[lbo-talk] Re: consensus-direct-representative democracy etc

[Quenby Alclaire]

> Aside from that, your definition of "legitamt block" seems to be "for 
> articulable non-trivial reasons". But some of the worst possible abuses 
> would be legitamate blocks.  For example take the hypotheical example of
> 
> a cooperatively run health care clinic that refused to perform 
> abortions. The majority finally wake up to feminism and common decency, 
> and decide to offer abortion and family planning services. But two or 
> three people for sincere well articlulated religious reasons block this 
> change. I repeat, consensus is a deeply conservative. It puts an 
> overwhelming burden on those seeking radical change - not just the 
> requirement of winning a majority, but the requirement to have zero 
> deeply felt opposition.  Should a woman's right to choose depend on 
> convincing every last anti-choice fananatic? Or are we do assume that 
> consensus will be adapted by groups so perfectly enlightened that no 
> internal radical change will be required?

but that sort of thing goes both ways....obviously not all radical changes
are desirable. it's just like the problems that arise with democratic
decision making....what if the majority get's say hysterical and
reactionary about an issue and do something rash like imprison or punish
some smaller segment of the population? might through a consensus thing
would a differnt solution have come about with the Socrates thing? it's
hard to say without enough empirical examples. in such cases of radical
divergence on such issues as abortion rights etc. through much effort a
decision for partition might come about...it's hard to say. it's almost a
moot point to discuss it without enough evidence. i think the issue should
be examine but not through highly speculative hypotheticals.

~M.E.

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM).
http://calendar.yahoo.com