i am not sure what to make of the pining for a "real leader" in the above. what are you wishing for? you know the cliche about being careful what you wish for, yes?
what exactly would be the problem with the direct empowerment of the people exactly? obviously, such an empowerment would require that the existing system of information management be smashed--but i dont see the problem with that either. such an empowerment would also require the development of something like protocols for rational debate--which obviously do not play into the field of possibilities that currently masquerades as democracy in america. rational debate would require relatively undistorted information and political positions built out from information rather than based on arbitrary committments that most resemble the kind of leap of faith that kierkegaard was so fond of outlining. rational debate would be necessary because collective decisions would amount to the exercize of power, without a safety net.
while i was wondering about the above, i saw this:
Quote:
|
This is actually one of the large failings of democracy-it places too large a burden on the populace
|
and that it got no criticism subsequently.
rather, folk seemed to agree with it.
so it does not seem unreasonable to combine the two features of the thread: the desire for a "real leader" and a kind of contempt for democracy, routed through a contempt for the people disguised as a kind of concern--democracy would require too much effort, it would cut into leisure time, making it more difficult to focus on things like playstation or grilling things in the back yard--it would require actual engagement with problems, which would mean that we would maybe be inclined to devote less time to the lint that comprises most of the american mode of consumer culture--and who needs that when the index of political freedom in america is measured by the amount of consumer goods one can accumulate?
if you combine these elements, what looks like is emerging through this thread is a desire for a kind of dictatorship, one centered on a charismatic Leader, a decisive fellow who Thinks about Important Matters so that you and i dont have to, who would enable us to devote the necessary degrees and types of attention to playstation and grilling in the back yard and measuring the extent of political freedom by counting Important Commodiites that we have been able to pile up around our residences.
how exactly does a liberatarian position devolve into a desire for dictatorship?
why does it seem so easy?
could the problem be with libertarian politics themselves?
are libertarian positions always this amenable to wishing for a charismatic dictator?
i am asking seriously--i mostly run into self-described liberatrians on net message boards--they only think most seem to have in common is a perverse confusion of ayn rand with a philosopher--but here we are.
i wonder about the limitations of this kind of politics and whether this trend in the thread is symptmatic of them--or just a curious feature of this particular thread.