> I never used the power to/over distinction. The power I was referring to
is power over at least in part. Judges can issue orders requiring the
parties to act or refrain froma cting in certain ways, backed by the power
of the police to throw them in jail if they refuse. Etc.
===============
I know you didn't but your example/expression of power vis a vis exploitation and domination presupposed the distinction by circumscribing the manner in which societies negotiate the distinction power-over/power-to so as to delimit the process in which we deal with the problems of domination and exploitation in actually existing Constitutional Democracies.
I think were at an historical point where we need to ask constitutional questions about Constitutional Democracies. Something has gone very, very wrong with the primary institutions in a lot of States that are formally democratic, precisely because there has been insufficient theorization/praxis regarding Democracy at a suprantional level as well as the issues of rapidly growing abilities to engage in surveillance and social control etc.
>. The issue of whether particular powers claimed by democratic authority
are necessary or dominating cannot be settled a priori and in advance.
There will be disputes about this forever. Moreover, it would not help
even if we coulda nswer theseq uestions ina dvance, because there would be
the further problem of getting people to comply with the correct a priori
answers. These are not objections to the existence of power, which an
abolsute prerequiste of social existence. They are arguments for
constitutional democracy and limited government, which constrains the use
of such powers.
> jks
====================
.....By currently using domination and exploitation to preclude discussion of alternative institutional arrangements--the Louis Hartz problem. Where do the interests of political parties leave off and the State begin? The idea of limited government/constitutional democracy is supervenient on a whole host of possible institutional arrangements consistent with democratic norms that would arguably do a far greater job at mitigating and attenuating conflict, exploitation and domination than the actual institutions we have now, especially in the USA.
We're at the point in history where democratic states are harming the very democratic norms they claim to uphold; that's a constitutional issue that needs to address institutional failure, not delimit discussion to specific abuses of various subjects within institutional roles. How many bad apples before we decide the water and barrel are rotten as well? We can't run 21st century societies with 18th century institutions; yes we want to expand democratic accountability, liberties etc. but the latter institutions are fetters on sustaining, let alone deepening democracy. Our voting technology is broken, our political parties are totally corrupt, the laundry list you know better than I and like folks on this list as well as Constitutional law profs. and others have been saying, a few more attacks on US soil and the system is toast. Trying to fix the toaster might be worth a try especially when domination and exploitation are used to prevent discussion of domination and exploitation.
Ian