Democracy and Ignorance

Post Reply New Topic

I don't think you know much about Caesar. By Caesar's time Roman Politics is dominated by two parties, the Optimates (best men) and the Populares (populists). Bread and circuses was actually social policy of the populares.

Caesar was a populares and became immensly popular with the people after his conquest of Gual because he provided bread and circuses with the spoils. As a consequence of this popular support, Caesar was able to bully the senate into making him dictator for life (and king in all but name).

The Republic fell (and the social contract was broken) when the liberators killed Caesar for aspiring to be king and the Roman mob rejected their efforts to restore the republic.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julius_ ... assination




As you can see from the source above, when I say 'people' I mean the Roman mob and common folk. By the time Caesar came around, they did not give a damn about their democracy anymore.

What interesting is that just a few years before, Sulla did the samething Caesar did--marched into Rome and took over. But after purging the populares from the government, (he was an optimate) he gave power back to the Senate and people and retired to thhe country.

The difference between Sulla and Caesar is that Sulla and his supporters were bound by the social contract (Romans rule themselves and don't bow to kings) and Caesar and his supporters broke the contract (They wanted Caesar to be king).



I'm a conflict theorist, so yes, I think economics is a prime mover in human affairs.



Sure, I don't dispute that the powerful manipulate information to get what they want. That's why the founders wanted a free press. The press is supposed to call BS when the powerful try to manipulate info.

This is why we need a press we can trust and why it' dangerous to undermine the press when it isn't justified....

This is why Burke's points about moral restraint in a free society are so important.

If we cannot trust the press to tell the truth.... if we cannot trust anybody to act in anything but self interest... we cannot build a common good or a free society. Somebody is always going to try to oppress and exploit someone else. That kind of society is inherently unfree and cannot possibly be nonviolent for long.

As I understand it, the Nazi party had been losing seats in the Reichstag, so Hitler made a backroom deal with Germany's conservative politicians (which included Hindenburg's son), as well as Germany's military-industrial complex, all of whom thought they could keep a leash on Hitler, and use him to stop the rise of the much feared and despised Communist party. From there, Hitler had the Reichstag burned to the ground, and placed the blame on the communists, by which he was able to institute the Enabling Act, which allowed for perpetual marshal law. He also violently purged the left wing of his own party in the Night of the Long Knives, in which he eliminated Ernst Roehm and the rest of the Brown Shirt leadership, clearing away any obstacles the right of his party might be challenged from.

Details aside, coups, back room deals, whatever, cannot stand without the implicit consent of the people. If the people don't consent, those things just cause civil wars.

To be sure, Hitler won a national plebiscite vote, though it has to be remembered, his was the only name on the ballot. Despite that, he didn't get 100% of the German vote, as he would have prefered. It was the last vote the German people had till after the war.

Again you said it very well. This is a lot of what I was trying say. If I was wrong on anything I'll defer to you. Thanks

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.