Xref: utzoo talk.politics.theory:651 talk.philosophy.misc:958 sci.misc:1180
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!julian!deepthot!macros
From: macros@deepthot.UUCP (R.)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,talk.philosophy.misc,sci.misc
Subject: Democratic evisceration
Message-ID: <1125@deepthot.UUCP>
Date: 28 Mar 88 02:44:10 GMT
Reply-To: macros@deepthot.UUCP (R.)
Distribution: na
Organization: UWO CS, London Canada
Lines: 58
Posted: Sun Mar 27 21:44:10 1988


The following is a direct quotation from `Democratic Theory'
(essay: Problems of a Non-Market p55) by C.B. MacPherson.
Oxford University Press 1973 (reprint 1984)

"Men's very contentiousness might be attributed to intellectual error
 or to scarcity: both condition were assumed to be removable. That men 
 if freed from scarcity and from intellectual error (i.e. the ideologies
 inhereted from ages of scarcity) would live together harmoniously
 enough, that their remaining contention would be only creative tension,
 cannot be proved or disproved except by trial. But such a proposition
 is basic to any demand for or justification of a democratic society.
 The case for democratic GOVERNMENT (`one man, one vote') can indeed
 be made sufficiently on the opposite assumption: in a thoroughly
 contentious society everyone needs the vote as a protection. But the
 case for a democratic SOCIETY fails without the assumption of potential
 harmony. For what would be the use of trying to provide that everyone
 should be able to make the most of himself, which is the idea of a
 democratic society, if that were bound to lead to more destructive
 contention?"

"It must therefore be a postulate of any fully democratic theory that 
 the rights or freedoms men need in order to be fully human are not
 mutually destructive. To put this another way: it must be asserted
 that the rights of any man which are morally justifiable on any
 egalitarian principle are only those which allow all others to have 
 equal effective rights; and that THOSE ARE ENOUGH to allow any man to
 be fully human...To translate this from terms of right into terms of
 power: the power which a democratic theory requires to be maximized is 
 the ability of each to use and develop those of his capacities the
 use and development of which does not prevent others using and developing
 theirs. His HUMAN capacities are taken to be only those; and those -
 the non-destructive ones - are taken to be enough to enable him to be
 fully human."

Am I jumping to conclusions here or does this imply that it is an
unqualified democratic principle that aggression is to be exterpated
at all costs; to strip men of their CAPABILITY for aggression, their
exercise of any vestigial aggression. And hence, ANY display thereof
is to be treated with contempt and relegated to the domain of
immaturity and inhumanity.

If so, then what if aggression is an inherent human motivator which
energizes man's boldness, inquisitiveness, steadfastness, etc.; does
this not imply the inevitable road to self-contempt, self-loathing,
and self-destruction?

I have cross-posted this to sci.misc in hopes that some psychologist
will be able to shed some light on:

           1) The inherentness of human aggression
           2) The reliance of man's vitality as a seeker and doer,
              upon aggression

Also, how can one be a creator without destroying? (Politically, and
socially, NOT theistically).

					Raymond J. Tigg