Moral and Majority

Democracy is the recurrent suspicion that more than half of the people are right more than half of the time.

E. B. White

Democracy is three wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner.

Unknown

That sums my feelings toward current implementations of democracy quite nicely. I admit they are the best political systems that I know of that were ever implemented, but they still suck big time.

I am a believer in John Rawls ``A Theory of Justice'' which is a main work of philosophical liberalism (and has nothing to do with socialist or capitalist libertarianism). It is a central message of ``A Theory of Justice'' that it should be the single goal of society to relief those of its members that are in the worst situation.

Rawls' central argument for this is that such is the society people would choose if they did not know their position in society. I don't know about that, but without firsthand knowledge about such a society it is the one I would choose even knowing that my position would be rather comfortable. I have two reasons for this. The first is simply my conscience. I simply hate to know about diseased junkies, outcast from society only craving one thing. I hate to think about the people sleeping drunk on park benches ... That does not mean I am morally superior or anything the like. I consider it a decadent wish of mine. Chocolate would taste better yet if I would not have to witness people starving on the prime time news.

The other reason is a bit more philosophically entangled. A society from the perspective of this manifesto is nothing but a system of rules. Such a system can only be in actuality (in contrast to theory) if the rules are followed. Thus a society's (a rule system's) instinct of self preservation implies that it has every interest of its rules being followed. If the rules are not followed the system is naught.

Breaking the rules though implies a statement. Somebody who commits a crime is doing something beyond his actual offense. He's saying loud and clear: ``I don't accept the order of society, I do not accept the rules you impose on me and I am not part of the system.'' I believe society should listen to such statements. What could people drive to that conclusion? There may be cases that simply cannot be helped - e.g. extreme passions (love, hate, greed ...) driving people to extreme and unforeseeable deeds. But the majority of crimes seems to be not so passionate. And the majority of notorious criminals seems to come from that layer of society that Rawls identifies as the one the situation of which has to be improved.

I do not think everybody could or should be equal except concerning the law. But I believe everybody should have equal chances to become what he is capable of and desires. Final remark: Rawls philosophy does not contradict the formation of elite. It is indeed desirable for the disadvantaged to profit from gifted individuals.