THE WEAKNESS OF AN ELECTIVE ASSEMBLY WITH UNLIMITED POWERS
Votes in an elective assembly have different meanings depending on whether they address general rules for everyone or specific benefits for particular groups. Votes on general rules are based on strong, lasting opinions, while votes on benefits often come from individuals looking for a gain, without much regard for others. This could lead to problematic outcomes, especially in a big society where complex issues overwhelm individual understanding.
Classical theory suggests that representatives make laws they also have to follow, which is supposed to create good laws and responsible spending. However, when representatives focus on getting votes by giving special benefits to specific groups, they often ignore the effects on others. Each group may agree to unfair deals involving benefits for others just to get what they want, without considering if it is just. This process can result in laws and policies being based on political needs rather than fairness or merit.
This dynamic shows that majorities often grant special subsidies not because they believe these measures are fair, but because they feel pressured by influential groups. The idea of "social justice" develops from this situation, where special interest groups sway decision-makers by threatening to withdraw their support. As a result, it looks like the majority supports these benefits based on fairness, but in reality, they are often just the results of political bargaining and deal-making, not any moral agreement.
Politicians typically operate in this system to please different factions, responding to their needs instead of seeking the common good. This creates a belief that their decisions are fair because the majority supports them, even when that support is a result of negotiation and not shared ethical values. Thus, democracy can create misleading ideas about fairness, where regular concessions to certain groups lead people to believe those groups truly deserve special treatment, simply because they have political power.
As a result, the government often grants benefits based on group demands instead of general ideas of justice. As more groups see their interests handled by the government, they start to expect similar treatment, which leads to ongoing demands for what they believe they deserve, complicating the idea of social justice even further.
Votes in an elective assembly have different meanings depending on whether they address general rules for everyone or specific benefits for particular groups. Votes on general rules are based on strong, lasting opinions, while votes on benefits often come from individuals looking for a gain, without much regard for others. This could lead to problematic outcomes, especially in a big society where complex issues overwhelm individual understanding.
Classical theory suggests that representatives make laws they also have to follow, which is supposed to create good laws and responsible spending. However, when representatives focus on getting votes by giving special benefits to specific groups, they often ignore the effects on others. Each group may agree to unfair deals involving benefits for others just to get what they want, without considering if it is just. This process can result in laws and policies being based on political needs rather than fairness or merit.
This dynamic shows that majorities often grant special subsidies not because they believe these measures are fair, but because they feel pressured by influential groups. The idea of "social justice" develops from this situation, where special interest groups sway decision-makers by threatening to withdraw their support. As a result, it looks like the majority supports these benefits based on fairness, but in reality, they are often just the results of political bargaining and deal-making, not any moral agreement.
Politicians typically operate in this system to please different factions, responding to their needs instead of seeking the common good. This creates a belief that their decisions are fair because the majority supports them, even when that support is a result of negotiation and not shared ethical values. Thus, democracy can create misleading ideas about fairness, where regular concessions to certain groups lead people to believe those groups truly deserve special treatment, simply because they have political power.
As a result, the government often grants benefits based on group demands instead of general ideas of justice. As more groups see their interests handled by the government, they start to expect similar treatment, which leads to ongoing demands for what they believe they deserve, complicating the idea of social justice even further.