Comments on: Fuzzy Thinking

By: David

David — Tue, 10 Mar 2009 21:32:52 +0000

Love your trashing of democracy, the worst of all sham political systems. Read Tage Lindbom\’s classic, \"The Myth of Democracy\". He really shows the whole thing for what it is.

By: Augo Knoke

Augo Knoke — Sat, 17 Jan 2009 21:05:51 +0000

Jerry,

thanks for the time you took to respond to my somewhat tongue-in-cheek comment.

Let me start out by saying that I agree with Orwell\’s thesis that language can corrupt thought, and that I have a lot of sympathies with the concept of liberty from majority intervention.

However, I still contest the narrow definition of majority rule with \\"democracy\\". If it truly were the case then one or the other term would be superfluous. But there are quite a few countries around the world that have a system similar – but not exactly so – to yours, and we all call ourselves \\"democracy\\". And if we want to nitpick, etymologically, \\"democracy\\" is based on \\"δημος\\" (people) and \\"κρατειν\\" (to rule), no majority rule there. Therefore, while indeed, in the city states of ancient Greece the citizens (in reality a minority of the population) would decide by majority rule on most aspects of public life, you won\\\’t find that type of direct democracy very often nowadays – maybe on a lot of issues in the Swiss cantons. In one of them – I think it is Appenzell Innerrhoden – they all (~ 15,000) meet once a year and decide by majority rule.
Most others do have a system quite aptly described in Wikipedia, and though that is certainly not an authorative source it reflects what I have seen in my textbooks.
But I am not going to haggle with you about the meaning, because, terms are conventions, most conventions are by usage, and their understanding is often times \\"unfuzzy\\" enough to preclude chaos – but they are still fuzzy.
What I would like to contest is your evaluation of majority rule. I asked the author in what way other than the market he would guarantee that the necessary minimum of societal rules is reinforced. And your answer \\"contract\\" is a case in point. Contracts are indeed one of the bases of a functioning market; therefore, again, by which mechanisms are contracts to be enforced? Yes, there is a judicial system – which by the way in most European countries is not directly subject to majority rules but it certainly is not governed by the market. So, if not the market, what then?
What I would hold is that you need majority rule – even a qualified majority rule – to decide on what mechanisms and systems you will base the interactions within society. I think the history of your country – as well as mine – shows that particularly in economic interaction individuals are far more threatened by powerful organizations than they are by majority rule. Whatever you might think about the progressive movement at the end of the nineteenth and the beginning of the twentieth centuries, that the majority of \\"the small guys\\" was in peril and the market mechanisms had been suspended if in their favor, cannot be seriously contested.
Let me end on a conciliatory note: your founding fathers rendered an enormous service to mankind by writing your constitution as a protection of the individual against a tyrranic state. Yet it also provides for rules when one right stands against another, and as societal interactions tend to get very complex nowadays, in the end, there are easily somebody\\\’s rights being violated. But that\\\’s because of the opposing rights of individuals, not because of majority rule.

By: Jerry Citti

Jerry Citti — Sat, 17 Jan 2009 18:36:52 +0000

Augo Knoke,

I attempt to respond to your post dated 1/9/9.

\"Take the fuzzy term \\\"democracy\\\" which you seem to equate to majority rule.\"

It is majority rule. Please consult any reputable political science text. In practice, members of a Democracy elect representatives, but the principle of majority rules remains.

\"My understanding is different…\"

Your understanding is mistaken.

\"…because in addition and sometimes in opposition to majority rule it encompasses the protection of individual rights (Bill of Rights) and minority rights.\"

You are confusing what we do in this country with a Democracy. The United States was formed as a Constitutional Republic not as a Democracy. That is we are governed by laws; our government is limited by those laws defining what powers it may legally use.

\"But there are indeed areas where it is extremely difficult to say whether the \\\"tyranny\\\" of majority rule is not warranted or not. And there are others where clearly it is.\"

Actually I think it not so difficult at all to say that tyranny of majority rule is wrong. It is nearly always employed to violate rights.

As to the fuzziness inherent in a society where peopole bring various concepts to the table, it is one thing to have different ideas, it is quite another to use words to mean different things. The one brings variety, the other brings chaos. If we all use different meanings for terms then we have no way to communicate.

\"And by the way, what would be the mechanisms by which we could make sure that everybody plays by the market rules, i.e. your president does pay you the $500k that he promised you for working 24/7?\"

They are called contracts.

By: Lysander

Lysander — Sat, 17 Jan 2009 16:44:34 +0000

I have become really amazed at the term democratic rule. THANKS for the post. I will be using it in my classes: Civics and Economics. When the idea of tyranny of the majority first was heard in a lecture by Mortimer Adler I was terrified by the possibility. The only way was for me to slow down the process by becoming a teacher and at least a little educate my students to republican ideals, history of our nation, economic individual decision-making. Alas, what a fool!!!

Last week I submitted a new curriculum for Civics with reading attached, discussion questions, outlines, etc. My boss returned it with “nobody will be able to do this.” “half of your students will not even read the materials!” It contained even a readability of 9th-10th grade, too high for my students (10-12th grade).

Students were to read Mayflower Compact, Magna Carta, Gettysburg Address, Preamble (which was to be memorized), 3 Federalist essays (10, 14, 74), Declaration, plus lecture. Two essays were singled out as totally unacceptable, impossible to use: On Happiness by Aristotle and Crito by Plato.

Maybe I should have asked was it the students they worried about, or the fear the Curriculum Board didn’t understand the materials????

By: Augo Knoke

Augo Knoke — Fri, 09 Jan 2009 14:31:09 +0000

Oh, if the world were so easy as to avoid fuzzy language and even fuzzy logic! While it is difficult enough to find well defined, unambiguous and useful scientific terms (you inevitably get a recurrency problem, because you define the term using other terms which might have to be defined again, ad infinitum), in other social interaction, fuzziness is the norm rather than the exception.
Take the fuzzy term \"democracy\" which you seem to equate to majority rule. My understanding is different because in addition and sometimes in opposition to majority rule it encompasses the protection of individual rights (Bill of Rights) and minority rights. We probably could also agree on that the decision of turkey or ham on Thanksgiving cannot be subject to majority decision. But there are indeed areas where it is extremely difficult to say whether the \"tyranny\" of majority rule is not warranted or not. And there are others where clearly it is.
The fuzziness is not due to sloppy thinking, it is due to the fact that in a society each and every member – provided (s)he does not prefer a solitary existence on Robinson\’s island – brings different concepts and values \"into the market place\". And different concepts and values permeat the language we use and the way we define terms. Are we to auction off the meanings of terms and phrases we use to the highest bidder? Or are there sages or priests to decide which term is sufficiently \"unfuzzy\"?
I simply don\’t think that it is possible, I doubt it is necessary, and I even wonder if it is desirable.
On another point: Let us assume for a moment for argument\’s sake your premise that majority rule enhances conflict is correct. So what? Why is it that conflict is undesirable? Who decides that conflict is undesirable?
Even if it were: Let us take the example of traffic which John Stossel\’s in his column alludes to – and indeed exposes the stop sign rule as the idiocy it is. Are you suggesting that there is a market mechanism that would regulate traffic? If not, by what other mechanism do we avoid carnage on the street?
I think we can argue for ever about to what extent societal mechanisms other than the market would be appropriate but it is difficult to ascertain that market will regulate everything. And by the way, what would be the mechanisms by which we could make sure that everybody plays by the market rules, i.e. your president does pay you the $500k that he promised you for working 24/7?
Considering this, I can live with fuzzy concepts and fuzzy thinking, and in the arts and in in intercultural meetings I even cherish all the variations of fuzziness. But maybe that is because I did not graduate from your classes at George Mason.

By: Jack

Jack — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:58:28 +0000

Tyranny of the majority obviously exists in the U.S. And the three posters above me have proven the point, made by the author that,
“In general, decision-making at the individual or market levels is conflict-reducing, while making decisions collectively or at the political level is conflict-enhancing.”

Al you might re-examine the Bill of Rights and the Constitution from the perspective that it is there to limit the government’s power. The 10th amendment reserves all unwritten rights to the people, regardless of sexuality or any other characteristic. Why is the government involved in marriage at all? To make sure we don’t marry our cousins? (unless they are third cousins, third cousins are ok according to some states) And why can we only have one spouse at a time? Were the Mormons populating to quickly? And so what if someone wants to marry their sheep, how does it harm society? Because it teaches my kid that it is ok to marry a sheep? (I’ll tell him what I think is right, but I will let him make his own decision) or is it because the divorce hearings would clog up the courts?

Oh and there is this new magical thing called artificial insemination, a homosexual man can donate his sperm to a homosexual woman and have a baby without sex at all so all life doesn’t come from heterosexuality, and let’s not yet get into cloning.

It might do us all some good to learn our Constitution, including the amendments and start to think of them as a Bill of Restrictions instead of a Bill of Rights. Only one gives the government more power, the 16th, and there is some evidence that its ratification was fraudulent.

So in our democracy here, I vote for more individual and market level decision making-how about you? Come on join the freedom!

By: Chris

Chris — Sun, 04 Jan 2009 05:09:25 +0000

FOR COREY MONDELLO: Your comment seemingly contradicts itself. On the one hand, you denegrate democracy as “mob behavior”. On the other, you make the falacious claim that those who don’t like democracy (such as yourself?), support oppressing others and “are the most vocal about taking away the rights of minority groups throughout the history of the USA.” …which is a ridiculous statement in itself. What’s the point you’re attempting to make? Moving on… No rights were taken away from anyone in California. Everyone has the same rights. While it seems to me the constitutional amendment has gone too far, that extreme measure of prop 8 was taken as a reaction to the circumstances of extremists trying to push the majority around using undemocratic methods. Homosexual marriage doesn’t provide any unique creative benefit to society at all. Homosexuality itself, has no value to anyone except those few who engage in it. However, it has been a destructive force in many ways. Normal heterosexual marriage is the bedrock of civilization and still the best way to raise the next generation of well balanced citizens. And all human life springs from heterosexuality – a rather unique creative contribution, wouldn’t you say? Marriage as a positive context for heterosexuality and reproduction is worthy of being elevated, encouraged and valued as a cultural ideal, because without it, civilization degenerates into a larger pack of lost and damaged people. Because of it’s pointlessness to society, homosexuality isn’t worthy of being elevated or accepted as a cultural ideal. Imagine if all homosexuality stopped taking place, and all those who engaged in it became heterosexual. That being the only difference… they’re still the same people, only now hetero, would there be any negative consequences of that happening? Now, imagine if all heterosexual people became homosexual instead. Would there be any negative consequences of that happening? The point is, the world doesn’t need homosexuality. It provides no unique constructive or even useful benefit. For some people it’s a want. For the world, it’s not a need. Those who want it, are certainly free to engage in it. However, there’s no justification for, or point in, institutionalizing it. Marriage isn’t about benefits for the married. It’s about benefits for society and culture.

By: Al

Al — Wed, 31 Dec 2008 20:19:58 +0000

FOR COREY MONDELLO: For the US Government to incorporate “marriage law-making” into their baliwick was of course folly on their part. It has only been an avenue of taxation for the government, hence the “marriage license”. Marriage, in the religious sense, was ordained by God, not government. The perspective however, is that it’s now a “right” since “the union” can be sought from government judges and even religious ministers have to pay a license fee to “marry” people. Corey, please understand that in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights, nowhere is marriage found as a US Government “right”. It basically is a “practice” historically from Judeao-Christian teachings. If my memory serves, the practice is between a man and woman only. In these modern times, I would think that there will be people petitioning the government for the “right” to marry their pet sheep and other such “non-religious” unions. You see Corey, the US Government as it was intended in the late 1700’s, has been shall we say, perverted by the power brokers that followed the founding fathers. I’m sure that at some time, unbeknownst to me, I have voted for one or more of those charletons(sp?). For that act, I do apologize.

Texas T-Sip

By: Corey Mondello

Corey Mondello — Tue, 30 Dec 2008 11:10:52 +0000

Democracy, majority rule, mob behavior…sounds like what happened in California on Prop 8, odd those who support oppressing others, tend to hate the word Democracy and are the most vocal about taking away the rights of minority groups throughout the history of the USA.