> There are other problems with consensus too.
> In my opinion consensus is fudnamentally
> anti-demcocratic.
True, but then why do you fetishise democracy? There are also individual rights to consider, as in where the majority choose to oppress a majority, because that will benefit the majority. Do you think that's OK?
As I have patiently explained, so long as this is possible, democracy is futile. Decisions will not be made objectively, but according to the principle that it is better to be the hammer than the nail.
It is clear that you have not grasped the fact that modern systems of political democracy cannot be applied to economic decision making without protection of individual economic security. Even capitalist understand this, they have always made certain that the liberal democratic state had limited or no jurisdiction in economic decisions, which are reserved to private owners of capital.
To simply allow the economy to be governed by a democratic political process would be a disaster, as has been demonstrated several times in the past. It can only degenerate into feudalism.
Economic democracy (socialism) is not just political democracy with a universal mandate, it is the opposite of political democracy. It must involve an absence of political democracy, that is to say an absence of 'government of the people', by the people or by anyone else. To succeed, rule over people must not only be unnecessary, but impossible. Only then can economic democracy be practical. Because only then can economic decisions be made democratically in the interests of all.
Bill Bartlett Bracknell Tas