Bernie Sanders, champion of the downtrodden

@terp, there is consensus in many cases and in many ways. You're right that it is hard to measure it precisely, and we are sure to argue over just what the consensus is about a particular thing. Still, that does not make it a useless goal. In my view, it is the duty of all of us to ask and to try to be aware of what the consensus is. A good example is Trump's behavior, as he breaks a lot of common boundaries. He is doing things that the collective morality says is just not acceptable, which leads to discussion of what our rules of etiquette are. Before statutes became so numerous in English-speaking society, we were ruled by common law, and the philosophy still influences our legal system. Judges and juries would ask how the common man would judge the situation at hand. It turns out to be extremely useful, and if you can think of a better system, I'd like to hear of it.

You're right that there is always a danger of these discussions justifying totalitarianism or some other horrors. That doesn't mean we shouldn't have them.

We most certainly have become an oligarchy dressed up as a democracy, and we should all be furious about it. To the extent that the people are becoming aware of it, they are angry. That's why people feel helpless, and it explains why people favor both Sanders and Trump.

The oligarchy can be corrected. And it will be. I just don't know how long it will take. In the meantime, we still have to have laws. We are passing bad laws that offer a benefit to too few people. That is oligarchical. But once we rebalance wealth and power but doing various things such as overturning Citizens United, the people will elect government that represents the people and works for the people. The government will pass laws that reflect the will of the people (while being guided by a few wise people so that the majority does not become tyrannical). Isn't that the society we aim to create? I can think of no better alternative.

Thank you for recommending Democracy in America. I downloaded it on Kindle for only $0.99. Now I have a recommendation for you: Saving Capitalism by Robert Reich. I'm a quarter of the way through it now. I'd love to hear what you think of it!

Anyway, rules of etiquette and law define what society and the individual owe each other. If you disagree with these rules and law, work to change them. Other than the oligarchy, the mechanisms already in place are the ones we need.

PVW said:

terp said:

Who is society?  I mean that to me seems vague.  To me society is just a bunch of individuals.  You should really read Democracy in America by Tocqueville.  It's funny because he is a Frenchman who comes to America.  

Upthread I said this:

"Libertarian philosophy seems premised upon a radical individualism that doesn't reflect the deep interdependence all human beings have upon each other -- an interdependence that is for the most part neither voluntary nor breakable. For better and worse, we're not the atomized free agents of libertarian utopianism."

You took issue with that, but characterizing society as "just a bunch of individuals" is precisely the sort of claim I had in my when making my criticism.

PVW, I've been enjoying your posts almost as much as I enjoyed reading Tocqueville, who, if he had left more people with the impression that he was "blown away" by an American democracy in which individuals "just cooperate," would have been forgotten to history as a well-traveled prison inspector.

terp said:

Who is society?  I mean that to me seems vague.  To me society is just a bunch of individuals.  You should really read Democracy in America by Tocqueville.  It's funny because he is a Frenchman who comes to America.  

Society is more than "just a bunch of individuals".

"Just a bunch of individuals" would describe a group of people trying to exit and board a subway car.  Some people getting on just can't accept that waiting for passengers to exit would make it easier for everybody.  Another example is merging traffic and traffic jams - everyone would move along faster if drivers kept to a slower, more constant rate of speed and alternated entry into the single lane.

Society is "individuals plus".  It starts with individuals, but then those individuals work out the systems that define the society.  Some systems are "top down", such as monarchies.  The United States Constitution defines a government, where the people are sovereign (the Preamble sets that out).  It's still a government, one which has to function, but with mechanisms for the people living with that government to direct its functions.

these conversations drift to such an extent I'm not sure I'm following. Some folks seem to be in favor of usage taxes like tolls and VATs. But if taxation is "theft" isn't it theft just the same if it's a sales tax as it would be if it's an income tax?  If taxation is "theft," how can it be justified at all, in any form or at any level?

ml1 said:

these conversations drift to such an extent I'm not sure I'm following. Some folks seem to be in favor of usage taxes like tolls and VATs. But if taxation is "theft" isn't it theft just the same if it's a sales tax as it would be if it's an income tax?  If taxation is "theft," how can it be justified at all, in any form or at any level?

Right. To say that taxation is theft and then to go on and say which forms of taxes are just and which tax amounts are just makes no sense. If we reduced taxation, and if it is theft, then we are reducing theft, not eliminating it. Therefore, taxation is not theft if we agree that we must have it, even if we disagree on how much of it there should be.

How much taxation is a decent question. Whether there should be taxation is not. Since everyone has at least one thing they want paid for with taxes, everyone wants taxation for one reason or another or for several reasons. It is not possible, therefore, to classify it as theft. It makes as much sense as it is to measure the sky with a bathroom scale or the temperature with a ruler.

ml1 said:

these conversations drift to such an extent I'm not sure I'm following. Some folks seem to be in favor of usage taxes like tolls and VATs. But if taxation is "theft" isn't it theft just the same if it's a sales tax as it would be if it's an income tax?  If taxation is "theft," how can it be justified at all, in any form or at any level?

"Taxation is theft" is often based on the non-aggression principle.  Hence, a toll can be avoided by not driving on the NJ Turnpike.  Thus, no aggression is needed.

to some degree that is a distinction without a difference. Realistically, how would one avoid paying all fees, all excise and all sales taxes? You're back to the same notion as avoiding income tax -- go off the grid.

RealityForAll said:

ml1 said:

these conversations drift to such an extent I'm not sure I'm following. Some folks seem to be in favor of usage taxes like tolls and VATs. But if taxation is "theft" isn't it theft just the same if it's a sales tax as it would be if it's an income tax?  If taxation is "theft," how can it be justified at all, in any form or at any level?

"Taxation is theft" is often based on the non-aggression principle.  Hence, a toll can be avoided by not driving on the NJ Turnpike.  Thus, no aggression is needed.

Two options to consider are: i.) absolutely no aggression (probably a utopian fantasy albeit a worthwhile stake in the sand); and ii.) the current system which has the possibility of eventually evolving into complete totalitarianism (government is able to use whatever means necessary to accomplish its revenue goals while spying on you to ensure compliance).  Clearly there is a point in between these two stakes in the sand (and which is likely less intrusive and aggressive than our current system).  Perhaps we could find some middle ground.

ml1 said:

to some degree that is a distinction without a difference. Realistically, how would one avoid paying all fees, all excise and all sales taxes? You're back to the same notion as avoiding income tax -- go off the grid.

RealityForAll said:

ml1 said:

these conversations drift to such an extent I'm not sure I'm following. Some folks seem to be in favor of usage taxes like tolls and VATs. But if taxation is "theft" isn't it theft just the same if it's a sales tax as it would be if it's an income tax?  If taxation is "theft," how can it be justified at all, in any form or at any level?

"Taxation is theft" is often based on the non-aggression principle.  Hence, a toll can be avoided by not driving on the NJ Turnpike.  Thus, no aggression is needed.

RealityForAll said:

Two options to consider are: i.) absolutely no aggression (probably a utopian fantasy albeit a worthwhile stake in the sand); and ii.) the current system which has the possibility of eventually evolving into complete totalitarianism (government is able to use whatever means necessary to accomplish its revenue goals while spying on you to ensure compliance).  Clearly there is a point in between these two stakes in the sand (and which is likely less intrusive and aggressive than our current system).  Perhaps we could find some middle ground.

Isn't the fear of totalitarianism just a version of the slippery slope fallacy? I mean, you could argue it the other way too -- the no aggression principle could devolve into anarchy, right? I'm not sure either the fear of anarchy or totalitarianism is a good argument against either one of those approaches.

I also don't see how non aggression principle applies to more diffuse services and benefits. For example, the town I grew up in had a large flood control system set up by the US Army Corps of Engineers back in the mid 20th century. It works really well. Should everyone in town have dropped some money into the tip jar every time it rained and our houses didn't get flooded? We got a good amount of rain growing up, but our house never flooded.

DaveSchmidt said:

PVW said:

terp said:

Who is society?  I mean that to me seems vague.  To me society is just a bunch of individuals.  You should really read Democracy in America by Tocqueville.  It's funny because he is a Frenchman who comes to America.  

Upthread I said this:

"Libertarian philosophy seems premised upon a radical individualism that doesn't reflect the deep interdependence all human beings have upon each other -- an interdependence that is for the most part neither voluntary nor breakable. For better and worse, we're not the atomized free agents of libertarian utopianism."

You took issue with that, but characterizing society as "just a bunch of individuals" is precisely the sort of claim I had in my when making my criticism.

PVW, I've been enjoying your posts almost as much as I enjoyed reading Tocqueville, who, if he had left more people with the impression that he was "blown away" by an American democracy in which individuals "just cooperate," would have been forgotten to history as a well-traveled prison inspector.

Thanks DS. And I do want to commend terp for bringing up Democracy in America. Although, like DS, I got a different lesson from it than terp did, it's well worth reading (and part of the joy of reading is seeing what different people get out of a work, especially when it is different from your own takeaway).

It's been a while since I read it; I should probably reread it again sometime soon. Those interested in re-reading it, or reading it for the first time, can find a free copy online at Project Gutenberg in various formats, from plain html to various e-reader versions.

PVW said:

Labor, and the fruits of labor, aren't the same thing, though I notice you consistently collapse that distinction. The IRS isn't forcing anyone to work.

You're right.  The IRS doesn't force anyone to work. Rather they are a disincentive to work.  Don't you think?

PVW said:
Furthermore, the tax system isn't applied post facto. If you do choose to work, you know what the taxes are going in. In an extreme case, you can reject the system entirely and emigrate, choosing to labor in some land where the government structure is more to your liking. We don't have exit visas or anything like that; no one is forced to labor under the laws of the United States against their will.

It's not so easy to emigrate.  If you emigrate then you are still subject to US Taxes. You would have to renounce your citizenship.  If you do that, there's an expatriation tax if you believe that.   I guess you'll have to pay since you're no longer using all that awesome stuff the government arbitrarily confiscated from you while you were a citizen.  Seems to make perfect sense.    

PVW said:

But let's get back to your lawn mowing analogy. Was this lawn mowing arrangement know to me ahead of time, the way taxes are? If I am so opposed to the fee structure (that I knew about ahead of time), why did I choose to retain (or acquire) the lawn?

And where did that lawn come from in the first place? Did I magic it into existence? Why is this particular bit of land available to be a lawn, as opposed to, say, being the hunting grounds of a nomadic band of hunter gatherers who have no concept of "owning" a "lawn?" (and why are those hunter-gatherers so ignorant of the existence of a "natural" right like exclusive ownership of land?)

And what about the grass - did I buy the seed at a store? If so, did I take a road to the store, and was that a toll road? Did I rely on rain to water the lawn and, if not, where did the water come from? Who built the infrastructure to bring me that water? Is my lawn constantly being overrun by vandals and ruffians, or is there some sort of law and order in my neighborhood, and if so, what force is upholding that order?

If my neighbor decides to build a house on my lawn, is there some sort of court or something I can go to and prevent him, or must I resort to physical violence, and hope I am stronger or luckier than he?

BTW - Jet fuel is pretty polluting, yes. Then again, so are cars, and there's a lot more of those than there are jets, and unlike fighter jets, they're ubiquitous, especially in the areas where people live, and breathe. I'm thankful for catalytic converters, fuel efficiency standards, unleaded gasoline, and other auto emission regulations that have made the air I and my family breath cleaner. YMMV, of course.

I don't know. It's your lawn.  Perhaps it rained. Perhaps you have a well. Perhaps you collect rainwater and water your lawn with that during dry spells.  Or perhaps you pay the water company.  I can't be sure as there are a lot of possibilities.  

If you commonly have issues with "ruffians" i would suggest you address your security issues.  

Courts are a legitimate(to everyone but true anarchists AFAIK) function of government.  That being said, I'm not sure why the courts could not charge fees that cover their expenses.  

PVW said:

terp said:

Who is society?  I mean that to me seems vague.  To me society is just a bunch of individuals.  You should really read Democracy in America by Tocqueville.  It's funny because he is a Frenchman who comes to America.  

Upthread I said this:

"Libertarian philosophy seems premised upon a radical individualism that doesn't reflect the deep interdependence all human beings have upon each other -- an interdependence that is for the most part neither voluntary nor breakable. For better and worse, we're not the atomized free agents of libertarian utopianism."

You took issue with that, but characterizing society as "just a bunch of individuals" is precisely the sort of claim I had in my when making my criticism.

Yeah.  Its mainly because you don't get it.  Society is just all the individuals in some area(usually artificially defined by man) that interact.  They commonly cooperate without any coercion as cooperation is necessary to survive and prosper.  

Tom_Reingold said:

@terp, there is consensus in many cases and in many ways. You're right that it is hard to measure it precisely, and we are sure to argue over just what the consensus is about a particular thing. Still, that does not make it a useless goal. In my view, it is the duty of all of us to ask and to try to be aware of what the consensus is. A good example is Trump's behavior, as he breaks a lot of common boundaries. He is doing things that the collective morality says is just not acceptable, which leads to discussion of what our rules of etiquette are. Before statutes became so numerous in English-speaking society, we were ruled by common law, and the philosophy still influences our legal system. Judges and juries would ask how the common man would judge the situation at hand. It turns out to be extremely useful, and if you can think of a better system, I'd like to hear of it.

You're right that there is always a danger of these discussions justifying totalitarianism or some other horrors. That doesn't mean we shouldn't have them.

We most certainly have become an oligarchy dressed up as a democracy, and we should all be furious about it. To the extent that the people are becoming aware of it, they are angry. That's why people feel helpless, and it explains why people favor both Sanders and Trump.

The oligarchy can be corrected. And it will be. I just don't know how long it will take. In the meantime, we still have to have laws. We are passing bad laws that offer a benefit to too few people. That is oligarchical. But once we rebalance wealth and power but doing various things such as overturning Citizens United, the people will elect government that represents the people and works for the people. The government will pass laws that reflect the will of the people (while being guided by a few wise people so that the majority does not become tyrannical). Isn't that the society we aim to create? I can think of no better alternative.

Thank you for recommending Democracy in America. I downloaded it on Kindle for only $0.99. Now I have a recommendation for you: Saving Capitalism by Robert Reich. I'm a quarter of the way through it now. I'd love to hear what you think of it!

Anyway, rules of etiquette and law define what society and the individual owe each other. If you disagree with these rules and law, work to change them. Other than the oligarchy, the mechanisms already in place are the ones we need.

I am not as optimistic as you regarding the oligarchy and our ability to reverse that trend.  That being said, I think its good to be optimistic.  So, kudos on that. 

I don't really buy into the "will of the people" because it's really the will of the majority.  And, as you will soon read, there is a tyranny of the majority.  

I'm glad you are going to read Democracy in America.  IMO, it should be required reading.  

I will try to Read Saving Capitalism by Robert Reich.  I am unlikely to get to it right away.  I have some things queued up and some of them are necessary professional development stuff.  I do know Robert Reich's POV, so I don't think I'll be surprised.  That being said, I will give it a look; it may just take a bit of time.  

Please let me know what you think of Democracy in America!  

DaveSchmidt said:
PVW, I've been enjoying your posts almost as much as I enjoyed reading Tocqueville, who, if he had left more people with the impression that he was "blown away" by an American democracy in which individuals "just cooperate," would have been forgotten to history as a well-traveled prison inspector.

OF THE USE WHICH THE AMERICANS MAKE OF PUBLIC ASSOCIATIONS IN CIVIL LIFE

nohero said:

terp said:

Who is society?  I mean that to me seems vague.  To me society is just a bunch of individuals.  You should really read Democracy in America by Tocqueville.  It's funny because he is a Frenchman who comes to America.  

Society is more than "just a bunch of individuals".

"Just a bunch of individuals" would describe a group of people trying to exit and board a subway car.  Some people getting on just can't accept that waiting for passengers to exit would make it easier for everybody.  Another example is merging traffic and traffic jams - everyone would move along faster if drivers kept to a slower, more constant rate of speed and alternated entry into the single lane.

Society is "individuals plus".  It starts with individuals, but then those individuals work out the systems that define the society.  Some systems are "top down", such as monarchies.  The United States Constitution defines a government, where the people are sovereign (the Preamble sets that out).  It's still a government, one which has to function, but with mechanisms for the people living with that government to direct its functions.

But we don't follow the Constitution.  Thus, we are morphing into something that is no longer a Republic.  Our government no longer exists to serve the people. I think it, at least as much, exists to serve special interests. and maybe to perpetuate itself and our hegemony.  I think the people come last.  We have a pageant every 4 years, like the Roman Emperors did. 

When we bomb places like Libya.  We are not serving the interests of the people.  We are serving something else.  When we undermine the Ukraine and expand NATO to Russia's doorstep, we are not doing so because its in the interest of the American Citizen.  When we support Al Queda elements in Syria, we are not serving the interests of the American Citizen. 

We do not need a tax code as complex as it is for the American Citizen.  Who would ask for such a tax code?  Civil Forfeiture does not serve the interests of the American Citizen.  Domestic Spying does not serve the interests of the American Citizen.  Purchasing outdated weaponry does not serve the interests of the American Citizen.  

We could go on. 

ml1 said:

to some degree that is a distinction without a difference. Realistically, how would one avoid paying all fees, all excise and all sales taxes? You're back to the same notion as avoiding income tax -- go off the grid.

It's a great question.  I honestly really don't know the answer.  I have never lived in a system that didn't have taxes. That doesn't mean that it couldn't work.  It's just I haven't seen it in practice. I've read some theories on how things could work, and some of these proposals make sense.  That being said, I've never seen them work. 

I just know that confiscating someone's labor is theft.  If I stole $$ from someone, even if it was for a really good cause...even if in some way it helped the person I stole from, I'm sure you'd agree that it is still stealing.  How is the government different?  

I've seen a lot of commentary that taxes must be necessary.  However, I've not yet seen an answer to "By what authority does the Government have a right to confiscate the fruits of my labor?"  It's rather interesting, IMO. 

RealityForAll said:

Two options to consider are: i.) absolutely no aggression (probably a utopian fantasy albeit a worthwhile stake in the sand); and ii.) the current system which has the possibility of eventually evolving into complete totalitarianism (government is able to use whatever means necessary to accomplish its revenue goals while spying on you to ensure compliance).  Clearly there is a point in between these two stakes in the sand (and which is likely less intrusive and aggressive than our current system).  Perhaps we could find some middle ground.

ml1 said:

to some degree that is a distinction without a difference. Realistically, how would one avoid paying all fees, all excise and all sales taxes? You're back to the same notion as avoiding income tax -- go off the grid.

RealityForAll said:

ml1 said:

these conversations drift to such an extent I'm not sure I'm following. Some folks seem to be in favor of usage taxes like tolls and VATs. But if taxation is "theft" isn't it theft just the same if it's a sales tax as it would be if it's an income tax?  If taxation is "theft," how can it be justified at all, in any form or at any level?

"Taxation is theft" is often based on the non-aggression principle.  Hence, a toll can be avoided by not driving on the NJ Turnpike.  Thus, no aggression is needed.

I don't think the choices are between no aggression and the current system.  I think the choice is: Do we want to be a nation of laws, or a nation of men?  We have been moving and recently at an accelerating rate toward the latter.  We should all be concerned by this.  

I think a world with no aggression is like a world with no poverty. It's a goal.  Alas, it's a goal that is not likely to be achieved. 

PVW said:

DaveSchmidt said:

PVW said:

terp said:

Who is society?  I mean that to me seems vague.  To me society is just a bunch of individuals.  You should really read Democracy in America by Tocqueville.  It's funny because he is a Frenchman who comes to America.  

Upthread I said this:

"Libertarian philosophy seems premised upon a radical individualism that doesn't reflect the deep interdependence all human beings have upon each other -- an interdependence that is for the most part neither voluntary nor breakable. For better and worse, we're not the atomized free agents of libertarian utopianism."

You took issue with that, but characterizing society as "just a bunch of individuals" is precisely the sort of claim I had in my when making my criticism.

PVW, I've been enjoying your posts almost as much as I enjoyed reading Tocqueville, who, if he had left more people with the impression that he was "blown away" by an American democracy in which individuals "just cooperate," would have been forgotten to history as a well-traveled prison inspector.

Thanks DS. And I do want to commend terp for bringing up Democracy in America. Although, like DS, I got a different lesson from it than terp did, it's well worth reading (and part of the joy of reading is seeing what different people get out of a work, especially when it is different from your own takeaway).

It's been a while since I read it; I should probably reread it again sometime soon. Those interested in re-reading it, or reading it for the first time, can find a free copy online at Project Gutenberg in various formats, from plain html to various e-reader versions.

What lesson did you learn from the book?

terp said:

DaveSchmidt said:
PVW, I've been enjoying your posts almost as much as I enjoyed reading Tocqueville, who, if he had left more people with the impression that he was "blown away" by an American democracy in which individuals "just cooperate," would have been forgotten to history as a well-traveled prison inspector.

OF THE USE WHICH THE AMERICANS MAKE OF PUBLIC ASSOCIATIONS IN CIVIL LIFE

If that's for me, thanks, but as I said I've read it. Our estimation of the state of Tocqueville's mind, and how simple he viewed the cooperation, differs. I'll leave it at that.

That's pretty perceptive.  I quoted you and posted a link to a chapter as an example of how he was impressed with American's proclivity to cooperate without coercion.  And you just picked up on that.  

You poke fun at my take, but won't explain yourself.  Impressive indeed.  I'll leave it at that. 

terp said:

That's pretty perceptive.  I quoted you and posted a link to a chapter as an example of how he was impressed with American's proclivity to cooperate without coercion.  And you just picked up on that.  

You poke fun at my take, but won't explain yourself.  Impressive indeed.  I'll leave it at that. 

You're welcome to continue making your case. Other than explaining myself long ago when I gave up our viewpoint back-and-forths (more power to PVW, nohero, ml1, ridski, dk50b, et al.), guilty as charged.

"I went to the woods because..."

terp said:

Courts are a legitimate(to everyone but true anarchists AFAIK) function of government.  That being said, I'm not sure why the courts could not charge fees that cover their expenses.  

The Court system charges many fees. Is that fair? If they exist to provide me with Justice or vindicate my rights why should that cost me money?

If you decide to sue me in the Superior Court of New Jersey I am compelled to pay $175.00 to defend myself.

terp said:

But we don't follow the Constitution.  Thus, we are morphing into something that is no longer a Republic.  Our government no longer exists to serve the people. I think it, at least as much, exists to serve special interests. and maybe to perpetuate itself and our hegemony.  I think the people come last.  We have a pageant every 4 years, like the Roman Emperors did. 

The Constitution was created by elitists to serve their own economic interests.

ctrzaska said:

"I went to the woods because..."

... I wanted to live disputatiously. No, wait, that's why I went to MOL...

DaveSchmidt said:

terp said:

That's pretty perceptive.  I quoted you and posted a link to a chapter as an example of how he was impressed with American's proclivity to cooperate without coercion.  And you just picked up on that.  

You poke fun at my take, but won't explain yourself.  Impressive indeed.  I'll leave it at that. 

You're welcome to continue making your case. Other than explaining myself long ago when I gave up our viewpoint back-and-forths (more power to PVW, nohero, ml1, ridski, dk50b, et al.), guilty as charged.

If I were to give you advice, and I know it is unsolicited, I'd suggest you be kinder to those guilty of the crime of disagreeing with you. 

LOST said:

terp said:

Courts are a legitimate(to everyone but true anarchists AFAIK) function of government.  That being said, I'm not sure why the courts could not charge fees that cover their expenses.  

The Court system charges many fees. Is that fair? If they exist to provide me with Justice or vindicate my rights why should that cost me money?

If you decide to sue me in the Superior Court of New Jersey I am compelled to pay $175.00 to defend myself.

I think it's fair.  If you want to use a service, then pay for it.  I don't think you should have to pay court fee's simply for being sued.  That being said, if you are guilty I could see making the defendant picking up the court fee's in certain cases.  

LOST said:

The Constitution was created by elitists to serve their own economic interests.

I would agree that the Founders had their own economic interests in mind, and they were made of up society's elites.  It does seem that they did organize for the people and not for the aristocracy.   That being said, there were many agendas present and it obviously wasn't perfect.  

I still stand by my opinion that we should be a nation of laws.  Without that we are a rudderless ship.  Essentially the current state of affairs.  IMO of course!

terp said:

I am not as optimistic as you regarding the oligarchy and our ability to reverse that trend.  That being said, I think its good to be optimistic.  So, kudos on that. 

I don't really buy into the "will of the people" because it's really the will of the majority.  And, as you will soon read, there is a tyranny of the majority.  

I'm glad you are going to read Democracy in America.  IMO, it should be required reading.  

I will try to Read Saving Capitalism by Robert Reich.  I am unlikely to get to it right away.  I have some things queued up and some of them are necessary professional development stuff.  I do know Robert Reich's POV, so I don't think I'll be surprised.  That being said, I will give it a look; it may just take a bit of time.  


Please let me know what you think of Democracy in America!  

My God. My God indeed. Are you seriously saying what I think you're saying? It appears that you are saying that consensus is never a worthy goal because you distrust all ways of organizing people into forming some kind of consensus of some kind of value. You can't be saying that it's never worth trying or that it's never been done to any success. Companies build consensus. Families, if they're lucky, build consensus. Communities, clubs, charities, governments, religious organizations, volunteer organizations, they all get together and, at times, get stuff done in a competent and useful way. And you don't want to use any of these to find common ground and do some collective action? Ever? You can't possibly be that anti-social, or perhaps I don't know you well enough to say that.

Tom_Reingold said:

terp said:

I am not as optimistic as you regarding the oligarchy and our ability to reverse that trend.  That being said, I think its good to be optimistic.  So, kudos on that. 

I don't really buy into the "will of the people" because it's really the will of the majority.  And, as you will soon read, there is a tyranny of the majority.  

I'm glad you are going to read Democracy in America.  IMO, it should be required reading.  

I will try to Read Saving Capitalism by Robert Reich.  I am unlikely to get to it right away.  I have some things queued up and some of them are necessary professional development stuff.  I do know Robert Reich's POV, so I don't think I'll be surprised.  That being said, I will give it a look; it may just take a bit of time.  


Please let me know what you think of Democracy in America!  

My God. My God indeed. Are you seriously saying what I think you're saying? It appears that you are saying that consensus is never a worthy goal because you distrust all ways of organizing people into forming some kind of consensus of some kind of value. You can't be saying that it's never worth trying or that it's never been done to any success. Companies build consensus. Families, if they're lucky, build consensus. Communities, clubs, charities, governments, religious organizations, volunteer organizations, they all get together and, at times, get stuff done in a competent and useful way. And you don't want to use any of these to find common ground and do some collective action? Ever? You can't possibly be that anti-social, or perhaps I don't know you well enough to say that.

I think you are not undrestanding me.  Consensus is great.  It is often necessary to get consensus to achieve your goals. Quite a bit of my job involves getting consensus on certain issues. 

That being said, when it comes to the law I think we need to be careful.  Even if you have consensus, you could still infringe the rights of small minorities. 

Collective action is great.  It should be voluntary though.

It can't be voluntary. How old are you that you haven't noticed that we have to have laws? Your trepidation is well placed because the history of the human race surely has seen some bad laws. The antidotes to bad laws are activism and good laws, not the dismantlement and categorical distrust of all government at all times. I don't know what your ideal society is, but it doesn't seem to be modeled after anything tried and proven. Prove me wrong if you like.

Your company issues edicts. That is, in theory, no more dysfunctional than the government having rules and laws.