Ég er að lesa stjórnspekibók frá 1970 sem heitir In Defence of Anarchism, eftir heimspekinginn Robert Paul Wolff. Ég hef vitnað í skrif hans nokkrum sinnum áður hérna á síðunni, en hann er með mjög skemmtilegt blogg sem ég les reglulega.
Afstaða Wolff í bókinni (og fram til dagsins í dag, af sjálfslýsingu hans á blogginu að dæma) er sú að engin skref geta fært okkur frá náttúruástandinu yfir í ríkið án þess að vaða yfir grundvallar-sjálfsákvörðunarrétt einstaklingsins.
Hér skrifar hann um fulltrúalýðveldið, og hversu aumt tilkall það hefur til að segjast endurspegla vilja fólksins gegnum meint "agency by proxy":
Leaving aside for a moment the problems connected with majority rule, [...] the citizen who makes use of his ballot is, as it were, present in the chamber through the agency of his representative. But this assumes that at the time of the election, each man had a genuine opportunity to vote for a candidate who represented his point of view. He may find himself in the minority, of course; his candidate may lose. But at least he has had his chance to advance his preferences at the polls.
But if the number of issues under debate during the campaign is greater than one or two, and if there are — as there are sure to be — a number of plausible positions which might be taken on each issue, then the permutations of consistent alternative total "platforms" will be vastly greater than the number of candidates. Suppose, for example, that in an American election there are four issues: a farm bill, medical care for the aged, the extension of the draft, and civil rights. Simplifying the real world considerably, we can suppose that there are three alternative courses of action seriously being considered on the first issue, four on the second, two on the third, and three on the last. There are then 3 x 4 x 2 x 3 = 72 possible stands which a man might take on these four issues. [...] Now, in order to make sure that every voter has a chance of voting for what he believes, there would have to be 72 candidates, each holding one of the logically possible positions. If a citizen cannot even find a candidate whose views coincide with his own, there there is no possibility at all that he will send to the parliament a genuine representative. In practice, voters are offered a handful of candidates and must make compromises with their beliefs before they ever get to the polls. Under these circumstances, it is difficult to see what content there is to the platitude that elections manifest the will of the people. [emph. ed] 
Nákvæmlega. Frá stjórnspekilegu sjónarmiði — ef við hugsum þetta út frá siðferðislegu tilkalli ríkisins til hlýðni okkar — þá stendur fulltrúalýðræði samtímans á nákvæmlega jafn lélegum grunni og t.a.m. upplýst einræði [eða nokkur önnur samfélagsgerð þar sem er einhvers konar ríki].
Add Comment | RSS Feed