[MG] Legitimation in Votorola practice

[Michael Allan]

Hi Ned,

Thanks for replying. We should always try to work with others, or we
just isolate ourselves. I want to ask you some questions about Blinap.
http://home.earthlink.net/~npconner/images/yEd/Decide.html
http://www.wiser.org/article/740569be35a413f95a6ee2b555b8834f

First I need to be sure I understand your reply. You seem to allow
that, even if there's just one validation *principle* (suppose D),
there can easily be multiple validation *practices*.  No single
practice is likely to suit everyone under all possible circumstances.
One person's choosing practice B, therefore, does not *in itself* mean
that he disagrees with others choosing C, nor, insofar as it affects
him, with the practice of C itself. To each his own. Is this true?

I think what you're saying is that the practice I'm floating here is
unlikely to affect you, except insofar as you hear validity questions
(V) in a forum, or reply as here (thank you!), or are subject to laws
and such that the practice in part justifies. As far as these effects
are concerned, you cannot (as yet) foresee anyone reasonably
disagreeing with the practice. Do I grok? Or did I miss something?

(Sorry if your reply to the Votorola list was rejected. I reconfigured
it to moderate posts from non-subscribers instead of flatly rejecting
them. Spammers be damned! See if that works.)

Mike


Ned Conner said:
> "Would this validation practice itself be valid?"
> 
> Your Votorola and my Blinap are in a sense competing solutions to the 
> problem of how to make public decisions.
> 
> Having now read the Validity Seeking section, I still like the 
> "validation practice" of Blinap better, for numerous reasons. But does 
> that mean that the validation practice of Votorola is therefore invalid, 
> just because one oddball capable of rational discourse does not agree 
> that it is the best available?
> 
>      D: "Just those action norms are valid to which all possibly 
> affected persons could agree as participants in rational discourses."
> 
> According to Habermas's discourse principle (which I really like!), it 
> does. We don't need to vote. I am a "possibly affected person", and I do 
> not agree, and I can present reasons for not agreeing (which may or may 
> not survive rebuttals).
> 
> All we need is the rational discourse. We do not need the voting, or the 
> cascading, or the examination of changes apart from the proposals 
> themselves ("Is the proposed change valid?"), or pipe minders, or 
> multiple groups working in parallel on variant consensus drafts, or any 
> of that.
> 
> The cleanest, most efficient way to seek validity is to focus all 
> attention and effort on each individual proposal. The decision process 
> ends at the point that there are no further unresolved objections to the 
> proposal. By Habermas's principle, the proposal has then been shown to 
> be valid.
> .