Are you equal in a democracy?
Zagovor | 12.12.2012 01:59 | Analysis | Culture | Repression | World
In a remarkably inspiring book (A History of Democracy) Prof. Dunn (Cambridge) has called attention to two problems in democracy: it seems that one "equality" is that all ideas and arguments are equally doubtful and that equality of voting needs to be supplemented by regular referenda. But there are mathematical problems.
It's safe to say that our whole catastrophic illness is that we are caught in a mathematical infinite loop. It's assumed that there are infinite resources and all we need to do is to increase population ad infinitum, print money ad infinitum and grow ad infinitum. Every computer person knows that infinite loops crash the computer and that infinite concepts in physics transport the theorist to meaninglessness (S.Hawking).
But there are also math problems in democracy. The most important of which is that just because each perosn has just one vote this does not mean that they are equal. To go into this fully would require a section on rather abstact set theory but I believe that nearly everyone doubts that one vote per person implies equality.
Children find it hard to understand equality. They are suspicious when adults tell them that two things are equal. Incontrast they are very good in seeing inequality. It seems that from a very young age "inequality" is the marked case. But Piaget has warned us that "mathematics" has a metaphysical aspect (for which he has been criticised, Callaway) that is very difficult (if not impossible) for "humans" to adequately understand.
Prof. Dunn in his study inadverently draws attention to this. If all ideas and arguments in a democracy are doubtful then so is this idea. To make for regular referenda we must perforce have a referenda on that: an infinite regress. And it may very well be that we should be very suspicious when politicians tell us that we live in a democracy and that we are all equal. Next time you here this don't take it to be so.
It might seem glaringly obvious that if each person has one vote (apple, banana etc.) that they are equal on that point. But how often do we think that our solution to a mathematical problem must be right only to find out that we are comletely wrong?
(The set theoretic problem, which may show that we are not equal in voting is called "equivocation in the axiom of choice")
ZDK
But there are also math problems in democracy. The most important of which is that just because each perosn has just one vote this does not mean that they are equal. To go into this fully would require a section on rather abstact set theory but I believe that nearly everyone doubts that one vote per person implies equality.
Children find it hard to understand equality. They are suspicious when adults tell them that two things are equal. Incontrast they are very good in seeing inequality. It seems that from a very young age "inequality" is the marked case. But Piaget has warned us that "mathematics" has a metaphysical aspect (for which he has been criticised, Callaway) that is very difficult (if not impossible) for "humans" to adequately understand.
Prof. Dunn in his study inadverently draws attention to this. If all ideas and arguments in a democracy are doubtful then so is this idea. To make for regular referenda we must perforce have a referenda on that: an infinite regress. And it may very well be that we should be very suspicious when politicians tell us that we live in a democracy and that we are all equal. Next time you here this don't take it to be so.
It might seem glaringly obvious that if each person has one vote (apple, banana etc.) that they are equal on that point. But how often do we think that our solution to a mathematical problem must be right only to find out that we are comletely wrong?
(The set theoretic problem, which may show that we are not equal in voting is called "equivocation in the axiom of choice")
ZDK
Zagovor