[MD] Biological Quality & Social Conservatism

[ian glendinning]

Arlo, Platt, I realize I'm diving way back into this thread, and not
followed the whole trail. Just responding to this bit ...

> [Arlo previously]
> >From whose intellect do we derive the right of "free speech", a right that I
> take it you think the majority should not be able to vote away?
>
> [Platt]
> Good question. What's the answer?
>
> [Arlo]
> Well, I suppose the "literal" answer would be, in this case, a "consensus of
> learned individuals appealing to philosophy and reason". Perhaps adding "with
> the power to enforce their decision on anyone who would dissent" (assuming
> there were colonists who may have not liked the whole "free speech" thing).
>

But, I find this keeps coming up in many areas of discussion. It's
hard to avoid some concept of "elitism" in designing ideal governance
... some group whose qualities (intellectual or otherwise) count for
more votive power than the members of the constituency as a whole.

It's a minefield of "who says" with a history paved with disasterous
experience, so it's very hard to talk about without knee-jerk
reactions to the implied arrogance of power. Equally there is evidence
in well-formed institutions that the principle is corrcect ....
whatever the process of appointment of the judiciary in a modern
democracy .... there is a sense in that once appointed their "wise"
judgments carry authority and are enforced socially.

Basically, even in the most free and egalitarian democratic
arrangements, the "wise' need to be given more "clout". (A point not
lost on Plato, as you suggest Arlo.) .... just shifts the problem to
how / who decides who's wise, and where the checks and balances lie.
Discuss.

Ian