0xee389284…5d7dsent to0x8d213dc5…b532·#12,867,688·0xe5d5d4a9…8d4b64
!smokesignal{"m":["Ruminations on Democracy and Diversity ","","“Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch.” is a familiar adage that highlights the core fragility of raw democracy, which is the problem of mob rule and the plights it can visit upon minorities subject to that mob. In more recent times that saying has taken on various additive interpretations, such as “...but Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.” and others. Among those additive alternatives is the notion that such an issue only exists in a setting with diversity. After all, were it three wolves voting, or three lambs, then there would be no issues. Superficially it may seem as though a case of two lambs and a single wolf voting solves the issue, but there exists the supposition that the wolf will naturally—even rightfully—contest such a vote as a “well-armed lamb” may. Wolves must eat, too. \n\nIn reality no setting where lambs and wolves are voting together may yield a peaceful resolution. A democratically run institution, of any size, cannot bare the internal pressures of having a significant portion of its constituency wanting to eat their fellow constituents. This truth has been struck upon in recent times by Identitarian theorists (call them what you may, Critical Race Theorists, “woke”ists, White Supremacists/Separatists, Black Supremacists/Separatists, etc) as axiomatic proof of the misguided beliefs of the standing Liberal consensus that brought about contemporary civil liberties and espouses color-blindness as a virtue. To the Identitarian a diverse state does not merely warrant discrimination as a best-practice, but expressly predicates it. A wolf must be seen and recognized as a wolf, a lamb as a lamb, and the policies and structures of society made conscientious of those identities. \n\nHowever, this can be undone by yet another additive interpretation upon the same premise. A group of lambs, chickens, cows, and goats would be a diverse group, and indeed would likely face minimal internal frictions within their herbivorous culture. A group of tigers, lions, leopards, and wolves too would be diverse and within their shared carnivorous culture would see to much less voting issues than if a lamb were to be involved. To apply this to people and society, it is not so much the diversity of races that matters, but the underling cultures within which they operate and if they clash. This should be of no surprise either, given that history shows people of identical racial and ethnic creed have often come into bloody conflict over sectarian interests. In short, the recent focus in society on the construction of public and private functions around race is mistaken as race does not convey the truth of group-wise identities with any real accuracy. (This is to say nothing of the radical Individualist view that all group identities are worthless, but I digress) Rather, it is more pertinent to know of a group’s practices and beliefs, which often can be pan-ethnic and multi-racial, to know how it is they should be appraised. "],"v":3,"c":{"topic":"politics"}}