5 ms·

> Why aren't their views as legit as yours or mine? Could it not be argued that the legitimacy of views depends on how much information the person has access t

> Why aren't their views as legit as yours or mine? Could it not be argued that the legitimacy of views depends on how much information the person has access to? The average working-class person, due to lack of free time and interest may be unable to acquire more information than is conveniently delivered to them through a handful of sources, and if those sources are controlled by certain actors and not balanced by other sources, then that would appear to place a limitation on how informed their views might be. Some influential 19th-century traditions of working-class radicalism heavily emphasized learning for the sake of it, but I am not sure that conditions today are conducive to that.

neonate 7y ago
That's a good argument, but let me continue the other side: I wonder if this doesn't just repeat the question. Who are we to say that the information we have is the true information? At least on the internet, we all select the information we want. I listen to my preferred sources, and I bet you listen to yours. Why are the working class doing something less legitimate if they do the same?
leereeves 7y ago
The average working class person knows more than you think. They probably don't have a lot of time for abstract theory, but they do have experience dealing with the government. They've seen how broken their local public schools, VA care, and Medicare are. They've been overwhelmed and overborne by the complicated rules of government programs, and faced harsh penalties for slight missteps. They also know that Democratic programs generally exclude them because by working for slightly more than minimum wage they earn too much to qualify. And they usually know people receiving government benefits, and they see the lifestyle these benefits impose, and they don't want that for themselves.
- Mediterraneo10 7y ago
  > The average working class person knows more than you think. They probably don't have a lot of time for abstract theory... Yet there are traditions both within working-class leftism and working-class libertarianism that emphasise that what you call the "abstract theory" is key to activism and informed participation in the democratic process. After all, the argument for why whatever political system is just and fair is based on a canon of writings that goes back centuries. Thus, as I said, in the past political thinkers have urged the working class to read, read, read, and not just go off their anecdotal experiences of interaction with government and society or their gut feelings.
  - leereeves 7y ago
    > the argument for why whatever political system is just and fair is based on a canon of argument that goes back centuries. Those would be the same kind of arguments that justified communism, which was once popular among the intelligentsia? Abstract theory often leads people astray. I think the working class might be wise to ignore those arguments in favor of their own experiences. We've seen what the government is actually doing, and theory doesn't match reality. Those who advocate more government intervention should first improve those government interventions that already exist, so government programs can serve as an advertisement for their ideas, instead of a warning.
    - Mediterraneo10 7y ago
      > Those would be the same kind of arguments that justified communism, which was once popular among the intelligentsia? Or the arguments for American democracy and the nascent European democracies, whose founding fathers advocated for such systems by citing literature from Ancient Greece to the Enlightenment. The 19th century saw a wave of low-cost, mass-market editions of the classical canon precisely because it was thought that democracy required an educated citizenry. Or modern libertarianism, which points to many of the same sources but adds more recent thinkers like Hayek or von Mises. With your third paragraph, you seem to be suggesting that I favour government invention, but I have made no such suggestion in my posts. Rather, as I said, the need to be informed and aware of the tradition of political argument holds regardless of where a person might be situated ideologically, whether on the "left" or "right".
      - leereeves 7y ago
        You did more than argue in favor of staying informed and aware of the tradition of political argument. You suggested that the political opinions of those who do not spend time on that are illegitimate: > Could it not be argued that the legitimacy of views depends on how much information the person has access to? But politics is not mathematics. Political ideas should be judged by their outcomes, not their theoretical validity. And everyone gets a vote about whether those outcomes are good.
barry-cotter 7y ago
> The average working-class person, due to lack of free time and interest The average American watches three hours of TV a day. People have plenty of free time. If they’re not interested their political opinions are irrelevant, politics will happen to them, not with them.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- squiggleblaz 7y ago
  Yet they still get a vote. And if they vote for something you don't understand, then it just proves that watching the news helps you know what journalists think - not the public.
frockington1 7y ago
Lets win back the working class by disparaging them? This doesn't seem like the greatest path to success
mensetmanusman 7y ago
No, because Internet. A better argument would replace information with IQ/EQ.

neonate 7y ago

That's a good argument, but let me continue the other side: I wonder if this doesn't just repeat the question. Who are we to say that the information we have is the true information? At least on the internet, we all select the information we want. I listen to my preferred sources, and I bet you listen to yours. Why are the working class doing something less legitimate if they do the same?

leereeves 7y ago

The average working class person knows more than you think. They probably don't have a lot of time for abstract theory, but they do have experience dealing with the government. They've seen how broken their local public schools, VA care, and Medicare are. They've been overwhelmed and overborne by the complicated rules of government programs, and faced harsh penalties for slight missteps. They also know that Democratic programs generally exclude them because by working for slightly more than minimum wage they earn too much to qualify. And they usually know people receiving government benefits, and they see the lifestyle these benefits impose, and they don't want that for themselves.

Mediterraneo10 7y ago
> The average working class person knows more than you think. They probably don't have a lot of time for abstract theory... Yet there are traditions both within working-class leftism and working-class libertarianism that emphasise that what you call the "abstract theory" is key to activism and informed participation in the democratic process. After all, the argument for why whatever political system is just and fair is based on a canon of writings that goes back centuries. Thus, as I said, in the past political thinkers have urged the working class to read, read, read, and not just go off their anecdotal experiences of interaction with government and society or their gut feelings.
- leereeves 7y ago
  > the argument for why whatever political system is just and fair is based on a canon of argument that goes back centuries. Those would be the same kind of arguments that justified communism, which was once popular among the intelligentsia? Abstract theory often leads people astray. I think the working class might be wise to ignore those arguments in favor of their own experiences. We've seen what the government is actually doing, and theory doesn't match reality. Those who advocate more government intervention should first improve those government interventions that already exist, so government programs can serve as an advertisement for their ideas, instead of a warning.
  - Mediterraneo10 7y ago
    > Those would be the same kind of arguments that justified communism, which was once popular among the intelligentsia? Or the arguments for American democracy and the nascent European democracies, whose founding fathers advocated for such systems by citing literature from Ancient Greece to the Enlightenment. The 19th century saw a wave of low-cost, mass-market editions of the classical canon precisely because it was thought that democracy required an educated citizenry. Or modern libertarianism, which points to many of the same sources but adds more recent thinkers like Hayek or von Mises. With your third paragraph, you seem to be suggesting that I favour government invention, but I have made no such suggestion in my posts. Rather, as I said, the need to be informed and aware of the tradition of political argument holds regardless of where a person might be situated ideologically, whether on the "left" or "right".
    - leereeves 7y ago
      You did more than argue in favor of staying informed and aware of the tradition of political argument. You suggested that the political opinions of those who do not spend time on that are illegitimate: > Could it not be argued that the legitimacy of views depends on how much information the person has access to? But politics is not mathematics. Political ideas should be judged by their outcomes, not their theoretical validity. And everyone gets a vote about whether those outcomes are good.

barry-cotter 7y ago

> The average working-class person, due to lack of free time and interest The average American watches three hours of TV a day. People have plenty of free time. If they’re not interested their political opinions are irrelevant, politics will happen to them, not with them.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
squiggleblaz 7y ago
Yet they still get a vote. And if they vote for something you don't understand, then it just proves that watching the news helps you know what journalists think - not the public.

frockington1 7y ago

Lets win back the working class by disparaging them? This doesn't seem like the greatest path to success

mensetmanusman 7y ago

No, because Internet. A better argument would replace information with IQ/EQ.