Connie's political theory

The phrase "all men are created equal" had to be stated flatly in various political documents because, functionally, men are not created equal. But the hierarchies of perceived ability and privilege have a nasty tendency to treat those of less ability and privilege as sub-creatures. The mob-rule of pure democracy also has its downsides, which is why it's a good thing when major issues can't be decided by who yells the loudest.

I'm smarter than 90% of hte people out there, maybe more. Depends on who I run across on my morning commute. But that moronic idiot who passed me, weaved into the fast lane, then crossed three lanes of traffic to the exit still gets a voice in whatever debate comes up.

Cabals/core groups with special privileges that transcend practical responsibilities/inner circles rarely benefit a community at large.

The above is the opinion of connie neil, unsuspecting populist, who gets a nasty lump in her gut when people start saying "Well, of course, some of us deserve a bigger say because, you know, we care more than the other people etc."

The phrase "all men are created equal" is actually true, but it requires one to be using very specific, very steeped-in-law-and-natural-rights definitions for both the words "men" and "equal". It doesn't mean that the comatose somehow get to vote, and it doesn't refer to equality of wealth or intelligence or even of opportunity.

Yes, I do spend a lot of time reading libertarian theory. What of it?

That article was indeed fascinating. However, I belong to one group (on Shirky's dead Usenet, no less!) that, as far as I can tell, has barely had minor back pains over almost any of the things discussed in the article. The elders became the elders-with-authority (mostly unspoken) without a big argument, no one was ever dying for moderation, etc. It's almost enough to make me wish that I had the drive to examine it further.

I'm smarter than 90% of hte people out there, maybe more. Depends on who I run across on my morning commute. But that moronic idiot who passed me, weaved into the fast lane, then crossed three lanes of traffic to the exit still gets a voice in whatever debate comes up.

In a democracy - a people governed government? Absolutely. In a social group? Not so sure. Think about your meat-space circle of friends. It's quite likely that not just anyone is welcome. If the circle is an extremely open one, it's still more likely than not, that some people who are introduced into it are not going to fit. Most of them will leave on their own, or not even get to the point where their absence is noticed. Mary Sue came to a party, but nobody invited her to any more, and she didn't fish for invitations, either. The ones who don't fit but don't seem to realize it on their own, will be marginalized by the group to the point that, even if they continue to hang on, their presence will hold little-to-no sway over the workings of the group (except in a passive way, because the group has to sort of enact work-arounds, to make sure the the non-fitter doesn't have much sway over the group).

Cabals/core groups with special privileges that transcend practical responsibilities/inner circles rarely benefit a community at large.

Again, in a government sense, I agree. In a social sense, I can't even think of an instance of any social group of my acquaintance that doesn't have core members. Old members will leave the core; new(er) ones will be accepted into it, but there are always the planners, the star attractions, and the special helper sorts of people that have more group-cred, because of who they are and what they do. It's not always/usually conscious. It's not always/usually intentional. It's just so. It's social politics.

It's social politics

And Cindy sums up how I feel pretty nicely. Buffistas is not a government, it's a social group. What leaves a horribly bitter taste in my mouth and has caused me great pain is the forced government. Self-government, where all citizens can vote, and citizenship is determined only by the ability to register, gives me a squick. It's like if I'm sitting at Mel's having dinner with two friends, and four strangers slide up at my table and by way of majority, can determine whether we're going to a movie, or dancing at a club. Maybe my friends and I hate dancing, but the majority has spoken and is now in charge of my social group.

"Well, of course, some of us deserve a bigger say because, you know, we care more than the other people etc."

"Deserve" is the wrong word, though. "The core members of a community are the people in the community who care more about the community than other people" is an observation, not a commandment.

But that moronic idiot who passed me, weaved into the fast lane, then crossed three lanes of traffic to the exit still gets a voice in whatever debate comes up.

And technically, any moron with an email address can have a voice in this thread too. But there's no way you can tell me that an opinion voiced by someone I interact with daily in multiple threads isn't going to carry more weight than an opinion voiced by someone whose name I don't recognize. There's nothing explicit or objective about it, it's just an aspect of social interaction.

So, has a Tim thread been opened? Or is it for a later date?

The proposal said:

If the proposed thread passes, it will be added to the Phoenix the first week of August 2003, at the convenience of the sexiest Stompy.

Ah. Details. I should pay attention to them.

I'm sorry I kept it a wee bit vague. I wanted it to be convenient, and not be all, "IT WILL OPEN AT 2:23AM ON AUGUST 4th, OR ALL HELL WILL BREAK LOOSE!" It's pretty much whomever is around when thread title is decided.

But how do we decide "sexiest stompie"? By voting?

ducks and runs from the room