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

[Quenby Alclaire]

--- "Brian O. Sheppard" <bsheppard at bari.iww.org> wrote:
>
> And there are a lot of people with bad group experiences with consensus.
> 
> But you didn't mention those who secretly prefer hierarchy and
> therefore choose consensus, either. 

i don't see how a hierarchy results....all 'minorities' have the threat of
being blocked by other minorities...

>I suppose consensus can work fine in
> smaller groups--like a group of 5 roommates sharing a household, where
> it
> seems like possibly the only reasonable way to conduct affairs.
> 
> But for other, larger groups it cedes an extraordinary amount of power
> to a minority (in many cases to just one person) allowing them to
railroad
> almost anything the majority prefers. That's one of the largest problems
> with capitalism and other authoritarian systems.

but it gives 'extraordinary powers' to minorities relatively equally. and
that's just for say blocking something. a minority couldn't like takeover.
the only argument against consensus is the same one for direct democracy
that it's not as expedient. of course the assumption is that expediency is
a good thing. even though it depends on the situation. but to me that
seems the crux of the matter. democratic majority decision making is just
minorities giving up power for the sake of expediency.
 
> Modified forms of consensus are better inasmuch as they more closely
> approach democracy, just like modified forms of any system are better
> inasmuch as they're more democratic.

why though? all you are saying here is that you like democracy more.......

~M.E.




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