Open Aristocracy
1
One of my friends send me an email commenting that in my last post I have confused freedom in philosophical sense and freedom in political sense, and by liberal society we are referring to a society with the highest level of political freedom... In my last post, I was trying to show that we can not define political freedom without defining freedom at a philosophical level. In this post, I will reiterate my comments from last post and try to understand the issue better.
2
Lets assume a society which puts the political freedom in practice through a republic system. In this system, people are allowed to influence the structure and the content of the political system by electing/dismissing their representatives/states persons. I argue that the importance of the majority's legal right to influence the system is limited/faded due to:
A) The majority's lack of interest for freedom:
Happiness is the ultimate goal of humans and it is not necessarily ingrained with freedom. Accordingly, although people always go for happiness, they go for freedom just if it brings happiness.The majority of people don't want to take charge of their life and accordingly they freely choose not to be free.
B) Deceptive power of elites:
Probably the elites are those who are getting the most out of a liberal system. They themselves are the product of the system, but they are who decide for the rest of people,thanks to the power of deception. This is not a difficult task for them anyways since the majority has already given up its right of being in charge.
3
With all these limitations of political freedom, what are the constructive elements of this type of liberal democratic systems? after all, liberal democracy has been the most favorable political system introduced so far. Answering the question, I can think of two factors:
A) Although the presence of political freedom doesn't act as a constructive force, the lack of political freedom seems to be destructive. For instance, the case of flag burning in the States is a good example of the neutrality of freedom to burn the US flag ( since the majority don't even think of burning it) and the destructive force of lacking it ( as soon as you ban the right to burn the flag, every one wants to burn it!) ... In this sense, freedom seems to be likable rather than constructive;something that we want to have even if we don't/can't practice it.
B)Although freedom in liberal society seems to be neutral for the majority, it is essential for the elites. liberal democracy is a method to provide a safe sphere for the elites to play the game of power.Although the elites will try to monopolize their power ,and actually they do so to some extends, the system is relatively dynamic in its alternation and change. For example, in the case of the States, political power is monopolized by just two parties.However, the power alternates between these two parties and the doors are not completely close for another party...
4
I prefer to do a terminology Chang: instead of Democracy, I prefer to use "Open Aristocracy" in reference to current democracies.Most of the political systems which are referred to as democratic are not a demo+crocy since the demo is consist of the majority of people who have no real participation at all. These systems are an open ended game of power among aristocrats, hence an open aristocracy.
One of my friends send me an email commenting that in my last post I have confused freedom in philosophical sense and freedom in political sense, and by liberal society we are referring to a society with the highest level of political freedom... In my last post, I was trying to show that we can not define political freedom without defining freedom at a philosophical level. In this post, I will reiterate my comments from last post and try to understand the issue better.
2
Lets assume a society which puts the political freedom in practice through a republic system. In this system, people are allowed to influence the structure and the content of the political system by electing/dismissing their representatives/states persons. I argue that the importance of the majority's legal right to influence the system is limited/faded due to:
A) The majority's lack of interest for freedom:
Happiness is the ultimate goal of humans and it is not necessarily ingrained with freedom. Accordingly, although people always go for happiness, they go for freedom just if it brings happiness.The majority of people don't want to take charge of their life and accordingly they freely choose not to be free.
B) Deceptive power of elites:
Probably the elites are those who are getting the most out of a liberal system. They themselves are the product of the system, but they are who decide for the rest of people,thanks to the power of deception. This is not a difficult task for them anyways since the majority has already given up its right of being in charge.
3
With all these limitations of political freedom, what are the constructive elements of this type of liberal democratic systems? after all, liberal democracy has been the most favorable political system introduced so far. Answering the question, I can think of two factors:
A) Although the presence of political freedom doesn't act as a constructive force, the lack of political freedom seems to be destructive. For instance, the case of flag burning in the States is a good example of the neutrality of freedom to burn the US flag ( since the majority don't even think of burning it) and the destructive force of lacking it ( as soon as you ban the right to burn the flag, every one wants to burn it!) ... In this sense, freedom seems to be likable rather than constructive;something that we want to have even if we don't/can't practice it.
B)Although freedom in liberal society seems to be neutral for the majority, it is essential for the elites. liberal democracy is a method to provide a safe sphere for the elites to play the game of power.Although the elites will try to monopolize their power ,and actually they do so to some extends, the system is relatively dynamic in its alternation and change. For example, in the case of the States, political power is monopolized by just two parties.However, the power alternates between these two parties and the doors are not completely close for another party...
4
I prefer to do a terminology Chang: instead of Democracy, I prefer to use "Open Aristocracy" in reference to current democracies.Most of the political systems which are referred to as democratic are not a demo+crocy since the demo is consist of the majority of people who have no real participation at all. These systems are an open ended game of power among aristocrats, hence an open aristocracy.
posted by Homonomos at 6:01 PM
<< Home