|
May 16, 2007
delegating thought to committee-loving authorities?
Thought is not democratic. That might look strange, but there it is. I say this because the opponents of free and independent thinking often utilize the trappings of democracy to stifle an individual's thought. They forget that in a free society, authority -- whether elected, appointed, or popularly acclaimed -- does not convey authority over any individual's thoughts. It may sound painfully obvious in theory, but in practice the authoritarians just don't get it. Authoritarian. There's an emotionally loaded word. These days, the people who use it are often referring to Republicans, especially Republicans they deem fascists or pseudo-fascists. You don't want to be called an authoritarian, because it's almost as bad as being called a racist. Yet if you look carefully, it's usually quite apparent that the people who devote their time calling people authoritarians and racists believe very much in authority (particularly of themselves and those they support), as well as systems of identity politics which classify people according to their race and reward some races more than others. This is not to say that there aren't right wing authoritarians, because there are. But to call it a right wing phenomenon is about as illogical as calling racism a right wing phenomenon. Authority is by no means limited to people elected to office. It often takes the form of people who have apparent authority to speak for others -- especially in organizations. Such people can be more tyrannical than elected officials, because they often gain authority by a willingness to attend endless meetings -- which the people they purport to "lead" do not have time to attend. Thus, individual members of professional organizations can end up discovering that they are being spoken for by people they'd never paid attention to before, and in many cases never heard of. If you're a pediatrician who also belongs to the NRA, you might be shocked to discover that your professional organization favors disarming gun-owning citizens who made the mistake of having children. I'm a dues-paying member of the California Bar Association, and I am sure I would be at least as shocked to discover what is being advocated in "my" name as a growing group of California veterinarians recently were when they discovered that "their" organization supported California's draconian AB 1634 (the mandatory spay neuter bill, which I have discussed in more posts than I can readily count). From their recent letter in opposition to the bill: ....We also object to the involvement of our state veterinary association, WITHOUT the input of members.In this instance, the authoritarians are (IMO) a very few veterinarian activists who claim to speak for a group of people who simply practice veterinary medicine, but who never imagined that by doing so, they were giving up any right to think for themselves -- which includes the right to support or oppose legislation. Yet this law, if passed, would go further, and by intruding on their right to practice veterinary medicine as they see fit, it would intrude on their individual consciences, and individual sense of ethics. I think it's tyrannical, and I'm glad I'm not a California veterinarian, or I might lose my license by encouraging or advocating illegal conduct. Fortunately, there's no such organizational tyranny or ethical codes in the blogosphere, although some self-appointed wannabe authoritarian types have tried to create it. (My reactions are here and here, and I especially liked Jeff Jarvis's reaction.) There is, however, no system of real, enforceable authority. No way to tell anyone what to think. No command and control center based on the usual emotional communitarian drivel. No matter how many meetings such people might attend. posted by Eric on 05.16.07 at 09:32 AM
Comments
You are so right! Intrigued and want to know more? Read what
href=http://www.librarything.com/author/ruddychristopher>Christopher Ruddy Tori · May 16, 2007 12:38 PM But Ruddy never told me what was on Vincent Foster's hard drive! Eric Scheie · May 16, 2007 02:39 PM That's also why I avoided buying a house in a homeowner's association. It's a government run by those with time to attend meetings. We consulted an English-Greek dictionary and came up with a word for it: Argocracy: rule by the unemployed Karl Gallagher · May 16, 2007 02:41 PM Post a comment
You may use basic HTML for formatting.
|
|
May 2007
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
May 2007
April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 May 2002 AB 1634 See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
the meltdown of the melting?
Slander the government? delegating thought to committee-loving authorities? It's Mayor Nutter I Like The Cigar Burn Or Starve The IPCC Mandate Be an obnoxious bureaucrat! (Or just sound like one....) Be worried! Be very worried! (Or else!) Fire and brimstone at Vanity Fair!
Links
Site Credits
|
|
The problem here is the degree to which any organization can claim to represent its membership. Does the NRA accurately represent the opinions of all its members? Of course not. AARP has had a number of imbroglios when it advocated political positions that portions of the membership disapproved of. We see this kind of problem all the time. The only way to address it is to let the disaffected minority throw the rascals out in the next election (if they have the votes) or leave the organization.