Question: Is it possible to have a democratic forum and still not permit everyone to participate in it? In other words, how can we call a forum democratic if we put a restriction on its access? Is it not contradictory?
Before answering this question in a more technical way, let me paraphrase a story about Mahadev's boon and Bhasmasur's penance. Mahadev, who is also called Ashutosh because of his propensity to be pleased quickly, had a reputation of giving unconditional blessing to anyone provided the person made him happy. Bhasmasur, a sly demon, knew this idiosyncrasy of the god of Gods and decided to get a blessing from him by undertaking a very severe form of penance for many years. Mahadev, seeing his bhakta's sacrifice, ultimately became pleased and asked him if he wished any boon. Bhasmasur asked, "Can you give me anything that I asked?". Mahadev said, "Yes, anything". Bhasmasur then said, "I want a power to destroy the person on whose head I put my hand". Mahadev was about to give this boon to Bhasmasur but Bishnu, who was watching all this from his palace in Baikuntha, understood the malicious intent of Bhasmasur. He knew that Bhasmasur would use the power given by Mahadev to destroy Mahadev hismself. So, he descended to Kailash from Baikuntha and winked at Mahadev. However, Mahadev, being Mahadev, gave the boon to Bhasmasur without considering the consequences. Bishnu then felt the need to rectify this mistake immediately and took recourse in a ruse. He mockingly said to Bhasmasur, "You have been deceived by Mahadev as he has not given you any such power. You can verify it by putting your hand over your head." Bhasmasur did what Bishnu suggested and became a pile of dust in no time.
Yo ta bhayo pauranik kaalko Mahadev ra Bhasmasur ko katha. Do we have any thing similar to that in our time? I believe Arrow's Impossibility Theorem pertaing to democracy is one such story. Arrow in his PhD thesis demonstrated that it is not possible to include everyone's preferences even in a democratic system. That is, even a democratic system, is not necessarily fair to everyone.
From a systems perspective, it is evident that the degree of openness (or closeness) of a system is only a relative one. A completely open system is an ideal system. One must impose boundary in such a system before it can be studied or managed.
Even open source systems in computing need to agree on some fundamental standards. Without such protocols, it is not possible for them to manage their complexity and evolve.
==========================================
Just because that a forum imposes certain restrictions or requirements does not necessarily mean that the forum is undemocratic. As long as such stipulations do not contradict the underlying democratic values, it is entirely possible to impose those restrictions and yet have a democratic system. Since democracy itself is a system, it must have a set of its rules and boundary. The decision where to put the boundary depends on the intended level of organizational complexity though.
nepe, i am not sure what the source of the confusion is...if i can think of something i will let you know...else i will let it go...let it go...let it go....
very interesting, Zalim:
"... the main source of the paradox is that preferences are not cardinal. if there were an absolute measure of utility (perhaps something what teh communists say, like everyone shoud prefer this to that..), the problem would not arise. say X=1 and Y=2 and Z=3 and that the numbers represent absolute utilities for everyone in society..."
- I don't think having a cardinal preference Necessarity guarantees a solution.
- When you assign numbers to x, y and z, I think you are confusing preferences with utility. Now, granted they are very closely related, but they are not the same. Perhaps, you wanted to say x yields a utility(whatver the heck that is) of 1 and so on. This still does not solve the paradox. The problem is that people have different preferences, a.k.a. in your parlance, it yields different levels of utility to different people. So say, if x > y and y > z for person1, s/he gets utils of 3, 2 and 1 from x, y and z respectively. We have now rephrased the paradox, but paradox it remains.
- Ok, if one person says everyone should prefer A to B (perhaps because s/he prefers A to B) then that person is a "dictator" in Arrow's world. And that is precisely his impossibility - it is impossible to find a consistent method of picking the best alternatives (when they number more than 3) without a dictator. (of course his work has a lot of bells and whistles.)
But some might wish to state it as a POSSIBILITY result though : It is possible to find a consistent method of picking the best alternative if there is a dictator.
Basically, if you want a consistent method, you've got to have a dictator.
Although I do not support (or oppose) Nepe's distracters, here's a quote by Nepe:
" Should a democracy include a voice for a dictatorship as a dissenting voice ?"
I take it is rhetorical question but I would like to answer it anyway. And it is a BIG OF COURSE!
hehe, that's what its all about.
what more, what i was saying was that you ascribe a certain utility to the consumption of a particular good or service. x=1, y=2 and z=3 in my example above. x, y and z's are the goods. the numbers are the cardinal and absolute utilities gained from the consumption of those goods. in your example, people have different preferences for different things. for example, 1 prefers x to y and y to z, and so on.....what i am saying is actually very simple.... if utilities were cardinal and absoute, for example, then everyone would have the exact same preference structures (or were forced to consume goods based on a pre-defined structure by the state). everyone would say that red cars give a utility of 1, green cars a utility of 2 and tan cars a utility of 3...
in other words, the preference structure you show for the three individuals would not be possible, and this probelm would not arise. of course we are all different and have different preferences, which is why the problem becomes interesting...
Keep arguing...
He He He, Shree.
Okay, this is to Whatmore-jee. No, it's not.
>" Should a democracy include a voice for a dictatorship as a dissenting voice ?"
>I take it is rhetorical question but I would like to answer it anyway. And it is a BIG OF >COURSE!
>hehe, that's what its all about.
Hmmm.. that's what its [democracy is] all about.
Here is the catch. For a democracy to include a voice for a dictatorship as a dissenting voice, what we will need is, what else, "a voice for a dictatorship as a dissenting voice" itself.
Now, can a voice for a dictatorship be a dissenting voice ? That was my second question.
By definition, a voice for a dictatorship is a DICTATING voice, not a DISSENTING voice.
(supporters of Feb 1 are not putting it in a poll and asking for support. They want it to be supported just like that).
So, the question becomes, " Should a democracy include a voice for a dictatorship as a DICTATING voice ?"
This time you can not answer- " a BIG OF COURSE", Whatmore-jee. Or can you ?
Nepe
Democracy and Dictatorship being mutually exclusive, the questions itself begs to be rephrased.
>Democracy and Dictatorship being mutually exclusive, .....
That's the sanest thing I ever read. Thank you, Saroj.
Now, all those pro-Feb 1 Sajhaites who have been claiming that they are just exercising their DEMOCRATIC right to support the King's current DICTATORSHIP must be in a difficult position.
"So, the question becomes, " Should a democracy include a voice for a dictatorship as a
DICTATING voice ?"
lol... it's got the indications of being another "there are unknown unknowns...." :-p
however,
of course it should. everybody should have a say and the people should decide what they think is the best... otherwise, you'll exclude an arbitrarily large group of population... "dictatorship"/"dictating" are all relative terms... and the people [not someone bigger!] should be entitled to demystify them... otherwise how do you decide who's a dictator and who isn't? :-)
zalim-ji, i agree. if everybody had the same preferences (or derived the same utility from a given thing), there would be no social problem.
Nepe-ji,
"By definition, a voice for a dictatorship is a DICTATING voice, not a DISSENTING voice."
Imagine a situation. Two hours from now, you and me get a Democratic Republic Nepal by some magic. You are all happy and all, dancing and what not. I pipe up, "This system is foul. There is no discipline. There should be a Superior Human here who controls and disciplines everyone."
That is a voice for dictatorship. Should the Democratic Republic kill me or banish me?
I do not understand why a voice for a dictatorship has to be a dictating voice.
"I do not understand why a voice for a dictatorship has to be a dictating voice."
Perhaps the idea is that the proponents of a "dictatorship" know of no other way? But even then, they should be just as allowed to present their case for consideration.
is that you talking or me, Echoes? I can't tell the difference!
>otherwise how do you decide who's a dictator and who isn't? :-)
That's exactly my point. Before a poll, there is nobody to judge who is who and what is what. So, it is up to the" voice for dictatorship" itself to decide whether it wants to present it as a dissenting voice (meaning it agrees to honor the voice of the majority when a poll occurs) or a dictating voice (meaning it does not agree to honor the voice of the majority).
If the voice for a dictatorship present itself as a dissenting voice, then it does not contradict with democracy at all. Because the dictatorship it is talking about it is not really a dictatorship.
So, the essence of this argument is that this so called pro-dictatorship voice has to accept the basic norm of democracy (honoring the voice of majority) in order to be included in a democracy.
If they do not accept that basic norm and yet are included in a democracy, then it is clear that the democracy has recognized the pro-dictatorship as a "dissenting voice" irrespective of later's view.
Either way, a voice recognized as a dictating voice can not be included in a democracy.
My 2 paisa.
a dictatorship of the majority voice = democracy
dictatorship of the majority voice + justice to the minority voice = liberal democracy
(as it stands now amongst the intellectuals)
1. well, so in simple terms, i *think* what you are meaning to say is whether an identifiable dictatorship should be allowed in a democracy. of course not. at that point it ceases to be a democracy. (example, current nepal)
2. but within its framework, a democracy *has* to include any and all voices (gotta learn some lessons from the decades of not doing this!).
so i guess there're no disagreements. misunderstandings perhaps.
Misunderstanding, yes. But not on our part. We, the democrats, accept even the voice for a dictatorship, recognizing it as a "dissenting" voice, whether they like or not. Misunderstanding is on part of those who would like to represent the voice for a dictatorship.
eheh. well i thought some of us did misunderstand some of what you said... hope that doesn't make us anti-democracy :-p
i don't want to represent the voice of a dictatorship. but i consider it my परम् कर्तव्य to ensure space for someone who does. i am all confused now. i don't know if i am a democrat or not. but i sure as hell ain't an intellectual. hehehe.
I was not talking about messangers. I was talking about real representatives. साथीहरु त्यसै उतर्सिन्छन् बा :-(
haha, nepe daju, it's all cool.. however, you can't call everyone who questions you a messenger of the dictator ni! a lot of us like to question in good faith! :-)
Please log in to reply to this post
You can also log in using your Facebook
