Democracy and Freedom
Feedback from Kate Jones (8-20-07):
We don't have a democracy in the U.S.; it's a Republic. Democracy is also known as "mob rule."
Certain rights are "unalienable," meaning that even a majority vote cannot deprive individuals of those rights, among which is "liberty," roughly what you mean by freedom from constraints, especially government-mandated constraints or restraints.
America has representative government, which, by the way, is tantamount to Dynamic Format: the smallest groups town meetings, villages, boroughs, counties, block committees, etc. are the buzz groups. They then "report" to the grand panel of the whole at the state level, and then upward from there, to that each higher level is informed by the multiple groups below them.
 Your buzz groups and Socratic process only work when everyone is in the same room. How would you conduct that at the national level, if not the way it's done now? What's gone wrong is that the bureaucratic structure is now so big that accountability cannot be tracked. No one citizen can be fully informed or involved with every detail anymore. In that vacuum, power-grabbers can divert power and distort what the public is given to know. Darwinism rules.

Robert's Rules are not intended to shut down communication; on the contrary, they assure that everyone gets a fair chance to be heard and no one speaker can hog the floor. The compactness of time is also intended to make expression more concise and tightly focused rather than wasting people's time with rambling speeches.

I am puzzled by your 3 definitions of Freedom. It seems to me the first one is placid obedience; the second one is undisciplined license; and the third is having plenty of consumer goods. None of those represent the ideal human freedom, which means making decisions on one's own behalf, how to spend one's time and money, whom to associate with, what to become, what to own.
New and spurious freedoms have been defined into existence, such as freedoms OF and freedoms TO and freedoms FROM. The only job government should have is to assure that no one's legitimate, fundamental, unalienable freedoms are abrogated, especially not by government, in order to provide to others these mutated benefits.
"The greatest good for the greatest number" is still not the proper formulation, because it leaves open the choice of abusing and exploiting a minority for the sake of the majority. Only the rights of the individual can be a starting point from which to build a just and prosperous society and lasting civilization. The protection of the individual has to come first. Without that as the key building block, all else is arbitrary. A "group" is only the sum of its constituent individuals. Its larger size does not entitle it to devour its individual members.

Your buzz groups work because the attendees are pre-selected to be agreeable. They all work on the same problem instead of quarrelling with each other on unrelated matters. They all willingly follow the same protocol set forth by an accepted leader. They talk about themselves and have no political power. There is nothing at stake; it's just a parlor game.
The problems arise when life, liberty and property become at stake, as in the political process. Everything that people do is "flawed" when their interests conflict. And when physical force is legislated, as in elective government, constitutional dictatorship or its predecessor, the Genghis Khan style of conquest, civilization is always at risk.

It is only by making the life, liberty and property, including the pursuit of happiness, of the INDIVIDUAL the standard by which all group decisions and acts are carried out that the life, liberty and happiness of all can be assured. The majority cannot dispose, no matter how democratic a voting process is in effect, even Dynamic Format, of the fundamental rights and freedoms of any minority. And the individual is the smallest minority.
The Socratic approach, by the way, has the value of each individual at its premise, otherwise why would you care that each individual should be listened to and have his self-interest expressed? However, it needs to be said for others to listen cannot be forced as a duty on those others. They "own" their own time and the right to choose how they use it. Your buzz groups are all voluntary participation, motivated by each individual's free pursuit of self-interest. It is a fine process for a free world.
 And it needs to be said cooperation cannot be forced. We need to define a universal ethics, independent of religious and political dogma, that people can voluntarily abide by.
How to make the transition back to a free world (our Bills of Rights is a good start), with populations as huge as today's, without violent revolution or preemptive wars? Without "force or fraud"? That is the real challenge of our times. Voluntary self-restraint from predatory temptations, whether individually or by marshalling governmental coercion, is a first step, a direct application of the uniquely human quality of free will.
Here is the quintessential statement on the subject of rights. I've never seen it stated better and simpler.
Bogus Rights
by Walter E. Williams
George Mason University
Join the debate by emailing your comments to
Win Wenger
or to the webmaster.
|