From: Brett Paatsch (paatschb@ocean.com.au)
Date: Mon Jan 20 2003 - 07:25:36 MST
Lee Corbin writes:
> 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"?
>
.
> [Y]es, 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,
Ok.
> > I would agree that memes can influence decisive agents such as
> > people. But do you think memes become decisive agents in
> > themselves?
> Concretely, yes, memes are often decisive agents!
That is interesting. Perhaps you are right.
> 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.
I grant you that memes can influence. And since Dawkins coined
the term in "The Selfish Gene" in 1976 its may have taken on
different meanings to different people through frequent usage and
even over usage.
But returning to the main point, can you think of an example where
the "best explanation" to 'who decides' is *actually* a meme?
I can't offhand. But you may be right.
> > 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.
Good.
> > 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.
Hang on. I can't agree with you there. At least not yet. Not even
the most strongly worded codification actually pulls anyone up.
Law enforcement agents (people) do. If we are interested in
"who decides" and you've agreed its an important question,
I think its important to distinguish between decisive agents and mere
influences on those agents. But, in any case, a codification does
not itself pull anyone up. The codification is the formal embodiment
of the law. Codifications don't and can't enforce themselves.
> 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 does *seem* so in a way. But you've put 'controlled' in quotes and
I think your right to do so because beyond first blush I don't think it
actually *is* so.
Let's explore. Let's see if we can make an exhaustive list of all those
types of agent who decide. I reckon it may actually be a very short
list and that could be a powerful insight - but I'm not sure.
I think the codifications *embody* the law, but they don't and can't
exert control of themselves, rather the *control* is exerted by human
agents such as judges, lawyers, police and even ordinary citizens who
'know their legal rights' and are willing to point at, and, if necessary,
get
others, (complete strangers sometimes), to come to their assistance
by reference to the codifications. It seems to me that societies
members form alliances with each other to support those who happen
to be aggrieved and who can point at the codification and say that that
is where they have been aggrieved. And that if society is to cohere a
breach of the social compact, when, and only when, it is invoked by an
agent, (a person), becomes a call to the members of society to defend
not just that person as an instance but the very cement that is the
principles of that society itself (and all it means to the security of its
members) as codified for all to reference.
I think we can do without imputing control, or intention to control on
to the codification itself in our search to determine "who decides".
But maybe you have a good counterpoint to this.
What do you think? Would you agree that "statutes" and "codified
prohibitions" don't actually exert control of themselves, but rather that
it is always human agents who do so and validate their action to other
human agents by reference to the codifications? Do you agree with
this?
>
> > 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.
Ok
> > 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? ;-)
Seriously, I don't think they are. But I'm open to any counterpoint.
> I mean,
> especially if they are so numerous and detailed (e.g. laws)
> that someone must consult them to ponder the exact meaning.
It is true that the whole body of codifications that make up
say the US constitution, state laws, local by-laws etc are quite
complex and lengthy and especially as one gets more provincial
more variable from time to time and probably less consistent
sometimes too.
But none of this complexity creates consciousness in the
codifications in my view. The whole body of codifications are
not actually ever consulted as such, though speaking loosely
and with the human tendency to anthropomorphise I can imagine
that it would be quite easy for a lawyer to say that something
like she would "consult with the literature and get back to you"
but I think that's just loose talking.
I don't think consulting is actually thought of, when it is seriously
thought of as we are doing here, as meaning that the codifications
have become agents and can be party to a consultation which
implies active participation by both parties. The laws are not
participating they are just passive codifications, in paper or
electronic form, they are read. Where explicit codifications such
as statute law are not available then implicit codifications such as
common law (with all its principles of precedent and jurisdiction etc)
are investigated by human agents. In common law, because by
definition it applies where the codifications are not explicit (i.e.
there is no directly relevant statute) lawyers from different camps
(pro and con) may try and argue for the application of general
principles and the implied spirit and need for consistency in law
to produce a particular conclusion to a judge, still no actual
*consultation* with any the legal code itself occurs.
Sure we could "say" it does if we wanted to speak loosely, and possibly
when people are not concerned with finding out really "who decides"
would speak loosely. But we have a reason to speak clearly here.
We want to find out "who decides".
>
> > 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
I reckon if we can get to agree that who decides is only sentient
agents, only people, then we may have a powerful insight into
"who decides". An insight that could have high utility. Especially if
it turns out, as I think it might, that it is *always* people who
decide, and *only* people who decide.
Perhaps we might get to the useful view that all else are means
of influencing, rather than agents. If such was true perhaps
concentration only on the agents but being aware of the forms
of influence that can be brought to bear by agents on each other
may help us be more effective.
Do you agree the insight *might* be useful if obtained?
Brett
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Jan 21 2003 - 17:10:21 MST