Re: The term is "aristocracy" Re: Demarchy's promise

From: Technotranscendence (neptune@mars.superlink.net)
Date: Wed Aug 14 2002 - 17:57:05 MDT


On Wednesday, August 14, 2002 6:28 PM Rafal Smigrodzki
rms2g@virginia.edu wrote:
> Yet, the differences between the average citizens and the +two-sigma
group
> are real (meaning - these classes exist whether we acknowledge them or
not),

Ah, but the differences between rich and poor are real too. Should the
upper house be rich and the lower house poor? How about those between
ethnic groups? What about male/female differences? What about other
real differences? What do you mean by a non-real differences here?

> and directly pertinent to the ability to understand complex phenomena,
and
> to devise working solutions. I am reasonably confident that the minor
> friction I mentioned above (and it would be minor because neither
group
> would be able to dominate the interaction) would be offset by a much
more
> efficient process of lawmaking.

But that's the point under discussion: whether your system would work or
work better. (I assume by "efficient process of lawmaking" you mean
"efficient" at making good and just laws and not just making laws. If
not, why not just have an unelected bureaucracy ruled by an absolute
despot bent on making efficient laws?)

You might also want to consider Bruno Leoni's differentiation between
legislature made law and court made law as given in his _Freedom and the
Law_ (http://www.libertyfund.org/details.asp?displayID=1648). There are
several key differences between the two. One is that judicial law comes
from consenting parties and only applies to them while legislative law
applies to whole classes of or all of the people. Another is that it's
reactive, while legislative law is usually proactive. Still another is
that courts have to compete usually to get cases -- in a common law
system, that is -- while legislatures have sovereignty and face no
competition.

Your system is a species of legislative law and, despite whether it is
an improvement over current or previous systems, suffers from the same
problems. The barrier to entry for competitors is, Bruno and I believe,
the root of the problem.

Later!

Dan
http://uweb.superlink.net/neptune/
    See "Dialectical Objectivism: An Answer to Ronald E. Merrill" at:
http://uweb.superlink.net/neptune/Dialecti.html



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:16:07 MST