The Elite theorists were correct: democracy is a myth. A well organized minority (elite) will inevitably rule a disorganized majority (masses). Furthermore, ideology is subordinate to power–i.e., rationalization is post hoc.
If one accepts this view (which I do), then the day-to-day operations of those who exercise power and influence become clear to see and understand. And, even, dare I say: ‘sensible'.
Therefore, YES, democracy is exactly what they (the elites) say it is. Same for liberty, equality, human rights, etc.
So—What is to be done?
“Clear them out!”
This, of course, does not guarantee that a new cadre of elites will be any better.
In the meantime, our power lies in building small and strong.
Basically the elites are deluding themselves that progress is achieved by tinkering endlessly with 'rights', while in reality failures to uphold rule of law, through mass migration and general lawlessness in inner cities, are of far more importance to ordinary people.
Still their sympathetic media are dutifully performing impressive mental gymnastics to justify this state of affairs, and a cluster of online brands like Foreign Affairs are no exception, look at their coverage of the truckers convoy in Ottowa:
No more sticking their neck out for the anti-liberal/anti-mainstream these days. In a way it's almost more principled - the defenders of civil rights now forgoing a paycheck when they disagree with us!
Dunno if you've listened to Mike Benz, but he has a hypothesis that a major disconnect between the hoi poloi and the powers that be is the former conceptualize democracy as a popular vote whereas the latter conceptualize it as "institutional consensus". I think this gels with the circling of the wagons we're seeing institutions engage in when criticized.
That's probably how I would have characterized it previously. I think as far as "authorial intent" it's probably a blend - they see it as "educated elites getting their way," but have revived a logical and rhetorical framework (defensive democracy) which was created in the early Cold War to describe liberalism.
A bit ironic a few dozen hours after Washington threw out bar exams... But more seriously, unfair outcome / fair playing field describes the ostensible status quo from 1980 to 2008-2012, obviously the playing field wasn't truly fair in that time either what with racial profiling in policing, hiring and contracting preferences that slip below radar, and etc.
The problem now is that we can't go back to not understanding that the outcome will always be unfair. Meritocracy *is* systemic racism - one race always has the least "merit," doesn't matter if it's for natural or environmental reasons.
So, 1) meritocracy winning the market place of ideas only means that a non-hierarchical argument wins the marketplace of ideas, but 2) now it's too late for it to win as a non-hierarchical argument anyway because everyone knows it's in fact hierarchcal.
'Natural rights' is a pretty poor shield to fight off any attack. Although Jefferson calls right 'inalienable' we must be clear what that means. It doesn't mean that my right to, for example, life can never be taken, but that it can never be taken justly.(and even this comes with a whole boatload of caveats) At best 'natural rights' provides a sort of post hoc shield even when universally adhered to, that is when the respecter of natural rights has taken your life, liberty, etc. then he is under moral force to admit that he did so wrongly. He must deal with conscience or cognitive dissonance. Natural rights does not in any way prevent him from taking things from you or compel him to return them. Specifying these rights as being of divine origin might increase the pressure from conscience or mental anguish but that's it.
Admitting that what I am doing is wrong might seem like a good way to get me to stop or change my course, but in actual practice we find that it is not at all sufficient to accomplish that goal. Adding natural rights to democracy is for one of the wolves to resolve on vegetarianism. After the vote and the aftermath he is filled with remorse. He is also filled with delicious mutton.
My point is that the ostensible "protection" of natural rights, if you go look for any evidence of it doing work, you are actually going to look at an era when rights were in reality limited to a demographic majority, e.g. all of American history before 2008 is this. There's nothing you can cite before 2008 where "natural rights" were equally applied to Blacks. So this idea that rights, not power, not racial majoritarianism, was protecting individuals within the racial majority, is a fiction.
Another thing to add. How can rights be "natural"? If your government wants to kill you, is a nearby stream going to stop it? Do you get to live if you find a lemon? Where in "nature" is your "right"?
Yes, and the concept of "Rights" is unbalanced. If "Responsibilities" are not required to exercise "Rights" then there is no limit on such "Rights" and they become "Entitlements", which I consider to be the eighth deadly sin.
In classical Athens the trireme oarsmen and the hoplites were male citizens with obligations to the polis. In Rome after Julius Caesar the legions evolved from citizen armies to conscripts and mercenaries of the non-citizen classes, which contributed to the failure of the republic and its metamorphosis into empire. Do I need to detail the same pattern with the USA?
The Elite theorists were correct: democracy is a myth. A well organized minority (elite) will inevitably rule a disorganized majority (masses). Furthermore, ideology is subordinate to power–i.e., rationalization is post hoc.
If one accepts this view (which I do), then the day-to-day operations of those who exercise power and influence become clear to see and understand. And, even, dare I say: ‘sensible'.
Therefore, YES, democracy is exactly what they (the elites) say it is. Same for liberty, equality, human rights, etc.
So—What is to be done?
“Clear them out!”
This, of course, does not guarantee that a new cadre of elites will be any better.
In the meantime, our power lies in building small and strong.
Great article as usual.
Basically the elites are deluding themselves that progress is achieved by tinkering endlessly with 'rights', while in reality failures to uphold rule of law, through mass migration and general lawlessness in inner cities, are of far more importance to ordinary people.
Still their sympathetic media are dutifully performing impressive mental gymnastics to justify this state of affairs, and a cluster of online brands like Foreign Affairs are no exception, look at their coverage of the truckers convoy in Ottowa:
https://archive.ph/sg8nQ
Thanks!
No more sticking their neck out for the anti-liberal/anti-mainstream these days. In a way it's almost more principled - the defenders of civil rights now forgoing a paycheck when they disagree with us!
Dunno if you've listened to Mike Benz, but he has a hypothesis that a major disconnect between the hoi poloi and the powers that be is the former conceptualize democracy as a popular vote whereas the latter conceptualize it as "institutional consensus". I think this gels with the circling of the wagons we're seeing institutions engage in when criticized.
That's probably how I would have characterized it previously. I think as far as "authorial intent" it's probably a blend - they see it as "educated elites getting their way," but have revived a logical and rhetorical framework (defensive democracy) which was created in the early Cold War to describe liberalism.
"It is impossible to justify hierarchy and exclusion in the “marketplace of ideas”"
Really? What about meritocracy as a justification for hierarchy and accountability for one's actions as a justification for exclusion?
A bit ironic a few dozen hours after Washington threw out bar exams... But more seriously, unfair outcome / fair playing field describes the ostensible status quo from 1980 to 2008-2012, obviously the playing field wasn't truly fair in that time either what with racial profiling in policing, hiring and contracting preferences that slip below radar, and etc.
The problem now is that we can't go back to not understanding that the outcome will always be unfair. Meritocracy *is* systemic racism - one race always has the least "merit," doesn't matter if it's for natural or environmental reasons.
So, 1) meritocracy winning the market place of ideas only means that a non-hierarchical argument wins the marketplace of ideas, but 2) now it's too late for it to win as a non-hierarchical argument anyway because everyone knows it's in fact hierarchcal.
weird how supposed forms of "democracy" seem to promote democide...
Two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner!
it devolves into a power play very fast *without* protection of natural rights.
'Natural rights' is a pretty poor shield to fight off any attack. Although Jefferson calls right 'inalienable' we must be clear what that means. It doesn't mean that my right to, for example, life can never be taken, but that it can never be taken justly.(and even this comes with a whole boatload of caveats) At best 'natural rights' provides a sort of post hoc shield even when universally adhered to, that is when the respecter of natural rights has taken your life, liberty, etc. then he is under moral force to admit that he did so wrongly. He must deal with conscience or cognitive dissonance. Natural rights does not in any way prevent him from taking things from you or compel him to return them. Specifying these rights as being of divine origin might increase the pressure from conscience or mental anguish but that's it.
Admitting that what I am doing is wrong might seem like a good way to get me to stop or change my course, but in actual practice we find that it is not at all sufficient to accomplish that goal. Adding natural rights to democracy is for one of the wolves to resolve on vegetarianism. After the vote and the aftermath he is filled with remorse. He is also filled with delicious mutton.
As such, temporarily he has two votes.
Yeah but one of them is basically shit.
My point is that the ostensible "protection" of natural rights, if you go look for any evidence of it doing work, you are actually going to look at an era when rights were in reality limited to a demographic majority, e.g. all of American history before 2008 is this. There's nothing you can cite before 2008 where "natural rights" were equally applied to Blacks. So this idea that rights, not power, not racial majoritarianism, was protecting individuals within the racial majority, is a fiction.
Another thing to add. How can rights be "natural"? If your government wants to kill you, is a nearby stream going to stop it? Do you get to live if you find a lemon? Where in "nature" is your "right"?
It's all custom and power.
Yes, and the concept of "Rights" is unbalanced. If "Responsibilities" are not required to exercise "Rights" then there is no limit on such "Rights" and they become "Entitlements", which I consider to be the eighth deadly sin.
In classical Athens the trireme oarsmen and the hoplites were male citizens with obligations to the polis. In Rome after Julius Caesar the legions evolved from citizen armies to conscripts and mercenaries of the non-citizen classes, which contributed to the failure of the republic and its metamorphosis into empire. Do I need to detail the same pattern with the USA?