Democracy and Ignorance

Post Reply New Topic

And thank you for your kind words, sir!

I think to most people it (a proper education) means teach people basic facts (like the laws that govern the natural world that have been proven, and the mathematics necessary to interpret data, as well as both history and current events) and how to think critically about the information and opinions they encounter in life; also a basic exploration and understanding of human nature (whether through the arts or sociology/anthropology or literature or philosophy or some other form, to be chosen by the individual being educated based on their own tastes and abilities). This is my idea of a fundamental education, anyway.

I also believe what I describe above is the kind of education necessary for each citizen to have for a true social democracy to function. Everyone has to be able to choose, but at the same time everyone is responsible for making an informed choice. An education teaches one how to make informed choices, it empowers one with information and the ability of critical analysis.

Yeah, I get that. That's the politics of the thing. I'm much more interested in the underlying sociological forces.

The most basic part of the social contract is the consent of the people to be governed. This does not require voting; all it requires is submission. And, it doesn't matter if the people are only submitting or consenting out of fear. It doesn't matter how consent of the people is obtained as long as it is secured.

I know that seems weird, but that's how human society works. It goes back to the Thomas Theorem governments only have power because people believe that they do. They don't have to agree with the government. They only need to believe it has power over them.

What we're talking about here is Democracy and Ignorance. Ignorance is certainly a problem in democracy, but I don't think it's the main problem. It's a lot more complicated than that.

That's why I keep quoting Burke. The maintenance of democracy requires a lot of things from citizens and leaders and I think Burke has it right. All those qualities Burke names are about being benevolent toward the common cause.

Look at the opening lines of the constitution:

That bit in bold is what governments do. Even oppressive governments are trying to promote the general welfare inasmuch as they try to maintain order, provide basic services and common defense, etc.

It goes back to Hobbes vs. Locke. Both men agree on the basic social contract--that power comes from the people and their consent to be governed. Hobbes leaned toward authoritarianism because he saw people as being incapable of moral restraint. He thought we needed an authoritarian system to save us from a life that would be "nasty brutish and short" without imposed order.

By contrast, Locke thought people could govern themselves in a free society. But, as I stated before, Locke (and our founding fathers) concieved of freedom as the right to restrain one's self and he saw that self restraint was essential.

Both men are right about restraint. In order to form a functional society, we must restrain the baser impulses of human nature. That's the secret sauce of civilization.

Burke, in that quote I constantly post, is just explicating this concept. He's listing the values necessary for citizens in a free society. The one quality he's forgetting is courage. Locke says people have a right (obligation) to rebel against bad government. To rebel takes courage, and if you are not rebelling, you are consenting by default.

Where free societies start to breakdown is when they factionalize and those factions begin to pursue self interest exclusively at the expense of the general welfare.

That's what wappened in Rome with the conflict between the Os and the Ps. The various orders were only interested in their own economic interestes and demagogues took advantage.

In Germany, I think the was a mix of self interest, apathy and cowardice among the populace that allowed Hitler to take power. Maybe the majority of Germans didn't support Hitler, but they didn't oppose him either. They relinquished their Lockean right to rebel and they got a dictator.

Democracies/Republics are hard work and that's why they don't last long. I think we might be heading back toward authoritarianism globally.

I think this is going to happen because people today are mostly all about self interest and they don't really think about general welfare and they don't see the value in compromising for the sake of the general welfare. A free society that neglects the general welfare cannot last. Sooner or later it will either fracture or be held together by force. That's where the strongmen come in.

Anyway, to more directly address the thread topic: I don't think Brexit voters are ignorant. I think they are voting from a very narrow point of self interest. Also, I think the people who are upset with them are upset because their own sel interest has been thwarted. I think both sides are probably missing important parts of the bigger picture and the common good. In a healthier society, leaders would be point this stuff out. But, we don't seem to be producing leaders like that anymore.

In a democracy, my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.

This is an empty statement. It means nothing.

I'm not interested in speaking with you, thanks.

Sorry, but it's hard for me to tell when you want to avoid me when you join in conversations right after I've just joined in. It would be easier for me to avoid you if you wouldn't do that, for future reference.

I'm not interested in speaking with you, thanks.