>-but that sort of thing goes both ways....obviously not all radical changes
>-are desirable.
>
>But consensus makes them impossible, even when large majorities are in favor
>of them.
Take my word for it, consensus is definitely possible when the decision is of universal benefit. As you would expect from rational people. People will even tolerate a bit of elitism, if they know each, as individuals, ultimately have the power to thwart it getting out of hand.
What you have to take into account is the sense of individual security that making decisions by consensus allows for. The benefits outweigh the disadvantages.
> Economic redistribution is largely impossible, since anyone
>losing out will block consensus. It preserves all political and financial
>privilege from the past through blocking change.
Obviously consensus is not a suitable decision making process for a group that has a privileged class within it. Even so, if you wish to preserve privilege, you would probably be wary of consensus decision making, since the power of exercising privilege would be lost. No use having privilege if you can't exercise power. Your every initiative would be blocked and you would be forced to make endless concessions of existing privileges to get your initiatives up, until eventually you had run out of things to concede.
Bill Bartlett Bracknell Tas