opportunity to lead.

The problem with elitism is that it loses sight of process (conceptual and abilities wise).

It encourages a fixed system of those inherently above others. This is short sighted. One could imagine a society or culture as one organism. If one system in the organism fails the organism dies. Our interconnection and interdependence upon each other far exceeds any sort of superiority (difference of ability or intellectuality) one might place in the brain or the heart.

I guess this is rather abstract as well. But I feel it highlights what is necessarily the case in a community of people. For one, those that are placed in authority should be open to compromise and a system of checks and balances need be in place to secure the safety of everyone. The US has a system that is enviable. A supreme court that bases their judgments off of the constitution (which I am no expert in but get the gist that it is a rather remarkable achievement to have as our bases). Then their is the legislation and executive branches. The great thing about it is when someone proves themselves to be utterly incompetent...a ruler like a Bush...we are ensured that ruler will not be around for long. And if he crosses a line enough people get angry about...we can get ride of him.

In the US their is an attempt to balance the need for freedom and the need for security. Too much freedom leads to insecurity for all and too much of an emphasis on security leads to less freedom.

Furthermore, in the US, no matter how imperfect it may be (it is human after all) it emphasizes the abilities and skills of people to search out and find a job and a way of living that they choose. I am not saying it is as good as one might imagine it could be...but the heart of it is good.

I also would like to ask the arguer where they came up with their term of the chain of interdependence.


We wouldn't get very far without the garbage men, the clerks at the gas station, or the people that work all the odd jobs that are not as lucrative as some others. The fact is, in this system, imperfect as it may be, we are all interdependent. Now, some have more social and monetary influence and power (deserved and undeserved), which should, ideally, make them aware of their debt to society. Many rich people are aware of this and do have a rather giving nature...despite the fact they remain very rich. Those that fail in realizing their interconnection and interdependence with others fail in their social duty. They are worthy of contempt.

Your definition is unclear due to its circular manner. One other area that is unclear is your use of democracy. Isn’t the current US democratic system ruled by the more elite and alpha’s of America?


If we were to focus more on education and empowering students in the educational system to take more responsibility for their knowledge and understanding (through means I could go into) we would better society through the output of those more aware of the value of dialogue, community, and the need for collective agreement to best accomplish our aims successfully.

What is rational, despite conflicts of interest, should lead us often to compromise in the face of others that disagree. The aim is collective agreement on action, which needs occur. The battle for what is right for individuals to do can only be had by the best ideas being implemented and others being willing to argue for their positions. The current trend, I am no historian and I am not certain on how long this trend has existed, to make things overly simple is not beneficial. Let me explain.

In our choice of leaders I find it is likely that values are the most important factor. If the voting majority has disorganized and ultimately unhelpful discernment of good values society as a whole will be subjected to their voting into positions of authority those that will not best address our needs. Education and awareness of the process of developing conceptions of more sophistication and worth is not as central to our democratic nation, the US, as it should be. Citizens with good value sets, with comes from growing up in a secure and affirming household (more often then not) and having good educational experiences needs to be the center of a democratic nation.

Singling out those of "greater" ability to learn, those with a greater rapidity to their learning process, and leaving the rest behind is not encouraging a healthy community. This is the current trend in our educational establishment and it really attacks the minds and potential for conceptual growth of the body, us as a whole. This is integral to a successful democracy given so much power is vested in the masses (this is unquestionable).

The fact that others need focus on their sphere of influence to have the greatest affect in their life and the world would see to society improving. Often the sense we are disconnected and need only care for ourselves, which some may argue is a byproduct of many different causes, causes more harm to our collective health than being willing to engage and discuss disagreements and try and work out solutions together in a local and national sense.

I think it is important in this discussion to better define what the differences between elite rule and mass rule are and what the different systems that have existed under each condition are, if there are even systems that have existed under these forms of rule.


I believe I value democracy, mass rule that selects its representatives to take on the job of representing their collective interests, and it has the greatest potential and makes the greatest sense for any community. If it can become fixed, those that are elite stay in power regardless of how they treat the masses, the potential for harm is significant. The potential for those that are safe in power to abuse those that they depend upon without repercussion is unacceptable in a strictly elite and aristocratic conception of rule.

In democracy, ideally, we would promote the elite in ability and values to positions of authority. So emphasizing elite over mass rule, or mass rule over elite rule, loses sight of our interdependence and interconnection. A democracy (with en emphasis on abilities and knowledge as well as values informing the decision as to who leads) and an attention to the abilities of those in process of development (maybe not at the same pace as others) should be present to best succeed as a democracy. Therefore, the main concern of educational health in a democracy is unquestionable to maintain a movement towards good representatives. The current institutions of education need improve in the US but they are not completely absent of worth either.

Superiority and inherent value of some people over others is not a helpful or valid conception of a community of people. For one their is process, the development of abilities and concpeitons, that may make people vluaable in ways that are not as immediatly present based off of natural abilities, and similarly, the need for an emphasis on hope and communal involvment is necessary for democracy to best suceed. This interdependence and interconnection is affirmed in a democracy...and there is always room for improvement of the body to make who the place at the head all the more benefical to the heart, lungs, liver, and even our little bitty toes.

This is not as clear as I would like, but I believe one could get the gist.



Edited by loveofsophia on 04/29/07 - 04:49 AM

It is amazing how susceptible to lies we are when young. I believe people are still far more susceptible to lies as adults than they would like.

Balancing what could be, our imaginings, with what we know, this is a delicate act of mind.
Buddahchuck
Bodhisatva
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 16, 2006
Total Topics: 25
Total Posts: 568
Posted 04/30/07 - 05:24 AM:
quote post
#16
This I agree with:
Love of Sophia wrote:

Choosing mass rule or elite rule is a completely ridiculous way to formulate preference of government. Mass rule emphasizes that everyone's voice matters in a community while elite rule emphasizes that some people are more learned and wise than others.


as well as...

los wrote:

Similarly, our dependence on others affirms their value independent of ours. Anyone in a position of authority needs be (should be) mindful of their responsibility to those that allow them the opportunity to lead.



But then comes:

los wrote:

The US has a system that is enviable.


I trust you mean worthy of envy and not inviable.


A supreme court that bases their judgments off of the constitution (which I am no expert in but get the gist that it is a rather remarkable achievement to have as our bases).


Supposedly, but as we see, this is not inherently the case as a great deal of Supreme court decisions seem somewhat whimsical, even in the eyes of the greatest scholars.


The great thing about it is when someone proves themselves to be utterly incompetent...a ruler like a Bush...we are ensured that ruler will not be around for long. And if he crosses a line enough people get angry about...we can get ride of him.


But this is wrong. Bush is utterly incompetent, and people have gotten angry enough, but as of yet, Bush has not left office. In fact, he has been there for 6 years going on his seventh. Clinton, a president who consistently had over 60% support of the population, was undergoing impeachment trials at this point in his presidency even though most people thought he was doing a good job. Bush, whose popular support has shrunk to an amazing 37%, has not been impeached at all. You may be quite right in saying that Bush is one of the most incompetent leaders America has ever had (perhaps the world), but I do not see how this proves that "the system works." If anything, this is empirical evidence to the contrary.


In the US their is an attempt to balance the need for freedom and the need for security. Too much freedom leads to insecurity for all and too much of an emphasis on security leads to less freedom.


Does this not also mean that in a world in which the masses rule, where complete freedom is given to everyone that is possible, the eventuality of insecurity is inevitable and a backlash will precipitate? Is this not evident through the flow of history?


Furthermore, in the US, no matter how imperfect it may be (it is human after all)


No, the United States is not human, it is a nation-state (I don't mean to be a smartie pants, but to err is human, not government).



it emphasizes the abilities and skills of people to search out and find a job and a way of living that they choose.


No, the United States is not what does this, it is the product of people reacting to their need to live in a capitalist economy. Many times this choice is never made and people wind-up old and impoverished precisely because the couldn't find a job that emphasized their abilities and skills. Look to the current unemployment rate, poverty rate, the number of unskilled workers versus the number of professionals.

Anyway, this point does not really matter because we are not seeing any contrast. As I stated in my first post, we need to be able to see a division between elitism and being ruled by the masses. Some people (I am not alone) do not seem to see the United States as being ruled by the masses, especially when a president can win an election without a popular vote (even if representation could be counted). What is a little uphauling about this patriotism I am hearing (not that patriotism is bad, but it just needs a little perspective) is that it being used blindly to argue that the US is the best and most ideal government in the world, and ought to be the standard by which all other governments (utopic or otherwise) should be tested. This is a very poor standard to judge such a debate.


If we were to focus more on education and empowering students in the educational system to take more responsibility for their knowledge and understanding (through means I could go into) we would better society through the output of those more aware of the value of dialogue, community, and the need for collective agreement to best accomplish our aims successfully.


I agree that education is a valuable resource to any who wish to undertake it, but what is the old adage, "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing."? It's truly amazing what people can argue when they think themselves informed without truly being so. Sure, its simple to say, give them more education, but I believe it also true that there will be an inevitable divide between those who do well in their studies and those who do not. This is the imperfection of human nature, not the imperfection of an educational system. Granted, we could have better education, and more oppurtunities may then arise, but this is a far cry from eliminating and education gap, unless we are to completely under-educate those that achieve.

Otherwise, promoting the need for "dialogue, community and responsibility" is a perfectly commendable goal, and I would be curious to hear you suggestions perhaps in another thread.


The battle for what is right for individuals to do can only be had by the best ideas being implemented and others being willing to argue for their positions.


Tell that to Socrates.


Citizens with good value sets, with comes from growing up in a secure and affirming household (more often then not) and having good educational experiences needs to be the center of a democratic nation.


And in America, the households that are affirming and secure with good educational experiences come from upper middle class to rich families, what could be called the bourgeousie. So if the center of our democratic nation comes from a financially elite group of people, what does that mean about our government?

Otherwise, I agree, for I am not truly arguing one side of the debate over another, only saying that the debate needs to be framed a different way in order to be conclusive.


Singling out those of "greater" ability to learn, those with a greater rapidity to their learning process, and leaving the rest behind is not encouraging a healthy community.


But it is not encouraging a healthy community to hold back those who accel. Do you agree? Nobody wants a society of mediocrity.


The fact that others need focus on their sphere of influence to have the greatest affect in their life and the world would see to society improving.


I don't understand, or rather, I am afraid I do. You think we need more frat boys?


Often the sense we are disconnected and need only care for ourselves, which some may argue is a byproduct of many different causes, causes more harm to our collective health than being willing to engage and discuss disagreements and try and work out solutions together in a local and national sense.


Aldous Huxley wrote about this. People used to feel isolated and disconnected; so they gave them soma and encouraged orgies. All kidding aside, I honestly do not see this happening in a society of 350 million people, unless you truly do want to construct A Brave New World

los wrote:

I believe I value democracy, mass rule that selects its representatives to take on the job of representing their collective interests, and it has the greatest potential and makes the greatest sense for any community.


But you don't answer what Reanna said:

Reanna wrote:

I think it is important in this discussion to better define what the differences between elite rule and mass rule are and what the different systems that have existed under each condition are, if there are even systems that have existed under these forms of rule.


I think this is absolutely right. What scenarios truly fit the discriptions of ruled by elites and ruled by the masses? You do offer this:

los wrote:

If it can become fixed, those that are elite stay in power regardless of how they treat the masses, the potential for harm is significant. The potential for those that are safe in power to abuse those that they depend upon without repercussion is unacceptable in a strictly elite and aristocratic conception of rule.


And it is also possible that people could engage in discourse without ever taking action. Now that we know the potential harms of both sides, lets reconcile where democracy fits:


In democracy, ideally, we would promote the elite in ability and values to positions of authority. So emphasizing elite over mass rule, or mass rule over elite rule, loses sight of our interdependence and interconnection. A democracy (with en emphasis on abilities and knowledge as well as values informing the decision as to who leads) and an attention to the abilities of those in process of development (maybe not at the same pace as others) should be present to best succeed as a democracy.


So, why is this not elitism? Aside from that, how is humanity to distinguish between the goals of getting elected and actually having more abilities and knowledge that warrant such leadership? Is it not possible that a person will merely become a smooth, charismatic leader as opposed to a knowledegable, good one?


Superiority and inherent value of some people over others is not a helpful or valid conception of a community of people.


Agreed. But we can also agree that if Jon is really good at growing corn, that does not mean he should be mayor. Interdependence. Those that run the government should be good at governing, and those that are good at being gas station attendants should run gas stations. This is why we need a definition of what it means to be ruled by the elite, for if the elite are truly elite, then by definition, they ought to be the ones to rule.


For one their is process, the development of abilities and concpeitons, that may make people vluaable in ways that are not as immediatly present based off of natural abilities, and similarly, the need for an emphasis on hope and communal involvment is necessary for democracy to best suceed. This interdependence and interconnection is affirmed in a democracy...and there is always room for improvement of the body to make who the place at the head all the more benefical to the heart, lungs, liver, and even our little bitty toes.


Okay, using the analogy of the body, do we really want our heart and lungs and liver voting on how we should move our feet, or should we let the brain just control it all? You might want to change your analogy, or stick with it, I don't care.
Machiveli
savage butter
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 19, 2004
Total Topics: 114
Total Posts: 1176
Posted 04/30/07 - 02:19 PM:
quote post
#17
I am just reading brave new world at the moment so this topic was on my mind. However I find both the book and the debate in the debate thread too polarised.

The title of the debate was not "should the masses rule themselves or should an elete dictatorship rule for them" but rather simply "should the masses rule themselves? the alternative being left unspecified.

The debate died at this point when both parties accepted that the only alternative to the masses ruling themselves was an ongoing dictator ship by a elete composed of a subset of humans alive at that time.


I would have liked to have seen a more nuanced debate framed arround the difference between positive and negative liberty. In pithy terms this could have been achieved by Mr.Anonymous asking wander whether he would have accepted the masses voting to end democracy.

One could then consider the alternative to the masses ruling themselves in more subtle notion's like the crafting of institutions, the writing of constitutions, the holding up of religious or secular ideals like law and rights. In short the deliberate crafting of history to constrain the possitive freedom of the masses so as to guarantee their negative freedom. And so in the manner of Isaiah Berlin to rescue the masses from their inate self destructive tendancy towards possitive liberty.


In short wander attacked a straw man and Mr.Anonymous defended it a victory for wander if that jujitzu was intended but I doubt it was.

Edited by Machiveli on 04/30/07 - 02:26 PM

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
"Everything that exists is born for no reason, carries on living through weakness, and dies by accident" -Sartre
Download thread as


You don't have permission to post.

Please login or register.

34 total queries
This page was created in 2.41 seconds
Memory used: 7199264 bytes
Server Status: time since last reboot is 191 days, 5:27, load average: 0.64, 0.97, 1.52