agency of change

[bubblingbeebles]

but, with the lack of an official "english standards" committee, what else is there?
well, activism is what else there isSo, society's standards evolve when a bunch of people decide something's wrong and go to protests, make blog posts, have arguments on the internet, and sometimes complain about injustices in person. I guess I'm not upset with

Comments

[simrob]

This is not terribly far from an extreme version of my mental model of how the Supreme Court functions, I guess? Also, such things arguably exist in the sectarian realm: Vatican Councils, the Southern Baptist Convention, the United Methodist General Conference, to name a few, but they're usually more open and transparent than what you're suggesting

[simrob]

I suggested that the second failure was illustrared by the modern history of the Court, but should have added that the first failure is well illustrated by the history of most religions, all cults, Objectivism, basically every historical dictatorship, USSR-style communism, the unitary executive theory and our country's current regime of torture and indefinite detention. Individuals that get to define social standards get to act above them because they are.

[bubblingbeebles]

Opacity is not integral to the structure of such a thing; I guess that's what I meant by the first posed question. A forum/conference might work well, though ultimately there will indeed need to be some smallish group of people in charge.

The supreme court is pretty close in intent, but the key difference is that I see the supreme court as a more passive guiding-group, whose MO is to wait until individual cases escalate enough and then decide something with a heavy hand. By contrast, what I envision would be a more active process (if it's to replace/augment activism, it'd better be; it's right there in the word) that attempts to manipulate general trends using a lighter, and more oft-present, touch. (See the example I edited in above.)

[simrob]

Oh! Well your edited example describes nothing more or less than some structure able to effect a boycott. Stuff that trade unions do, for example.

Hey everybody: I'd like to propose that another conceptual form for the structure Ben is suggesting is something like the idea of unions/"Working Class Solidarity" applied in a different environment (the weird one that got invented with computers and the service class economy). Matt Yglesias talks frequently about how the left is pretty arguably way worse at this than they used to be, or at least could be, whereas the one percent manages it pretty well. But once I tried to argue that point and got decimated, so I can't really claim it as my own. Anyway, that's my crazy idea, it's more likely a miss than a hit, submitted for the approval of the midnight society etc

[mellowcupcake]

Sounds like you're describing a pretty awful totalitarian government. I think you'd find a significant backlash to any proposal that has people putting their trust in Big Brother just so that they don't have to waste their precious time worrying about real issues.

[bubblingbeebles]

One key that I'd hope would prevent it from getting too totalitarian would be that it would only use a "light hand" in its (en|dis)couragement of certain actions. Rarely would it ever cause something to be properly illegal.

(another important part about the "light hand" is that it be able to change its influence frequently and fluidly. I wonder about how this could be decided/effected, however.)

[dachte]

I'm not bothered by people being pissed off over change, or by discussions/activism/etc. That's probably going to happen no matter what system you have, and people will either feel they're part of the process (in a society with strong civil traditions and a "war of ideas") or they'll feel excluded and protest against the process. Unless we all come to either agree on the particulars of "what is good" and those are implemented, or we all decide to cede all judgement to somebody else, we will have these discussions; this is true even in non-democratic systems

[dachte]

Clarifying a bit here

[dachte]

Perhaps in time that association will fade? It's quite distant from what I've ever meant when I've used the term (and I haven't found a better term for what I mean

[mellowcupcake]

What I hear, which I try to adhere to as much as possible, is "You must be the change you want to see in the world."

[bubblingbeebles]

sure, my four-item list was not meant to be comprehensive, to be sure. i do not have a very good grasp on the workings and effects of smaller-scale-still changemaking.

[bubblingbeebles]

please - a "philosopher archchancellordom". better not to exclude go players with chess-and-checkers-ist language.

slightly more seriously, I am quite taken with the term "Philosopher King". it belongs right up there with "God Emperor".

actually seriously, I think the different reactions speak to the spectrum nature of how governments may impose morality on the public. one end is too heavy-handed and bound to hurt people (making jews wear badges); the current system is more passive/hands-off (as elaborated in reply to rob). In light of that, perhaps I am really just wondering if there is a sweeter spot somewhere in between? And the question of how it could be structured (middling sweet spots always tend to be more complicated to hit than either end) depends on finding that spot.

[aleffert]

Kang for God Emperor!