Advertising and Mental Illness

[Daktoria]

Let's say that a segment of the population has a mental illness that it is either unaware of or embarrassed to recognize, and let's also say that there's a company which advertises according to methods which appeal to people who have this particular mental illness. Maybe it's an addiction disorder, maybe it's a personality disorder, maybe it's a mood disorder, whatever. Doesn't matter.

Let's also say that this segment of the population prefers certain governmental policies because product usage, when synthesized with their societal niche and mental illness, results in delusional beliefs.

Would you find it justified to temporarily disenfranchise the mentally ill group? If yes, what methods would you use to make sure that special interests aren't manipulating policy? If no, how can the mentally ill group be entitled to damages awarded by the State later if the State isn't willing to preemptively secure equality?

Alternatively, if the above dilemma can't be resolved, why is democracy justifiable and not just strategically advantageous for charismatic tyrants hiding behind appeals to popularity? In otherwords, how is liberalism not just a biased facade for certain interests in power politics (such that the masses who provide popularity are manipulated into believing that they're in alignment with leaders when that actually isn't the case)?

[Lily]

Give me an example of a mental illness and advertising which caters to said illness, then I might be able to comment.

[Michael]

Let's say that a segment of the population has a mental illness that it is either unaware of or embarrassed to recognize, and let's also say that there's a company which advertises according to methods which appeal to people who have this particular mental illness. Maybe it's an addiction disorder, maybe it's a personality disorder, maybe it's a mood disorder, whatever. Doesn't matter.

Let's also say that this segment of the population prefers certain governmental policies because product usage, when synthesized with their societal niche and mental illness, results in delusional beliefs.
Sounds like an analogy for 'conservatives addicted to Fox News'. :lol:

Would you find it justified to temporarily disenfranchise the mentally ill group? If yes, what methods would you use to make sure that special interests aren't manipulating policy? If no, how can the mentally ill group be entitled to damages awarded by the State later if the State isn't willing to preemptively secure equality?
First of all, mentally ill people generally can't vote in most western countries, so they are already disenfranchised to begin with. I doubt if this is the core of the argument you are interested in.

Alternatively, you appear to be asking if any group could have their rights violated in the name of serving some State interest.

I refer all such questions of state justification for rights violations to Canada's constitutional Oakes Test. I find it very useful. :)

One has to look at the identified problem and the proposed remedy. The first must be judged to be pressing and signficant and the second must be minimal, rationally related and effective.

If any of these conditions are not met, then the State's proposed violation of the right is not held to be justified.

In the above example (notwithstanding the fact that mentally retarded people don't usually have the right to vote), I would argue that your proposed solution (disenfranchisement) would not be "minimal" and thus would fail a constitutional court challenge in Canada.

Limiting the right of commerical advertising of that particular product might be considered a far less intrusive violation of rights, and likely to serve the same effective purpose/remedy, and thus, since it is more "minimal" it is therefore preferable in such a case.

Alternatively, if the above dilemma can't be resolved, why is democracy justifiable and not just strategically advantageous for charismatic tyrants hiding behind appeals to popularity? In otherwords, how is liberalism not just a biased facade for certain interests in power politics (such that the masses who provide popularity are manipulated into believing that they're in alignment with leaders when that actually isn't the case)?
Who said our modern democratic systems are not thus?

Democracy is certainly a messy system. It just happens to be less ugly, less nasty and less dangerous than every other known system. That's its principal (and only) attraction.

[Daktoria]

I guess we could start with nicotine addiction and alcoholism induced in people with addictive personalities and how advertising campaigns targeted at those with addictive personalities are going to be more successful. In turn, cigarette and alcohol consumers will stand by manufacturers in order to keep retail costs down despite how increased health care costs will be a consequence.

That's not what I really want to talk about though. I've been researching for a thesis that draws a relationship between compulsive consumption, compulsive lying, and credit abuse against OCD, BPD, and adult ADHD. The underlying premise here is how celebrity, media, beauty, and other products which encourage narcissistic and histrionic behavior get excused because the culture defending them is a culture generating by them upon consumers who are being taken advantage of.

The research is a huge pain in the neck though because there's always someone making excuses for the markets in question: mental illnesses are subjectively defined by culture anyway, adult consumers should be treated as adult citizens no matter how faulty their decision making, the purpose of democracy is to test the consumers and producers in question, etc.

It's just really annoying because the same people who are ignoring the matters of externalities and autonomous conflicts of interest are the same people who are demanding empirical evidence, so I don't even want to bother researching anymore. It's like say I'm against universal health care because I believe it excuses irresponsible decision making and discourages holistic culture creation among heterogeneous communities. Now the same people who want universal health care are the same people who already engage in irresponsible decision making and hide behind certain mental walls that are encouraged through groupthink backed by reputable traditions, traditions which are centered around consumption of inefficient goods and services and are stubbornly opposed to lifestyle changes.

So now they get to be wise guys and say its fair to redistribute money because it encourages the irresponsible decision making of the majority of their community while the minorities have to suck it up.

Or let's turn the tables around. Say I'm in favor of universal health care because I believe that a lot of legally ignorant people are being shafted by insurance companies, but they don't care because the traditions they were brought up on only care about individual marginal performance and not about holistic unity. Performance here only reflects past activities and doesn't account for lucky windfalls, so its a horrible measure of responsibility to begin with, and those who can afford the tragedy of the uncommons are people who insist on being socially exclusive and hierarchical, exclusiveness and hierarchy which are encouraged through consumption patterns which appeal to the paranoid, avoidant, and antisocial.

So now they get to be wise guys and say its fair to not redistribute money despite how the law is biased towards those with the strongest special interests which means that democracy is just a tool to appease the weak and force them into rank and file since tyrants can dismiss intuition.

-----

Some other facets I wanted to include in my thesis were personality types, learning styles, and other psychological definitions that show how it's not justified to force everyone to be treated with equal political authority since certain characteristics will have natural advantages to circumvent legal authority. Sure, everyone should be granted the same civil rights, but when either naive people who don't know they're corrupted or corrupt people who are behaving naively participate in government, the whole shebang just comes crashing down, and there's nothing that can be done because there are endless wise guys with endless excuses that demand endless amounts of empirical evidence.

The thesis is a mess already though, and I dunno why I even bother since it won't make a difference anyway. Even if I got all the right research and made it ironclad and even if I managed to beat out all the wise guys who challenge it, it still wouldn't matter because it'll get manipulated or ignored or whatever and government will still become a mess because the parties in consideration will never stop with their cultural shenanigans. At the very least this is because mental illnesses and debilitating characteristics will spread and the idea of separating civil rights from political freedoms will never be appreciated unless there's some special interest that gets something out of it.

[Donkey]

Well, first, I think this thread is using "mentally ill" a bit liberally and recklessly.

Second, no, I'm not comfortable with that sort of elitism.

[Daktoria]

What about the follow up questions?

[Donkey]

What about the follow up questions?
You mean, why is democracy justifiable if the populace might be crazy?

[Daktoria]

That's half of it. The other half is about how can a state be legitimate if it's making an unfulfillable promise. If a state offers equality but isn't willing to protect it in advance and endures excessive costs by reacting instead of preempting, is it really acting in the best interests of its taxpaying constituents?

[Daktoria]

First of all, mentally ill people generally can't vote in most western countries, so they are already disenfranchised to begin with. I doubt if this is the core of the argument you are interested in.

Alternatively, you appear to be asking if any group could have their rights violated in the name of serving some State interest.

I refer all such questions of state justification for rights violations to Canada's constitutional Oakes Test. I find it very useful. :)

One has to look at the identified problem and the proposed remedy. The first must be judged to be pressing and signficant and the second must be minimal, rationally related and effective.

If any of these conditions are not met, then the State's proposed violation of the right is not held to be justified.

In the above example (notwithstanding the fact that mentally retarded people don't usually have the right to vote), I would argue that your proposed solution (disenfranchisement) would not be "minimal" and thus would fail a constitutional court challenge in Canada.

Limiting the right of commerical advertising of that particular product might be considered a far less intrusive violation of rights, and likely to serve the same effective purpose/remedy, and thus, since it is more "minimal" it is therefore preferable in such a case.

Sorry I didn't see this before. Dunno why.

I dunno what the Oakes test is and when I Googled it, nothing good came up, so if you wanna clarify it, that'd be great.

I'm referring more to mild yet functionally mentally ill people. Schizoids, borderlines, obsessive compulsives, paraphiliacs etc, not people who stuck in mental hospitals. Terms like pressing, significant, related, and effective aren't very useful benchmarks here, but not because they're just subjective. Rather because they're terms that can be manipulated by special interests themselves, so we're still begging the question of whether or not power politics (especially from cultural imperialism) is being circumvented.

Likewise, it isn't the cost-benefit analysis itself that's at stake here such that restricting commercial advertising would be justified for the greater good, but rather whether or not the state is wielding taxpayers' tax payments in an aligned fashion. If we have two mentally ill taxpayers who pay taxes with different expectations from the same government, is it really possible for the government to rectify the situation by pursuing marginal utility?

Who said our modern democratic systems are not thus?

Democracy is certainly a messy system. It just happens to be less ugly, less nasty and less dangerous than every other known system. That's its principal (and only) attraction.

C'mon, why do you always do this? Democracy's existence is backed by liberalism, so if liberalism's wrong because realism's right, then democracy isn't legitimate anymore. The only reason it'd be used is to minimize damages by revealing the majority's identity to all minorities such that they can realize from original position that putting up a fight wouldn't be worthwhile, but there are so many conflicts of interest here that to claim democracy as justified would be completely ridiculous. Instead, the national interest would be a pursuit of strategy rather than a pursuit of justice.

[Donkey]

Wait, sorry, I guess I missed where you proved liberalism wrong?

[Daktoria]

I didn't. Michael did when claiming that democracy's legitimacy comes from it being less dangerous. That implies power politics being at stake which means liberalism (especially in international relations) is incorrect.

[Michael]

I didn't. Michael did when claiming that democracy's legitimacy comes from it being less dangerous. That implies power politics being at stake which means liberalism (especially in international relations) is incorrect.

I fail to follow the logic here... :ummm:

[Daktoria]

I fail to follow the logic here... :ummm:

There isn't a bigger dichotomy than realism (power politics) versus liberalism in government, and the way you're describing democracy just makes it a variant of Hobbes' leviathan.

At the very least, let's say that liberalism advocates for equality. How is it equal for a majority to rule over a minority? Doing so fails to reciprocate national interests towards all taxpaying constituents, so it might as well be the mob stealing from the few whether in economic, cultural, scientific, or any other terms imaginable. The only reason they get away with this is because nobody knows everybody, so the smaller group concedes to the larger group with the understanding that if a smaller group of average people goes to war with a larger group of average people, the smaller group can expect to lose and lose far more than it would lose by just appeasing the mob in the present.

That's not democracy. It's ochlocracy.

Regarding the disadvantaged as I started with in this thread, this is why all morally permissible governments must consist of, and govern over, those who subscribe to a culture of goodwill. No liberal government should force any taxpayer to provide for goods and services in conflict of interest, but in order for the society to prevent corruption from cynicism, it has to recognize that the disadvantaged are tortured such that the only way they can escape is from independently initiated charity. No, the government cannot enforce goodwill, but if the people aren't willing to be goodwilling, then they don't deserve justice anyway.

[Daktoria]

Oh, for the sake of argument, I'd like to rephrase something I said above:

That's not "democracy". It's ochlocracy.

[Michael]

I didn't. Michael did when claiming that democracy's legitimacy comes from it being less dangerous. That implies power politics being at stake which means liberalism (especially in international relations) is incorrect.
I'll also add that I never made any such claim that the "legitimacy" of democracy comes from it being less dangerous. I never said anything of the kind.

Please quote my words where I allegedly made this statement.

[Daktoria]

:-\

I didn't quote you because I know you've never used the phrasing I noted word for word (hence why I said, "Michael did when claiming that democracy's legitimacy comes from it being less dangerous," instead of "Michael did when claiming democracy's 'legitimacy' comes from it being less dangerous.").

In any case, I looked through our previous threads for a while and found one example that works if we consider the definition of tyranny (http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=tyranny):S: (http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?o2=&o0=1&o7=&o5=&o1=1&o6=&o4=&o3=&s=tyranny&i=0&h=00#c) (n) dictatorship (http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?o2=&o0=1&o7=&o5=&o1=1&o6=&o4=&o3=&s=dictatorship), absolutism (http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?o2=&o0=1&o7=&o5=&o1=1&o6=&o4=&o3=&s=absolutism), authoritarianism (http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?o2=&o0=1&o7=&o5=&o1=1&o6=&o4=&o3=&s=authoritarianism), Caesarism (http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?o2=&o0=1&o7=&o5=&o1=1&o6=&o4=&o3=&s=Caesarism), despotism (http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?o2=&o0=1&o7=&o5=&o1=1&o6=&o4=&o3=&s=despotism), monocracy (http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?o2=&o0=1&o7=&o5=&o1=1&o6=&o4=&o3=&s=monocracy), one-man rule (http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?o2=&o0=1&o7=&o5=&o1=1&o6=&o4=&o3=&s=one-man+rule), shogunate (http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?o2=&o0=1&o7=&o5=&o1=1&o6=&o4=&o3=&s=shogunate), Stalinism (http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?o2=&o0=1&o7=&o5=&o1=1&o6=&o4=&o3=&s=Stalinism), totalitarianism (http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?o2=&o0=1&o7=&o5=&o1=1&o6=&o4=&o3=&s=totalitarianism), tyranny (a form of government in which the ruler is an absolute dictator (not restricted by a constitution or laws or opposition etc.))
S: (http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?o2=&o0=1&o7=&o5=&o1=1&o6=&o4=&o3=&s=tyranny&i=1&h=00#c) (n) absolutism (http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?o2=&o0=1&o7=&o5=&o1=1&o6=&o4=&o3=&s=absolutism), tyranny, despotism (http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?o2=&o0=1&o7=&o5=&o1=1&o6=&o4=&o3=&s=despotism) (dominance through threat of punishment and violence)

Now for the example: (http://www.discussionworldforum.com/forum/showthread.php?p=12339#post12339)
I never said the Athenian democracy was non-tyrannical. That would be absurd. I was pointing out that it was a remarkably complex institution that had some important cultural components to make it work. This particular practice is interesting in that is shows recognition that 'uppity entrepeneurs' are inherently dangerous creatures. ;)

Secondly, the Athenian democracy is significant to history because it actually was a demos - ruled by almost all the male citizens who were not slaves. The lower economic strata of citizens certainly did have a political voice (quite unlike later 'pseudo-democratic' type regimes like Roman Republic or pre-20th century western nations). The Athenian demos was not a stoic collection of wise and educated men. They were a crude mass of the citizenry, barbers and fishmongers, butchers and shoemakers.I don't like deconstructing (especially by using definitions), but I also don't like when themes that have been repeated persistently in our discussions are forgotten or ignored. Maybe it's an honest mistake, but please don't do it again because it makes me feel disappointed since it makes everything we've talked about so far appear to be a waste of time.

In any case, what I'm referring to in this thread is (http://www.discussionworldforum.com/forum/showthread.php?p=14666#post14666):

Who said our modern democratic systems are not thus?

Democracy is certainly a messy system. It just happens to be less ugly, less nasty and less dangerous than every other known system. That's its principal (and only) attraction.

Now if you want, you can claim that power politics (via tyranny) is a legitimate motive or ethic for system design (such as democracy), but power politics is the exact opposite of what liberalism stands for.

[andrewl]

Let's say that a segment of the population has a mental illness that it is either unaware of or embarrassed to recognize, and let's also say that there's a company which advertises according to methods which appeal to people who have this particular mental illness. Maybe it's an addiction disorder, maybe it's a personality disorder, maybe it's a mood disorder, whatever. Doesn't matter.

I remember when mental illness was exclusive something more severe than just a behavior trait. People called it 'retarded'. Those people do not control their own money to any significant extent so advertising is a moot point for them.

But if we really broaden the phrase "mental illness" to just mean behavior disorder its an entirely different thing. The entire population has mental illness by that measure.

Let's also say that this segment of the population prefers certain governmental policies because product usage, when synthesized with their societal niche and mental illness, results in delusional beliefs.

Would you find it justified to temporarily disenfranchise the mentally ill group? If yes, what methods would you use to make sure that special interests aren't manipulating policy? If no, how can the mentally ill group be entitled to damages awarded by the State later if the State isn't willing to preemptively secure equality?

Hmmm, why not just eliminate advertising? Im way more in favor of disenfranchising corporations than i am disenfranchising all of the population.

Besides, how do you weed out the enormous amount of mentally ill people that would be creating and enforcing the policy?

Alternatively, if the above dilemma can't be resolved, why is democracy justifiable and not just strategically advantageous for charismatic tyrants hiding behind appeals to popularity? In otherwords, how is liberalism not just a biased facade for certain interests in power politics (such that the masses who provide popularity are manipulated into believing that they're in alignment with leaders when that actually isn't the case)?

How is anybody at all free of this bias, let alone liberals?

Andrew

[Daktoria]

Well that's the point, if nobody's free of the bias, then nobody should be governing through a democracy. Rather everyone should just be left to their own devices.

I would also like to nationalize advertising, but expropriation violates property rights, so the only way it would be possible is if the mentally ill willingly allowed it which begs the question, "Did they really know what they were getting into?"

[Donkey]

Well that's the point, if nobody's free of the bias, then nobody should be governing through a democracy. Rather everyone should just be left to their own devices.

I would also like to nationalize advertising, but expropriation violates property rights, so the only way it would be possible is if the mentally ill willingly allowed it which begs the question, "Did they really know what they were getting into?"
I guess I'm still unclear as to what you mean by "mentally ill."

Because from what I'm inferring, it seems like humanity is the "illness" to which you are referring, an illness from which your government would apparently be immune.

[Daktoria]

Huh??

[Daktoria]

I guess I'm still unclear as to what you mean by "mentally ill."

Because from what I'm inferring, it seems like humanity is the "illness" to which you are referring, an illness from which your government would apparently be immune.

I don't want this to sit and rot around, so I'll try to explain why I'm confused by what you're saying.

Humanity isn't a disease, and mental illnesses are afflictions that humanity suffers. Note here that I'm referring to a deontological definition of humanity though which qualifies humanity as a characteristic, not as an entity. The human species would instead be referred to as "mankind", so a mental illness would be similar how AIDS affects the immune system or bronchitis affects the respiratory system.

Now ideally speaking, governments wouldn't exist because they're a "necessary" evil due to misunderstandings among verbal and mental languages and the resulting impacts on culture.

Ergo, the first thing we can recognize (for practicality's sake) is that despite how humanity has to be a part of government, this isn't the priority at stake since it would be preferred to have government not exist at all.

Second, mental illnesses reduce our ability to minimize misunderstandings, so it would be... proper (however you want to apply the word "proper" here) to eliminate humanity's afflictions.

Do you understand?

[dilettante]

Well that's the point, if nobody's free of the bias, then nobody should be governing through a democracy. Rather everyone should just be left to their own devices.


Last time there was no government and everyone was "left to their own devices" (which would have been an awfully long time ago), they apparently ended up creating governments, as evidenced by the fact that we have them today. And I'd hazard to say that if most people found themselves suddenly "left to their own devices" they would promptly begin setting up some sort of governing apparatus. It's what we do.

[Daktoria]

Yeah, definitely. It's pretty rational to want the most for doing the least, and organization goes a long way towards providing stability and making culture easy to understand and practice.

Government is also in the eye of the beholder too. I mean sure, we use sovereignty as a benchmark for political governance, but a firm or a science lab or an art group could be considered a government just as well.

The focus here though is on political freedom however, so while it's natural for us to want to organize, legal membranes definitely take place in the political arena. I think it's possible for people to live without political organization as long as culture is comprehensively honest enough, but this will take immense technological strides until it's even possible, and even then, it'll become a matter of not letting technology destroy mankind either through military conflict or pacifist negligence. On one hand, we could end up fighting wars forever out of misunderstandings. On the other, we could let our lives become only a matter of computation from pursuits of truth that don't recognize the value of what truth really is.

Some might say entertainment is the balance between the two that prevents extremes from happening, but I don't agree. Instead, entertainment is an escape that comes at a cost of momentum, and when too much momentum is sacrificed, we either find ourselves flying towards the opposite danger at an unstoppable rate, or we lose the ability to advance efficiently because we correct ourselves so much that we have to rebuild momentum from scratch.

[Michael]

:-\

I didn't quote you because I know you've never used the phrasing I noted word for word (hence why I said, "Michael did when claiming that democracy's legitimacy comes from it being less dangerous," instead of "Michael did when claiming democracy's 'legitimacy' comes from it being less dangerous.").
The reason I asked you to show where I made that statement is because I know I didn't make that kind of statement (since I disagree with it).

I considered that a polite way of denying that I made the statement/argument that you attributed to me (regarding the source of legitimacy of democracy) without directly accusing you of the error. My reply at least offers the possibility that I might be in error with regard to my own consistency (that does happen occasionally!). ;)

Anyway, I certainly do put quite a bit of thought and effort into ensuring that all of my expressed viewpoints are essentially consistent with one another - even spanning across different fields. If I am being inconsistent in any way, I do appreciate it being pointed out. :)


In any case, I looked through our previous threads for a while and found one example that works if we consider the definition of tyranny (http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=tyranny):S: (http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?o2=&o0=1&o7=&o5=&o1=1&o6=&o4=&o3=&s=tyranny&i=0&h=00#c) (n) dictatorship (http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?o2=&o0=1&o7=&o5=&o1=1&o6=&o4=&o3=&s=dictatorship), absolutism (http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?o2=&o0=1&o7=&o5=&o1=1&o6=&o4=&o3=&s=absolutism), authoritarianism (http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?o2=&o0=1&o7=&o5=&o1=1&o6=&o4=&o3=&s=authoritarianism), Caesarism (http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?o2=&o0=1&o7=&o5=&o1=1&o6=&o4=&o3=&s=Caesarism), despotism (http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?o2=&o0=1&o7=&o5=&o1=1&o6=&o4=&o3=&s=despotism), monocracy (http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?o2=&o0=1&o7=&o5=&o1=1&o6=&o4=&o3=&s=monocracy), one-man rule (http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?o2=&o0=1&o7=&o5=&o1=1&o6=&o4=&o3=&s=one-man+rule), shogunate (http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?o2=&o0=1&o7=&o5=&o1=1&o6=&o4=&o3=&s=shogunate), Stalinism (http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?o2=&o0=1&o7=&o5=&o1=1&o6=&o4=&o3=&s=Stalinism), totalitarianism (http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?o2=&o0=1&o7=&o5=&o1=1&o6=&o4=&o3=&s=totalitarianism), tyranny (a form of government in which the ruler is an absolute dictator (not restricted by a constitution or laws or opposition etc.))
S: (http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?o2=&o0=1&o7=&o5=&o1=1&o6=&o4=&o3=&s=tyranny&i=1&h=00#c) (n) absolutism (http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?o2=&o0=1&o7=&o5=&o1=1&o6=&o4=&o3=&s=absolutism), tyranny, despotism (http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?o2=&o0=1&o7=&o5=&o1=1&o6=&o4=&o3=&s=despotism) (dominance through threat of punishment and violence)

Now for the example: (http://www.discussionworldforum.com/forum/showthread.php?p=12339#post12339)
I never said the Athenian democracy was non-tyrannical. That would be absurd. I was pointing out that it was a remarkably complex institution that had some important cultural components to make it work. This particular practice is interesting in that is shows recognition that 'uppity entrepeneurs' are inherently dangerous creatures. ;)

Secondly, the Athenian democracy is significant to history because it actually was a demos - ruled by almost all the male citizens who were not slaves. The lower economic strata of citizens certainly did have a political voice (quite unlike later 'pseudo-democratic' type regimes like Roman Republic or pre-20th century western nations). The Athenian demos was not a stoic collection of wise and educated men. They were a crude mass of the citizenry, barbers and fishmongers, butchers and shoemakers.

I don't like deconstructing (especially by using definitions), but I also don't like when themes that have been repeated persistently in our discussions are forgotten or ignored. Maybe it's an honest mistake, but please don't do it again because it makes me feel disappointed since it makes everything we've talked about so far appear to be a waste of time.

In any case, what I'm referring to in this thread is
(http://www.discussionworldforum.com/forum/showthread.php?p=14666#post14666):

Now if you want, you can claim that power politics (via tyranny) is a legitimate motive or ethic for system design (such as democracy), but power politics is the exact opposite of what liberalism stands for.
You've got to slow down a bit - you are making some big jumps here that are not logically justified. :erm:

The statement that I made...

Who said our modern democratic systems are not thus?

Democracy is certainly a messy system. It just happens to be less ugly, less nasty and less dangerous than every other known system. That's its principal (and only) attraction.

... definitely does not constitute a formal reply to the question of the source of legitimacy of democracy, nor a formal statement of my understanding upon that issue.

That statement is rather my own subjective/personal justification for why I generally accept/support our modern-representative style democratic system.

I might add that the idea that I might agree with the argument "... that power politics (via tyranny) is a legitimate motive or ethic for system design (such as democracy)..." is so far opposite of everything else I've ever said upon the topic, that I could not have imagined that you would take such an interpretation from my words. If I left that interpretation open, that is my error for not forclosing it completely in advance.

Secondly, with regard to 'system design' let me say that modern representative democracy is one thing, ancient Greek democracy is another. They are conceptually related, but they are very different in many ways. I might note here that one of the few things that is common to both systems is that there was no single 'creator/designer' for either the ancient Greek model or our modern representative system. Both evolved over periods of centuries in bits and pieces (and fits and starts).

(another thing that is common to both systems is that they are both, 'superior to their contemporaries')

Thirdly, I must point out that any statements that I may make with regard to ancient Athenian democracy cannot in any way be assumed to stand or hold true with respect to the elected-representative-systems that are commonly used in most contemporary western nations. The two types of government share the common name of "democracy", but the systems are very different in every way. The term "liberalism" for example, is meaningless in the context of ancient Athenian democracy and is entirely a product of the modern system.

Finally, I'd like to add that I believe the legitimacy of our modern representative-based governmental system is officially and formally predicated upon the rule of law and the active consent of the governed. The legitimacy of the ancient Athenian demos was different.

[Michael]

Well that's the point, if nobody's free of the bias, then nobody should be governing through a democracy. Rather everyone should just be left to their own devices.
That doesn't logically follow. :ummm:

If nobody is free of the bias, then all governments and/or all private enterprises will be effected by that bias (by definition). Your point is moot.

I would also like to nationalize advertising, but expropriation violates property rights, so the only way it would be possible is if the mentally ill willingly allowed it which begs the question, "Did they really know what they were getting into?"
Nationalize all media communications?

Are you suggesting that the government ought to nationalize the media because a majority (or all) of the citizenry are idiots and/or mentally ill and thus cannot behave themselves correctly? :eek:

And if democracy is inappropriate, then who do you suggest ought to control/run the government - especially with control of the nation's media thrown in as a bonus? :ummm:

[Michael]

I guess I'm still unclear as to what you mean by "mentally ill."
Ditto.

[Daktoria]

I might add that the idea that I might agree with the argument "... that power politics (via tyranny) is a legitimate motive or ethic for system design (such as democracy)..." is so far opposite of everything else I've ever said upon the topic, that I could not have imagined that you would take such an interpretation from my words. If I left that interpretation open, that is my error for not forclosing it completely in advance.

Secondly, with regard to 'system design' let me say that modern representative democracy is one thing, ancient Greek democracy is another. They are conceptually related, but they are very different in many ways. I might note here that one of the few things that is common to both systems is that there was no single 'creator/designer' for either the ancient Greek model or our modern representative system. Both evolved over periods of centuries in bits and pieces (and fits and starts).

(another thing that is common to both systems is that they are both, 'superior to their contemporaries')

Thirdly, I must point out that any statements that I may make with regard to ancient Athenian democracy cannot in any way be assumed to stand or hold true with respect to the elected-representative-systems that are commonly used in most contemporary western nations. The two types of government share the common name of "democracy", but the systems are very different in every way. The term "liberalism" for example, is meaningless in the context of ancient Athenian democracy and is entirely a product of the modern system.

Finally, I'd like to add that I believe the legitimacy of our modern representative-based governmental system is officially and formally predicated upon the rule of law and the active consent of the governed. The legitimacy of the ancient Athenian demos was different.

You believe that modern democracy represents a social contract then, or is it legitimate because of regular participation? I thought that Athenian democracy's legitimacy came from regular participation, no?

That doesn't logically follow.

If nobody is free of the bias, then all governments and/or all private enterprises will be effected by that bias (by definition). Your point is moot.

It's a matter of accountability. A biased institution that has indirect participation and violable security (equity and debt such as that exchanged from taxes and promised from citizenry) can't be held accountable. A biased institution that has direct participation and inviolable security can be held accountable.

Now granted it's impossible to completely guarantee contracts and property rights at all levels because there's always the potential to backstab, but again, this is a criticism of liberalism I'm offering against the suggestion that macroscopic governance can fix human nature. Maybe democracy is preferable from a strategic standpoint, but that would be democratic realpolitik instead of democratic liberalism.

Unfortunately, without liberalism, the question of "Why is equality legitimate?" gets tossed in the air. Again, we could say that it's a matter of strategy rather than justice such that democracy is used to mediate between mutual parties behind a veil of ignorance in original position (see Rawls' distributive justice), but this still remains a route for pursuing strategy, not the rule of law.

Is the rule of law anything more than the rule of man? Well if it's not, why do we even refer to the rule of "law" then? It would be an inefficient usage of resources in administration and even in reference (since appreciating ideologies takes up mental resources), inefficiency being something that strategic national interests should avoid.

Nationalize all media communications?

Are you suggesting that the government ought to nationalize the media because a majority (or all) of the citizenry are idiots and/or mentally ill and thus cannot behave themselves correctly?

And if democracy is inappropriate, then who do you suggest ought to control/run the government - especially with control of the nation's media thrown in as a bonus?

Consumer sovereignty is the priority, and it's not all media. Only private advertising would be illegal.

To me, advertising is like citing yourself in a piece of literature, it's plagiarism because you're fooling the reader into believing that your information came from reliable authorities...

...and on top of that, it steals from the time and money you're dedicating to be entertained and informed, theft because it's unexpected and catches you by surprise when you experience it. Sure, we all become accustomed to it after it's taken place for so long, but it's still theft nonetheless.