I was thinking recently about the relationship between the de facto philosophy and the form, if any, of government. It then came to me that Democracy (in its unadulterated modern form) is the perfect glove to fit the hand of postmodernism: firstly it is inherently egalitarian- the vote of a bum on welfare is worth as much as the owner of a sucessful firm- this is analogous to there not being any knowledge at all; any point of view is as valid as anyone elses. Secondly, due to no absolute morality, the law is changed perpeutually and there is never any agreement on what it should be; the conversation just continues in perpetutiy which is a very Derridadian idea. Democrarcy institutionalises this by paying people to argue and change the law.
These are my preliminary thoughts which I hope to develop. But this should further our resolve, following Hoppe, against democracy as being the birth child of postmodernism- the most irrational and morally debased philosophy ever to come into existence.
The atoms tell the atoms so, for I never was or will but atoms forevermore be.
Yours sincerely,
Physiocrat
Inquisitor:Democracy is perfect for the endless conversation envisioned by postmodernists. However, given that they reject the idea of a truth independent from human justification (Plantinga tears this position apart in How to be an Anti-Realist), they have no legitimate complaint against someone who does forcefully impose a fascist system upon them. Veatch's article on Rorty and Hoppe's In Defense of Extreme Rationalism have sufficiently refuted the nonsense as far as I'm concerned. Thus, with no absolute, independent justification for democracy, they will try every and any system that takes the herd's fancy, even if it leads them all to death.
Attempts to have foundations without foundationalism ultimately fail. I wrote a review of Mark Young's Negotiating the Good Life: Aristotle and the Civil Society. Young attempts to use narrative and negotiation theory to ground a postmodern form of Aristotelian liberalism. I did like the book for its attempt to shift the focus of politics from the state to civil society though. Anyone who's interested in reading it, email me. I can't put it online right now because it is being published in an academic journal. Also, the dissertation chapter I presented at ASC attempts to go further than Young in shifting the locus of politics; it develops a radicalized Aristotelian-liberal and non-statist conception of politics and democracy. I should have a working draft uploaded to my websit in a week or two.
Yours in liberty,Geoffrey Allan Plauché, Ph.D.Adjunct Instructor, Buena Vista UniversityWebmaster, LibertarianStandard.comFounder / Executive Editor, Prometheusreview.com
I agree with this but, firstly, the pomo would probably be against, irrationally for his system, fascism because it is noramlly based on moral absolutism and is thus contrary to "tolerance". Secondly if I can further elucidate the links between postmodernism and democracy the non-postmodern supporters of democracy may see that supporting it they are implicitly supporting postmodernism and then hopefully repuidate democracy; thus helping in the deligitimisation of democracy.
It is contrary to tolerance, but then again what objective basis for complaint do they have?
ViennaSausage:Postmodernism, imho, is all BS. So in light of my opinion, Democracy is BS as well.
? Democracy is not something uniquely postmodern.
Inquisitor:It is contrary to tolerance, but then again what objective basis for complaint do they have?
They obviously don't but it is the standard reply of all concious and, even more dangerously, unconcious postmodernists and is probably the least inconsistent position they could have.
gplauche: Democracy is not something uniquely postmodern.
Democracy is not something uniquely postmodern.
I wasn't saying it is but I believe that in its current form it is the political outworking of postmodernism. If we take a brief history of democracy- I might be wrong here as my knowledge is limited in this area- we basically have the greek city states, the roman republic, then emergence of constitutional monarchy in the UK (essentially a aristocratic rule due to the limited franchise), the US republic and modern day democracy. All previous forms of democracy were a means to an end not an end in themselves. The most important manifestation of this was the limited franchise which existed up and till the 20th century. These previous civilisations believed in some higher than democracy; it was merely a tool. Today people believe in democracy not as a tool but as an end in itself. This then results in universal franchise and the continual efforts to lower the voting ages and, in some cases, allow criminals the vote. We have today democracy in its most pure form as an end in itself. This is probably a too wider genralisation but it makes the point.
In my opinion, democracy exists because it greatly lowers the cost of legitimizing government. Governments can exist because the cost of threatening coercion is less than what people are willing to pay to be free from coercion (i.e., taxation). A legitimized government will be able to tax far more easily than a despotic one, and so it will generate more profit. This increase in profit means that democratic forms of government will tend to expand and consume other less efficient forms of governance, just like a more profitable firm replaces its competitors. Convincing the taxed and regulated populace that you're there to serve them is a lot cheaper than ruling with brute force, after all.
I'd say normative arguments in favor of democracy aid in its adoption not because people strive to do what is 'right', but because those normative arguments create an opportunity for political entrepreneurship. So I think they are something of a tautology: If we can convince people democracy is good for them, democracy will succeed.
Grant:In my opinion, democracy exists because it greatly lowers the cost of legitimizing government. Governments can exist because the cost of threatening coercion is less than what people are willing to pay to be free from coercion (i.e., taxation). A legitimized government will be able to tax far more easily than a despotic one, and so it will generate more profit. This increase in profit means that democratic forms of government will tend to expand and consume other less efficient forms of governance, just like a more profitable firm replaces its competitors. Convincing the taxed and regulated populace that you're there to serve them is a lot cheaper than ruling with brute force, after all. I'd say normative arguments in favor of democracy aid in its adoption not because people strive to do what is 'right', but because those normative arguments create an opportunity for political entrepreneurship. So I think they are something of a tautology: If we can convince people democracy is good for them, democracy will succeed.
I agree with the above but if we are to take Hume's point that government rests on the implict consent of the governed then any particular form of government must firstly be described on the ideological level and then to the practical.
As a further remark to Geoffery's previous point I say this: Democracy does not necessarily entail postmodernism, however postmodernism necessitates democracy.