Yes, we absolutely must vote in the mid-terms.
But, in the next 30 days, and the next 300, and the 3000 days after that—we should also grapple with something else.
Naturalistic Fallacy and its place in our assumptions about American democracy....
But, in the next 30 days, and the next 300, and the 3000 days after that—we should also grapple with something else.
Naturalistic Fallacy and its place in our assumptions about American democracy....
Naturalistic Fallacy is the habit of confusing what IS for what OUGHT to be.
It's the tendency that so many of us have to look at the world as it IS—trees, Congress, shoes, courts—and ascribe some higher value to these things than some other formulation of what things COULD BE.
It's the tendency that so many of us have to look at the world as it IS—trees, Congress, shoes, courts—and ascribe some higher value to these things than some other formulation of what things COULD BE.
It's time to ask questions like:
- why are there 50 states?
- why are there 9 justices?
- why are there 435 Members of the House of Representatives?
- why are there 50 states?
- why are there 9 justices?
- why are there 435 Members of the House of Representatives?
On the states:
why are there two Dakotas?
why only one California?
why do hundreds of thousands of Americans live in territories that are not states?
why are there two Dakotas?
why only one California?
why do hundreds of thousands of Americans live in territories that are not states?
And, even if we treat the states as natural and pre-ordained, is it natural or good that we have a Senate were 18% of the population gets more than half the representation?
435 Members of the House: it's been that way since 1912. It just takes an act of congress and the President's signature to change that number. And, for close to a century and a half before 1912, the natural habit was to expand the size every 10 years or so.
The point is that was have start looking at the structure of our democracy—the parts that are easy to change and the parts that are harder (most of the change can happen with legislation).
When we look, we have to stop ascribing inherent value to what IS
When we look, we have to stop ascribing inherent value to what IS
What IS is not inherently better than what COULD BE.
What IS is often arbitrary—or worse.
What IS is often a function of a prior—or present—elite: an autocrat from then (or now). A norm purpose-designed to undermine small-d democrats and big-D Democrats.
Let's wake up to that.
What IS is often arbitrary—or worse.
What IS is often a function of a prior—or present—elite: an autocrat from then (or now). A norm purpose-designed to undermine small-d democrats and big-D Democrats.
Let's wake up to that.
