Quote:
Originally Posted by coberst
In a democracy the citizens are sovereign…
|
This is an strange definition of democracy.
Sovereignty is most widely defined as “the exclusive right to control something”. For example, the
absolute monarch of a state is its sovereign, because everything in that state, from its natural resources to the labor and lives of its inhabitants, is under his control. In a state with a pure
parliamentary government, its parliament is sovereign, because it controls everything. In a
presidential system, such as in the US, no single branch of government is sovereign.
Only in a true
anarchy are individual citizens sovereign, and then, only over themselves, and arguable any property they can hold. In a true direct democracy, the body of all of the citizens are sovereign. Other than over small entities in unusual circumstances, such as military and business partnerships in collapsed states, direct democracies do not and have never existed
de facto, and only rarely, such as the case of ancient Athens,
de jure.
Most states that are commonly termed democracies are more correctly
republics. Although the precise definition of a republic is controversial, the most widely accepted attribute of republics are that their governments, to borrow from the
US Declaration of Independence, are “deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed”. In a real sense, republics are entirely incompatible with the idea of sovereignty, as under such a system, neither the government nor the governed have an exclusive right to control anything
Quote:
… when the citizens of a democracy haven’t the capacity to comprehend the problems of that democracy that democracy will fail.
…
A large democratic state cannot consistently function within a world that is beyond the comprehension capacity of the citizens of that democracy.
|
This claim appears to me to have no basis in objective reality or historic data, but rather be a reflection of an unspecified model of society and government.
By definition, few of the citizens of any state of any kind have an extraordinary comprehension of anything. Narrative history and statistical surveying shows that few citizens can even associate names with most of the problems their societies face. Yet ancient and modern states with citizenries among the least capable of comprehension are often those with the most stable governments.
The obvious explanation for this in the case of republics is that they are governed by small numbers of citizen leaders who
do have extraordinary comprehension of both the problems of the state, and the specialized political problem of securing the consent of the governed. That is, that political systems work because of, rather than in spite of, politicians. Though I’m fairly sure it’s true, I’m also fairly sure this statement is among the least accepted by the governed of any republic. This illustrates another important distinction: consent is not the same as approval.
Quote:
|
Human ingenuity has proven to be capable of producing very sophisticated technology. But humans seem to be unable to develop the intellectual sophistication required to guide and control that technology. That is to say that democracy cannot function adequately in this high tech society we have created.
|
Other than with its use of the ambiguous, emotionally loaded term “sophisticated”, I agree with this statement. However, my reaction to it is “so what?”
At nearly all times in human history, people have considered their tools and resources sophisticated high technology, and have almost never accurately anticipated the consequences of its use, or how to guide and control it. Yet even when this lack of foresight and control was at its worst (which IMHO peaked in mid 20th century’s brief nuclear war), its failed to kill more humans worldwide in a year that were born. The lethality our most lethal technology has not equaled that of natural phenomena, such as influenza, and despite many apocalyptic depictions in popular fiction, and dire predictions by the technically ill-informed, such technology seems as far off now as a few generations ago.
In short, our species’ capacity for self-extinction appears to me little different than any other’s. Our belief that we have an extraordinary capacity for self-extinction, and the attendant belief that only we can cause our extinction, is, I think, one of our greatest conceit.
Quote:
|
To me the only direction that seems available is that since we cannot achieve the commensurate intellectual sophistication demanded by our technology then we must curtail the use of such sophisticated technology.
|
To me, this begs the question “you and what
luddite army will curtail the use of technology?”
Human history is sprinkled with instances of self-styled sovereigns seeking to curtail technological progress, sometimes with selfish, sometimes altruistic motives, but no record of such efforts ever succeeding. Progress appears to be like a ratchet. We can better learn to use technology, and replace more harmful technology with less, but it does not appear that the option of making it go away is available.
----------------
Moderator: Computers and Technology; Medical Science; Science Projects and Homework; Philosophy of Science; Physics and Mathematics; Environmental Studies
Sovereignty, republics, and the lack of historic precedent of curtailing technology
