[MD] Biological Quality & Social Conservatism

[ian glendinning]

I'd agree David - education, education, education .... but ...

At any point in time - in the never ending process of learning - there
will be a "wisdom gradient" and we need some answer to how any current
imbalance of power and values should be addressed .... pragmatically I
have no big fundamental argument here .... as I said in practice any
real life "free democracy" will have pragmatic institutions in place
... I only find it necessary to raise the argument when the
total-freedom-or-nothing fundamentalists chime in.

Ian

On 8/15/07, David M <davidint at blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> Hi Ian
>
> I kinda think we need to try a different angle:
> that we need to try to make everyone as wise as
> possible so that more or us move in a positive
> direction, so that makes education key.
>
> David M
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "ian glendinning" <psybertron at gmail.com>
> To: <moq_discuss at moqtalk.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2007 5:13 PM
> Subject: Re: [MD] Biological Quality & Social Conservatism
>
>
> > 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
> > Moq_Discuss mailing list
> > Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> > http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> > Archives:
> > http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> > http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
> >
>
>
> Moq_Discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
>