[MD] Democracy

[Christoffer Ivarsson]

Grateful for your input Ian, and I see and agree with your points.


I believe the answer lies in education, and generally raising the standard 
of living of the population in general. I mean, if a democracy is to work 
properly (the way we want it to work =) we need to make sure that people are 
generally more guided by the intellectual level. I believe that is step one.

Moreover, I believe in the potential of the Nordic Model to regain it's 
former strength and continue to serve Quality. Because the most important 
aspect of that is that you have a general movement towards giving people 
equal opportunities  - and it had, and still has really - a broad support, 
it is built for the people by the people.
So if the leaders of this movement can regain their strength (or really be 
replaced) and get the whole thing going again I think we are on the road to 
a Quality serving society.

So, the first step is to "lift the masses" so to speak, and create a more 
equal and more educated society,  and this is being done.

This was a short answer, I think I'll have to return again to clarify, but 
have to go now, but you could give me a general input if you whish

Regards
Chris

> Gad you started this thread Chris,
>
> I've tried many times before. I start from the position "Democracy is
> the worst from of governance, except for all the others." So our
> (worthwhile) task is to see what "kind of" free-democracy would be an
> improvement (from a MoQist perspective).
>
> The debate always founders on the social / intellectual "confusion".
>
> The general points in your thread with Bo, are clearly true - social
> patterns must accept some dominance by intellectual paterns , whilst
> intellectual patterns must recognise that they are supported by social
> patterns.
>
> To be provocative, this boils down to what intellectual (elite)
> arrangements are valid to control / limit the freedoms of social
> arrangements. Practically, the answer cannot simply be one individual
> one vote on every decision that affects every individual - for that
> case read anarchy instead democracy. Even if social and intellectual
> patterns are intermixed in one "cultural" level - as I see it - it's
> the same question of which more-intellectual patterns may limit the
> freedoms of which more-social patterns. If the answer is "any" - that
> is all intellectual patterns dominate and control all social patterns,
> then a VERY clear distinction between social and intellectual patterns
> becomes essential. Otherwise Platt might pass for intellectual ;-)
>
> If the answer is that pragmatically some social institutions must
> agree and enforce intellctually-based limits, the questions become
> practical ones of which and how ? And how do we avoid such
> institutions becoming some embodiment of the Giant ?
>
> Not found a better answer yet than a pragmatic cultural & teleological
> mythology answer so far - but I'm still looking. Freedom is a
> fundamental part of the answer, but totally unlimited freedom is not
> the whole answer.
> Ian