>I'm a pragmatist. I don't believe taht there are _any_ necessary moves.
>
>===============
>
>I know that dadgummit but if obligations aren't a kind of necessity what
>are they? And please don't appeal to some form
>of Smithian voluntarism.
I don't knowwhat Smithain volintarism is, but obligations are things you
ought to do because they are commanded by norms you ought to acceot.
>
>
>
>But there aren't any feasible alternatives that we know of. The question is
>idle.
>
>================
>What, are you channeling The Iron Lady and Francis Fukuyama already? :-
Fukayama, maybe. But I am not talking about his economics. There are no alternatives to liberal democratic politics. In the realw orld you yourself would not setiosuly entertain any proposed replacement.
>
>
>The constraint on feasibility in the abstract is nothing compared to the
>fact the US would destroy any attempt to
>instantiate something that is feasible. \
OK, then we are doomed. I am quite serious.
One can imagine Mondragon gone global with all sorts of institutional
>arrangements for bargaining and collective deliberation that didn't rely on
>bicameralism, a hierarchical judicial
>buraeucracy, an imperial presidency.
Liberal democracy is not exhausted by the particuakrarrangements that now exist in the US. I repeat, probably not for the last time, that liberal denocracy means:
(1) Competitive elections for representative government
(2) Universal suffrage
(3) Extensive civil and political liberties.
>Democracy as a dang in sich is quite consistent with non-state
>contractarianism.
But there si no such thing and for reasons I have explained elsewhere, cannot be. ANyway, it;'s not on the map.
>Please don't tell me you think the US system with marginal tinkerings with
>the commerce clause, contract clause and the
>5th 13th and 14th amendments are all we need to make a Schweickartian
>economy possible. The place would be just as
>boring and oppressive as it is now.
No, we need large scale mass movemebts to bring about these changes. Asfor boring, socialism is supposed to make life boring for most people--boring, safe, and happy. You want interest, go to Ramallah.
>
> >Again fair enough; so why should anyone use moral discourse at all in the
> >process of collective
> >deliberation/action to secure majoritarian goals?
>
>Because it's sojmetimes effective.
>
>=================
>
>And oppressive when used by knaves, which democracy was designed to deal
>with.
So we msut ban everything that can be misused by knaves? Start with language, then.
I> t seems liberal democracy is failing
>even on that score.
Yes, and what is your alternative that is so much better?
Thus the pervasive skepticism amongst the citizenry that we even live in
democracy anymore. Or are
>you going to go Hegelian on me and tell me the actually existing US is a
>democracy rather than a form of State
>capitalism with an incredibly shrinking zone of civil liberties.
We have real if limited democracy. Ask people who don't have any.
>Theological discourse doesn't work in any epistemic sense I can think of
>but is effective. Are the factions that employ
>it telling the truth or are they knaves?
Like Dr, King? Was he a knave?
A democracy with the majority constituted by effective knaves is not a
>democracy.
>
Sez you. We need govt, sez Madison., because we are not angels.
>
>And it was effective in making pot and coca leaves and lots of other things
>illegal. Hell they'd go after skateboards if
>it wasn't for capitalists. You're starting to sound like......a government
>official......................
>
I am a government official.
>
>I don't think we live in a liberal democracy anymore. I'm not alone.
>
>
But you are mistaken.
>
>Well considering there is no non-political defense of liberalism I'm not
>surprised. If your moral defense is not widely
>shared, nor the metamoral method by which you justify and explain your
>moral stance is shared, what does it mean to say
>it's objective. Please don't send me fishing for my JL Mackie.......
I told you, I am a moral realist. I don't think the correctness of moral views depends on their being widely shared--Mackie's mistake. I sent you my paper on this. I also don't think you have toa gree with my ethics or my metaethics to cooperate with me on a democartic basis.
>
Why should I foreswear a perfectly good
>rhetorical strategy taht is sometimes useful as long as I don't insist too
>hard that those whose disagree with my moral views are vipers who should be
>exterminated?
>===================
>
>No, just jail 'em whenever the county cops bust 'em. For the sake of your
>sanity get out of the government Justin.
I;m doing that--gonna go work for a big law firm and make a lotta moola defending one robber barona gainst another. I will oppse the war on drugs and adovocate legalization, too.
>
>There are no knockdown proofs in political theory. If there were there'd be
>no politics; we'd have transcended the
>tragedies of zoon politikon. All Arrow did was try to formalize some
>assertions made by Condorcet; I've always read it
>as more of an proof of the untranscendability of zoon politikon than a
>disproof of democracy. Usual caveats apply on
>that; we're not going to be able to resolve the issues he raised on an
>email list. Hell if we did, we *should* win that
>goddam prize. In fact somebody did write a book critiquing AT a while back.
>I'll see if I can find the title.
Yes, so, your point?
>
>Seems to me you've obliterated the distinctions between demos, praxis,
>theoria and that's totally cool with me.
Right, I keep telling you, I'm a pragmatist. Nobody takes this seriously.
Actually
>existing US political system in form and content *does* raise serious
>ground for doubt as to whether our institutional
>matrix serves the notions of democracy many on this list tacitly share. So
>in that sense, it seems we're still dealing
>with democracy as a kind of a dang in sich.
Ding an sich? No, we have a real if limited democracy. Wedo not live under a totalitarian dictatorship. We do not even live in an oligarchary. The rich have vastly disproportionate power. The politicians are corrupt. Not news. That does not mean we have no democracy.
_________________________________________________________________ MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx