From: Lee Corbin (lcorbin@tsoft.com)
Date: Sun Jan 19 2003 - 23:48:13 MST
Brett writes
> > > 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"?
You asked it; I presumed it was an important question! ;-)
Seriously, yes, it's one of those things that the electorate
in a democratic republic has to keep an eye on. I.e., who is
it that is really making the decisions---and this feeds right
into my point that the decisions should usually be made at
the lowest feasible level.
> > 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".
Yes, while I shall defend memes as entities, below, I do
recognize that your objection here is quite proper. You
had asked "who", not what.
> I would agree that memes can influence decisive agents such as
> people. But do you think memes become decisive agents in
> themselves?
>From reading "The Meme Machine", by Susan Blackmore, I
concluded that to describe human actions as actions by
memes is correct, but is not always either illuminating
or necessary. It's as though you're using a different
coordinate system to describe the same phenomena. On
some occasions, however, the meme-way-of-looking-at-it
is more desirable.
Concretely, yes, memes are often decisive agents! This
is because sometimes the best explanation has to do with
the way a virulent virus-like idea spreads through a
population with drastic consequences. It's at those
moments one wonders whether the memes are the ultimate
causal agents, or the humans. (Of course, as I explained
in the previous paragraph, that's not a good thing to
wonder.)
> 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.
Yes.
> Wouldn't you say that laws and constitutional guarantees are
> codifications rather than decisive agents in themselves?
Yes, I guess so. When a legislator or executive is hauled up
short on some intended action by the existence of a strongly
worded codification to the contrary, a minor miracle has just
happened. As Anders wrote today in another thread
The problem with building liberal democracies is that it is not just
about writing a nice constitution but to get institutions to actually
respect the rights set down therein. It is about the same problem as
Hernando de Soto described about bootstrapping a market economy: if the
culture and institutions are not right, it won't work outside small
sectors. You need to set up the culture and institutions that act as
checks and balances, and this can't be done overnight and must be done
while building the rest of the constitutional system.
But when the culture is right, these legislators and executives
are "controlled" by the statutes and codified prohibitions. It
really is in a way as though the constitutional provision is an
"active agent". Doesn't it seem so, in a way?
> 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.
Yes, all that's true.
> It seems like constitutional guarantees are interpreted,
> enforced and even occasionally formulated and codified
> but they are not actually consulted.
Well, in a way they are consulted, aren't they? ;-) I mean,
especially if they are so numerous and detailed (e.g. laws)
that someone must consult them to ponder the exact meaning.
> I reckon we can reduce the domain of "who decides who decides"
> merely to "sentient agents". To actual people. Wouldn't you agree?
Sure, that's a good question too. Perhaps, as I said, more
proper than the one I had substituted for it.
Lee
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Jan 21 2003 - 17:10:21 MST