[lit-ideas] Re: Giving Thanksgiving/Adorno and TAP
- From: Omar Kusturica <omarkusto@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 6 Dec 2010 07:49:33 -0800 (PST)
Perhaps I should modify to say that: "The concept of dictatorship entails
ruling without express consent of the people." A dictator who happens to be
supported by the majority of the populace but does not hold elections, i.e.
does not seek their express consent is still a dictator. But if he then decides
to hold elections, and gets elected regularly, he is at that point in time no
longer a dictator.
For example, it seems to me that George Bush Jr. was arguably a dictator during
his first term in office because he had either not obtained the support of the
majority of the voters or at least it was not clear that he did. But in the
second term he got elected, so shall we say that at that point "The people
voted for dictatorship" or that at that point he ceased to be a dictator ? It
seems to me that the latter makes sense.
"Clearly it is not logically possible to _simultaneously_ consent and to not
consent to 'X', and so 'X' cannot be done _simultaneously_ with and also
without the consent of the same individual or body. "
*I'd say that is pretty clear.
"This does not mean it is not logically possible for the same individual or
body to consent to an ongoing 'X' at some point and to withdraw their consent
at a later point."
*That is of course possible, and I already pointed out that at that point the
electee would indeed become a dicator.
O. Kusturica
--- On Mon, 12/6/10, Donal McEvoy <donalmcevoyuk@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
From: Donal McEvoy <donalmcevoyuk@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Giving Thanksgiving/Adorno and TAP
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Monday, December 6, 2010, 2:23 PM
--- On Mon, 6/12/10, Omar Kusturica <omarkusto@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> It seems to me that the people who voted for "dictatorship" would in effect
> be voting for authoritarian government.>
As some would say we can have a liberal or benign 'dictator'/unelected
government and can have an elected government that is "authoritarian", it might
be best to rephrase this:- the people who voted for 'dictatorship' would be
voting to elect a government that they could not then elect to remove by vote.
This, I suggest, may be foolish of the people but it does not constitute a
logical paradox any more than the act of suicide, or making a gift.
> The concept of dictatorship entails ruling without the consent of the people,>
Again I would suggest a rephrase: a benign dictator might decide that his rule
would be with the "consent of the people" [i.e./e.g. the majority], so
dictatorship does not entail [necessitate] that rule be without the consent of
the people. What it does 'entail' is that the dictator cannot be removed by
electoral vote.
> which means that the people cannot logically give consent to being ruled
>without their consent.
As the premise is false, this does not follow from the "concept of
dictatorship". Is it true anyway that "the people cannot logically give consent
to being ruled without their consent"? If it appears so, it is only because the
proposition "the people cannot logically give consent to being ruled without
their consent" is unclear: it is unclear, for example, as to whether the first
consent is "simultaneous" to "without consent". Clearly it is not logically
possible to _simultaneously_ consent and to not consent to 'X', and so 'X'
cannot be done _simultaneously_ with and also without the consent of the same
individual or body. This does not mean it is not logically possible for the
same individual or body to consent to an ongoing 'X' at some point and to
withdraw their consent at a later point.
Therefore,"giving consent to being ruled without...consent" must mean "giving
consent at some point to be ruled thereafter without further consent." To avoid
the apparent paradox that what is done "without further consent" has been
previously consented to, we need to distinguish the two consents - one is as it
were a 'meta-consent' to a "without further consent". This does not give rise
to a logical paradox anymore than making a gift: for me to make a valid gift to
you I must own the relevant property and consent to make the gift, but having
made the gift I no longer own the property and can no longer consent to make a
gift of it: the exercise of the power to make a gift of 'x', destroys the power
to make a gift of 'x'.
Would say more, but must go now.
Donal
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
Other related posts:
