the success of a democracy depends on the free exchange of ideas

[osgart]

we dont have a free one thing in america today. America has become a world of strangers.
Its only when citizens speak out that democracy comes alive. Today is like the civil war in principle and there are two sides of the fence. Each side so vastly different and im glad they choose to fight this war civil style as there would be no america if it came to bloodshed.

[henry quirk]

the success of a democracy depends on the free exchange of ideas

Mebbe so, but America ain't a democracy; America is a constitutional republic (wherein democratic process is one of the means by which governance/proxyhood gets done).

As for 'free exchanges': I'm all for 'em, except when I'm not.

Example: the preacher/LGBT promoter/Black Lives Matter advocate/etc. stands on the corner belchin' it out. As long as I have the option of walkin' away, not listening, they can belch it out all night long and into the next day. They can exchange and converse and debate with any they like (including me) if they understand this exchange is voluntary.

Block my departure, force the conversation, and things move from free exchange to intrusion...and I got a problem with that.

So, the success of America depends not on the free exchange but the exercised option to walk away from the exchange.

[Hobbes' Choice]

the success of a democracy depends on the free exchange of ideas

Mebbe so, but America ain't a democracy; America is a constitutional republic (wherein democratic process is one of the means by which governance/proxyhood gets done).

As for 'free exchanges': I'm all for 'em, except when I'm not.

Example: the preacher/LGBT promoter/Black Lives Matter advocate/etc. stands on the corner belchin' it out.

No you'd prefer a blond wigged, racist, pervert misogynist, narcissistic pr1ck, spewing his vile bullshit,get a national platform via Fox News

[henry quirk]

What I would have preferred were better candidates.

What I would have preferred was an option to say no to all of them (binding NOTA).

What I had was a choice between a pit-bull and a parasite.

I chose the pit-bull.

Now: go fuck yourself.

[surreptitious57]

we dont have a free one thing in america today. America has become a world of strangers
Its only when citizens speak out that democracy comes alive. Today is like the civil war in principle and there are two sides of the fence
Each side so vastly different and im glad they choose to fight this war civil style as there would be no america if it came to bloodshed

The war is not being fought in a civil way particularly since the result and there has already been bloodshed as a consequence
As the right of some to peacefully express their opinion is being severely compromised by those who do not share that opinion

[osgart]

Thats a good point. Is that human nature? Or merely the consequences of the times where people choose to be that way?
For if we choose to tolerate peoples ideas than somewhere someone will put forth good ones amongst the bad. Yet people are so totally different the hate between refuses to regard the other. There are two different consensus out there liberals and conservatives.
Totally different rules of law they both are. I wish that their were more to choose from that represented a total difference than the two sides. So i do wonder is there more out there that dont have a voice?

[Hobbes' Choice]

What I would have preferred were better candidates.

What I would have preferred was an option to say no to all of them (binding NOTA).

What I had was a choice between a pit-bull and a parasite.

I chose the pit-bull.

Now: go fuck yourself.

A parasite controlled buy a government of hounds is safer that a pit-bull with a pack of hounds behind him, p****.
I think you have already fucked yourself, idiot. So there is no need to return your insult.

[prothero]

The success of a democracy depends on an involved and informed electorate. Unfortunately, we have problems in both areas. Somewhat fewer than 50 of voting age eligible Americans, vote or are even registered. The majority of voters are older and white. Groups underrepresented in voting are the young and minorities (especially Hispanic and Asian American). Many states (under the control of Republican legislatures) are making it harder to vote using the excuse of preventing voter fraud (by all objective reports a virtually non existent phenomena). The problem is not voter fraud but lack of voter participation. The Supreme Court has removed Key provisions of the Voting Rights Act. Partisan legislatures gerrymander congressional districts in a shameless way creating "safe" districts for their party.

Media is splintered and it is hard to tell fact from fiction, and opinion from fact. In politics it seems perception is fact, traditional news media, investigative reporting, science, and even statistics not withstanding.

The Founding Fathers were not fans of universal suffrage or direct democracy. Hence the electoral college, the election of Senators by state legislatures (changed in 1913) and several other constitutional provisions creating a representational republic not a true democracy. I personally am not a fan of universal suffrage but if that is what we are going to give lip service to, then I think we should make it easier to register and vote and not create false
barriers to voting under the guise of "preventing voter fraud" or deliberately misleading the public about the the true state of the economy and the world.

[henry quirk]

Dear Hobbes,

Please, live long enough (four years will do) to see yourself wrong, then die (slowly, painfully).

[bobevenson]

The success of the world depends on a free market.

[Science Fan]

The "success" of a democracy is the same as the success for anything else --- getting it right. If the outcomes of a democratic process were consistent with the facts of reality, and also led to an efficient attainment of rational goals, then we could state that a democracy was successful. The exchange of ideas merely refers to a process, not the ultimate outcome, and there is no reason to believe that a free exchange of ideas leads to successful outcomes.

[Fred Gohlke]

Good Morning, Osgart

"The success of a democracy depends on the free exchange of ideas" is an important observation. I'm surprised no-one on the thread mentioned the importance of the circumstances under which the free exchange takes place.

To have a value in a democracy, the exchange of ideas must have a purpose relating to the government and must take place in an environment conducive to thoughtful discourse. If we are to create an environment in which democracy is practical, we must create a framework in which citizens are encouraged to discuss their political concerns with their peers.

If anyone has an interest in creating such a framework, I hope they will suggest approaches that we can examine in detail.

Fred Gohlke

[Science Fan]

Fred: Why not use the scientific method for the evaluation of political claims, at least with respect to the relevant factual issues? For the moral issues, why not use something like the framework that ethical decisions are made in medical-ethics, where many different people from relevant perspectives exchange ideas in trying to form a consensus? These are at least two frameworks that have been successfully used regarding factual issues about the world around us and even moral issues that affect people's medical care.

The problem is that in applying these frameworks on a national level, it seems that not everyone would be able to participate. But, if people could be made aware of the success of frameworks like these, they could at least opt to use such frameworks as private individuals, in deciding what political positions to take on a national level.

Just a thought.

[Fred Gohlke]

Good Morning, Science Fan

It seems like a good thought to me. I can't say I'm certain about the mechanics of 'scientific method'. Can you give me a simple outline of how the exchanges are organized? Can they be adapted to a political setting?

Along this line, Esterling, Fung and Lee have shown the potential for such an arrangement in their report on Knowledge Inequality and Empowerment in Small Deliberative Groups:

Many deliberative theorists assume that inequality is fatal for constructive deliberative discourse. Using data from a randomized experiment, we demonstrate that, in contrast to this expectation, satisfaction with deliberation is maximized at moderate levels of knowledge disparities, and this view is shared both by those with low initial levels of knowledge as well as those with high initial levels. One discursive mechanism consistent with this result is that knowledge inequality causes debate participants to more fully explain the background assumptions and logic of their arguments, premises that might remain implicit in the absence of inequality. These results suggest that under the right circumstances deliberation can empower those at the low end of the knowledge distribution; a well-designed deliberation can help to address and remedy one of the most basic barriers to constructive discourse.

Their work is available on the Social Science Research Network, at:

http://ssrn.com/abstract=1902664

I agree that trying to arrange such a process on a national level would be fruitless. As Tip O'Neill, former Speaker of the House, said, "all politics is local". Can we consider implementing a deliberative process in a (relatively) small community? If the concept is sound (as I believe it to be), it will be honed and used by other communities.

The evolution of democracy is a slow process. This could be one, tiny incremental step in that evolution.

Fred Gohlke

[Gustav Bjornstrand]

To have a value in a democracy, the exchange of ideas must have a purpose relating to the government and must take place in an environment conducive to thoughtful discourse. If we are to create an environment in which democracy is practical, we must create a framework in which citizens are encouraged to discuss their political concerns with their peers.

If anyone has an interest in creating such a framework, I hope they will suggest approaches that we can examine in detail.

My first reaction is skeptical: It seems an homest statement to say that 'democracy' is a rather false-concept isnofar as the US, for example, cannot in truth be thought of as a genuine democracy, yet it refers to democracy in every political utterance. What it actually is, is harder to define. So, one has to produce an example of a democratic society and then see how 'the free exchange of ideas' works within it. It is a platitude of sorts to refer to sloganism such as 'the free exchange of ideas' when, it may be just as true, a given political system --- psuedo-democratic or democratic in appearance --- may in fact require limiting the exchange of ideas if the exchanged ideas are not of the proper, condoned sort.

But even the term 'democracy' would need to be analyzed more carefully. The Cantons of Switzerland are said to be democratic, but they are just so because they are local and comprised of individuals who share a region, its concerns , needs and ideals. You could not have a national Canton therefor, and in a vastly huge nation as is the US, you cannot really envision 'democracy' unless power is really and truly brought down to a local level.

Media systems are by this definition non-democratic unless they were located directly at a regional level.

In a sense it is democracy which is the source of tremendous and even irreconcilable problems and divisions that can only be bridged (read: stifled) by a powerful national government. Right now, it has been said, the crises of the present in the US are related at least to a large extent to democratic issues, insofar as discreet peoples are advocating, democratically, for their unique interests. A strengthening of democracy might lead to the breakdown of national power. This seems to be the case. Too much disparity in a republic, and too much democracy, will inevitably lead to divisiveness.

Although the democratic forms, and especially the well thought-out American forms (Constitutional design of Government), are worthy indeed, it is not democracy in and of itself that is required for a nation or group of persons to be united and joined in similar desire or of values. What is it in such a group that united? A shared vision? A shared understanding? It could also be similarity of kind (as with the rise of certain expressions of nationalism in our present). These are democratic, certainly, but not 'democratic' in the sense that the term is often misunderstood (or misrepresented).