From: Brett Paatsch (paatschb@ocean.com.au)
Date: Sun Jan 19 2003 - 08:22:17 MST
Lee Corbin writes:
> > > the whole point of Sowell's "Knowledge and Decisions", which
> > > I've had to consult lately, is that deciding the *level* at which
> > > different decisions occur is crucial to society's well-being.
> Brett.
> >...
> > Who actually has the power now ... to *actually*
> > decide who gets to make these decisions in society?
>
> That's a deep question. My suggested answer is that we all
> decide, both individually and collectively.
Ok. But is the question important?
I mean, in your view, do you think it would be useful for us to
know, to identify, who *actually* has the power to decide the
"level at which different decisions occur in our society [that are]
crucial to society's well-being"?
>
> > Do you think that legislators decide - note th[ey] tend to vote
> > bills into laws in bunches not simply on their lonesome ?
> > Do you think that citizens in democracies decide and if so
> > how? Merely through voting or are other avenues open?
>
> Yes, yes, and yes. The legislators have the most
> immediate and direct influence, but the voters
> elect the legislators. Yet the voters are affected
> by memes, including yours and mine. So we all
> participate in deciding at what level decisions
> should be made.
>
> Constitutions exist to record and embody principles
> known to be wise, and for the most part these principles
> provide that many decisions be left up to smaller
> bodies at lower levels. The ultimate freedoms, speech,
> right to bear arms, right to trial by jury, and so on,
> are in these instruments reserved for those at the lowest
> levels, the individuals.
>
>
> So in this way, the hands of the legislators are presumably
> tied. So, in summary, we would have to add to your list
>
> legislators and representatives
> voters and electors
> * ideas and memes
> * constitutional guarantees
It's interesting but I think that the additions you make would not
normally be considered "who's" in the question "who decides
who decides".
I think ideas are a subset of memes. And I think memes can be
metaphorically described as capturing mindspace like genes
were described by Dawkins in The Selfish Gene as selfish.
I would agree that memes can influence decisive agents such as
people. But do you think memes become decisive agents in
themselves?
Does it really make sense in terms of deciding who actually
decides to try and also take account of a memes point of view?
It seems that we are in agreement that it is the constitution and
legislation that codifies the legal rights people have and therefore
codifies who actually gets to decide particular things at particular
levels.
Wouldn't you say that laws and constitutional guarantees are
codifications rather than decisive agents in themselves?
It seems we can't really appeal to memes or constitutions to
change themselves. I suspect that whilst your additions
to the list make sense if the question was "what are some of the
things that influence who decides who decides" but I'm not
so sure that they add any further active agents. It seems
like constitutional guarantees are interpreted, enforced and even
occasionally formulated and codified but they are not actually
consulted.
I reckon we can reduce the domain of "who decides who decides"
merely to "sentient agents". To actual people. Wouldn't you agree?
Brett
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Jan 21 2003 - 17:10:21 MST