Deliberative democracy
Benoit @ Sun Jun 08, 2008 11:45 am
CommanderSock CommanderSock:
we have 3 major active parties, the NDP is weak. If another major party emerged with enough clout, we could see a 3 way minority/coalition government. Been to Eastern europe lately?
These three parties cater to rent seekers; our party will eliminate private rent seeking activities.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent-seeking
Benoit @ Fri Jun 13, 2008 5:24 pm
Deliberative democracy is, after all stories have been said, about the force of the better argument. Because war is painful, arguments must and will become stronger than brute force. Human consciousness would not be Nature's master if blind will of power was stronger.
Benoit @ Sat Jun 14, 2008 1:50 pm
DDM is also about depoliticizing democracy.
Congio @ Sat Jun 14, 2008 2:09 pm
lots pf definitions 
Benoit @ Sat Jun 14, 2008 2:38 pm
Only corrupted people will not vote for DDM. For example, conservatives eager to protect their privileges will not vote DDM but Conservatives eager to protect capital will vote for DDM. To understand why think about the compensation that a person who appropriates the best land on Earth would be asked to pay to the people who cannot access this land any longer.
Benoit @ Wed Jun 18, 2008 6:08 pm
If the person who appropriates the best land on Earth wants to avoid a war with the people who cannot access this land any longer, he has to put himself in the shoes of these other people. This is the purpose of deliberations.
faile @ Wed Jun 18, 2008 8:35 pm
Benoit Benoit:
If the person who appropriates the best land on Earth wants to avoid a war with the people who cannot access this land any longer, he has to put himself in the shoes of these other people. This is the purpose of deliberations.
I noticed you're against libertarianism. Why is that? Is it because property rights were imposed upon native people?
What I see is that this lifestyle was imposed upon everyone in our society at birth. Nobody born in Canada has any more choice in this matter than any other person. Many of the injustices suffered by the native people have been at the hands of government.
I don't look at the political accomplishments of the aboriginal people (known to some as race based privileges) and feel resentful. I recognize that the small concessions they have won as the fruits of persevering against a government they did not ask to be ruled by. Despite the fact that libertarianism seeks to eventually eliminate public welfare, I do not blame anyone who chooses to use that system given to them by a government they did not choose to be ruled by. The removal of such a program will only increase everyone's freedom, however, by allowing everyone to more fully enjoy the fruits of any labor in which they do partake without being a slave to someone else's interests.
Libertarianism is the path to maximum self-determination for everyone.
Benoit @ Thu Jun 19, 2008 11:07 am
faile faile:
Benoit Benoit:
If the person who appropriates the best land on Earth wants to avoid a war with the people who cannot access this land any longer, he has to put himself in the shoes of these other people. This is the purpose of deliberations.
I noticed you're against libertarianism. Why is that? Is it because property rights were imposed upon native people?
What I see is that this lifestyle was imposed upon everyone in our society at birth. Nobody born in Canada has any more choice in this matter than any other person. Many of the injustices suffered by the native people have been at the hands of government.
I don't look at the political accomplishments of the aboriginal people (known to some as race based privileges) and feel resentful. I recognize that the small concessions they have won as the fruits of persevering against a government they did not ask to be ruled by. Despite the fact that libertarianism seeks to eventually eliminate public welfare, I do not blame anyone who chooses to use that system given to them by a government they did not choose to be ruled by. The removal of such a program will only increase everyone's freedom, however, by allowing everyone to more fully enjoy the fruits of any labor in which they do partake without being a slave to someone else's interests.
Libertarianism is the path to maximum self-determination for everyone.
Negative liberties and popular sovereignty are co-originals; they both are in a relation of mutual presupposition. This "equiprimordiality" (Heidegger's term) of subjective rights and popular sovereignty is to avoid a dichotomy of unsatisfactory alternatives: if popular sovereignty can exist without subjective liberties, then majority rule has no limits; on the other hand, if the justification of subjective rights does not also justify the power of deliberative popular sovereignty, then we will be left with political libertarianism, which fails to address background justice, i.e. rectify past injustices for example.
http://www.fordham.edu/philosophy/daven ... armore.htm
Benoit @ Mon Jun 30, 2008 4:17 pm
A person's refusal to participate in a dialogue involves him in a performative contradiction: an unresolved tension between his stated position and his position as someone who expresses himself with the expectation of being understood. For example, the sentence, "I (here and now) do not exist" entails a performative contradiction of the fact that I (here and now) exist, which in turn is a precondition for my ability to make the statement. Thus, no sooner does someone objects than he commits himself to an argumentation game based on presuppositions that entangle him in a performative contradiction. Participating in a dialogue for the sole purpose of saying that one does not wish to participate represents a contradiction of a set of preconditions that are already true—if one's refusal to participate is to be intelligible.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Performative_contradiction
faile @ Mon Jun 30, 2008 6:51 pm
Benoit Benoit:
A person's refusal to participate in a dialogue involves him in a performative contradiction: an unresolved tension between his stated position and his position as someone who expresses himself with the expectation of being understood. For example, the sentence, "I (here and now) do not exist" entails a performative contradiction of the fact that I (here and now) exist, which in turn is a precondition for my ability to make the statement. Thus, no sooner does someone objects than he commits himself to an argumentation game based on presuppositions that entangle him in a performative contradiction. Participating in a dialogue for the sole purpose of saying that one does not wish to participate represents a contradiction of a set of preconditions that are already true—if one's refusal to participate is to be intelligible.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Performative_contradiction
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Performative_contradiction
Or it could just be that a person's intent was to ask a question and he was satisfied that the response was, in fact, an answer to the question.
Benoit @ Mon Jun 30, 2008 8:19 pm
faile faile:
Benoit Benoit:
A person's refusal to participate in a dialogue involves him in a performative contradiction: an unresolved tension between his stated position and his position as someone who expresses himself with the expectation of being understood. For example, the sentence, "I (here and now) do not exist" entails a performative contradiction of the fact that I (here and now) exist, which in turn is a precondition for my ability to make the statement. Thus, no sooner does someone objects than he commits himself to an argumentation game based on presuppositions that entangle him in a performative contradiction. Participating in a dialogue for the sole purpose of saying that one does not wish to participate represents a contradiction of a set of preconditions that are already true—if one's refusal to participate is to be intelligible.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Performative_contradiction
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Performative_contradiction
Or it could just be that a person's intent was to ask a question and he was satisfied that the response was, in fact, an answer to the question.
When it comes to deliberative democracy, being satisfied of an answer is tantamount to agreeing on a fairness norm.
faile @ Tue Jul 01, 2008 8:17 pm
Benoit Benoit:
faile faile:
Benoit Benoit:
A person's refusal to participate in a dialogue involves him in a performative contradiction: an unresolved tension between his stated position and his position as someone who expresses himself with the expectation of being understood. For example, the sentence, "I (here and now) do not exist" entails a performative contradiction of the fact that I (here and now) exist, which in turn is a precondition for my ability to make the statement. Thus, no sooner does someone objects than he commits himself to an argumentation game based on presuppositions that entangle him in a performative contradiction. Participating in a dialogue for the sole purpose of saying that one does not wish to participate represents a contradiction of a set of preconditions that are already true—if one's refusal to participate is to be intelligible.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Performative_contradiction
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Performative_contradiction
Or it could just be that a person's intent was to ask a question and he was satisfied that the response was, in fact, an answer to the question.
When it comes to deliberative democracy, being satisfied of an answer is tantamount to agreeing on a fairness norm.
When it comes to libertarianism, being satisfied of an answer is tantamount to agreeing to the 'live and let live' doctrine. You are entitled to your opinion.
Benoit @ Wed Jul 02, 2008 7:08 am
faile faile:
Benoit Benoit:
faile faile:
Or it could just be that a person's intent was to ask a question and he was satisfied that the response was, in fact, an answer to the question.
When it comes to deliberative democracy, being satisfied of an answer is tantamount to agreeing on a fairness norm.
When it comes to libertarianism, being satisfied of an answer is tantamount to agreeing to the 'live and let live' doctrine. You are entitled to your opinion.
Libertarians are blind to the fact that agreeing that we disagree is worthless.
faile @ Wed Jul 02, 2008 9:38 pm
Benoit is blind to the fact that consensus is often impractical, if not impossible.
Benoit @ Thu Jul 03, 2008 8:40 am
faile faile:
Benoit is blind to the fact that consensus is often impractical, if not impossible.
This conclusion is too convenient for profiteers.