Date: Wed, 22 Jan 1997 09:53:27 -0600 From: King Banaian Subject: Teaching democratic citizenship Dear libprofs, One of the reasons I returned to the list was to engage some support and advice for a committee on which I currently serve at St. Cloud State. I was dragooned to serve on a general education sub-committee that is charged with creating a strategy for teaching "democratic citizenship". We have had two meetings, which have made plain the following points: 1. I am the only libertarian (not a surprise); 2. The committee (including me) cannot define what this term "democratic citizenship" means; 3. Nevertheless, we are proceeding to define a set of skills and a body of knowledge that students must learn in order to demonstrate competency in the thing they can't define. So in a couple short hours, I am supposed to go to a meeting and define a skill set for this competency. Rather than have you react to my perceptions of the rest of the committee (some of which is not fit for family reading) I will put the question to the list: How would a libertarian define "democratic citizenship"? What skills and/or knowledge bases are desirable to teach to enable students to understand the rights and responsibilities (or are there any?) of being a citizen in a democracy or republic? If there is sufficient interest in this, I will be happy to provide the list with background on this as well as updates as the year progresses. Prof. King Banaian Dept. Of Economics St. Cloud State University St. Cloud, MN 56301 http://www.stcloud.msus.edu/~kbanaian/sparky.html "Life is divided into the horrible and the miserable." --Woody Allen =========================================================================== From: "Aeon Skoble" Date: Wed, 22 Jan 1997 10:41:48 +0000 > How would a libertarian define "democratic citizenship"? Well, there's an innocent reading of this and a loaded one. In the good sense, we'd be talking about the fact that no one has greater political power than anyone else except by consent of the governed, that all are equal before the law, etc. Unfortunately, this phrase has been co-opted by people who mean it to imply that we must all serve the common good, etc, see, for example, Michael Sandel's column in the new (Feb 3) New Republic. So, you being the only libertarian, you might want to press for the good senses of the phrase and try to minimize the loaded senses. > What skills and/or knowledge bases are desirable Logical reasoning certainly - you shouldn't have too hard a sell getting logic or critical thinking to be part of the general curriculum. Ethics would be good. An intellectual history-type course might make clear why the enlightenment emphasis on the individual is a real advance in human history, and the beneficial legacy thereof etc. > rights and responsibilities (or are there any?) Another phrase which has been co-opted by lefties, communitarians in particular. You and I would probably say that we all have responsibilities not to violate the rights of others. Freedom-rights imply corresponding duties of forbearance or non-interference. But, Entitlement-rights imply corresponding duties of provision, and that's how we get into trouble. You'll have to try to keep the focus on freedom-rights, and the corresponding responsibility to respect others and their rights. Hope all goes well! Best, Aeon =========================================================================== Date: Wed, 22 Jan 1997 12:42:41 -0500 From: jnarveso@watarts.UWaterloo.ca (Jan Narveson) Well, there ya got one! Citizenship is usually conceived in fascist terms. I would impress on the students that the WHOLE POINT of democracy was the idea that people should be basically governed "by themselves", rather than by somebody else. But as John Stuart Mill so ably pointed out, democracy tends to be, not each governing himself but rather each being governed by all the rest. And the latter is indeed precisely what democracy is: everybody has some (an equal amount of) political power, which is the power to make laws that everybody must obey. Question: WHY must they obey them? The original idea was that since they are "your own" laws, therefore you imposed them on yourself. But majority rule kicks that idea out the window: whether any given law is genuinely favored by anybody is problematic, but that he had any real part in making it is completely unlikely. To make the original idea of democracy plausible, therefore, people should ask what laws should look like, and what restrictions there should be on the making of htem. The latter is answered by constitutionalism. Nothing can be more important than that students realize that constitutions LIMIT democracy. They say that a majority vote isn't enough to sanction the killing of the innocent, or just plain theft, or public lying. Roughly, then, they should be taught that the idea of liberal democracy is antithetical to the idea of out-and-out majority rule, no-holds barred. And what makes it liberal is its incorporating of restraints on majority rule, that respect individuals' rights. Which requires, of course, an understanding (a good theory) of what individual rights there are. We libertarians know more about this than anyone else. But you don't have to say that. All you have to do is cite the right example: the right to life, liberty, and property. Agains this majoritarians will insist on 'equality" and the sacred right of the minority to make pot illegal. There is where the fun will begin. The citizen's duty in a democracy is to think how everyone's rights can be respected. Laws are needed only when the operation of individuals within the constraints of liberal rights gets difficult. Maybe then we need state action such as punishment of criminals - whjich presupposes that we have the right crimninal code, but of course we don't. The bottom line is that the citizen of a democracy ought to use his noggin. governments don't like this, and neither do majorities. Hence the problem. So the best thing a University can do is to make kids excrutiatingly aware of the looming horrors of full democracy. If a University won't encoutage people to think, nobody else likely will..... Good luck! (you'll need it.) __________________________________________________________________________ Jan Narveson (Professor) Department of Philosophy, University of Waterloo; Waterloo, Ontario, Canada, N2L 3G1 (519) 888-4567-1-2780# (from touch-tone); or 885-1211, ext. 2780 (via switchboard); FAX (519) 746-3097 Home: (519) 886-1673 (answering machine) e-mail: jnarveso@watarts.UWaterloo.ca =========================================================================== From: Jeremy Frank Shearmur Date: Thu, 23 Jan 1997 04:46:14 +1100 (EST) Dear Professor Banaian: One suggestion - that one might consider setting out to equip students (after all, it is university students that one is talking about, not people in kindergarten) with the kind of background needed to understand why there are disputes about these ideas. This would, say, involve their understanding both what those who champion these ideas - and the view that they are realized in the U.S. as things stand currently - favour, and also those who are (i) critical of the idea that they are/ could easily be realized in the U.S.; (ii) critical of the ideas themselves. This, I would suggest, might not only provide something of interest and use to the students, but it would also provide a fruitful way in which the disagreements among members of the committee could be put to good use. All good wishes, Jeremy Shearmur Political Science, Faculty of Arts, Australian National University, currently Visiting Scholar, Social Philosophy and Policy Center, Australian National University =========================================================================== Date: Wed, 22 Jan 1997 10:51:59 -0800 (PST) From: Fred Foldvary On Wed, 22 Jan 1997, King Banaian wrote: > will put the question to the list: How would a libertarian define > "democratic citizenship"? What skills and/or knowledge bases are desirable > to teach to enable students to understand the rights and responsibilities > (or are there any?) of being a citizen in a democracy or republic? > I would include these elements in "democratic citizenship": 1. A responsible democratic citizen has sympathy with his or her fellow citizens and community; he or she cares about others. This sympathy, described by Adam Smith in his book The Theory of Moral Sentiments, overcomes the "rational ignorance" described in public choice economics. 2. The citizen educates himself regarding the basic principles of ethics, governance, and economics, so he can make informed decisions. 3. The citizen has an open mind and is willing to listen to new ideas. 4. The citizen does not infringe upon the rights of others. 5. With sympathy and knowledge, the democratic citizen participates by voting, joining political parties and movements, and attending meetings and events. But it should be understood that some citizens may not wish to participate due to personal and ideological reasons, and that should be respected as well. 6. The democratic citizen is skeptical of government, knowing of its predilection to cater to special interests and of politicians to put on an artificial image. While participating in the attempt to reform government, the democratic citizen recognizes the proper limitations of government and does not advocate its use to advance special agendas. The democratic citizen is aware of the damage that taxation and restrictions can do to the market economy. Fred Foldvary =========================================================================== Date: Wed, 22 Jan 1997 14:24:09 -0800 From: Steven Horwitz Fred Foldvary wrote: [first five snipped, because I agreed with them!] > 6. The democratic citizen is skeptical of government, knowing of its > predilection to cater to special interests and of politicians to put on an > artificial image. While participating in the attempt to reform > government, the democratic citizen recognizes the proper limitations of > government and does not advocate its use to advance special agendas. The > democratic citizen is aware of the damage that taxation and restrictions > can do to the market economy. Not that I disagree with Fred's substance here, but in the context that King is operating, a faculty committee that crosses ideological boundaries, I would word this idea differently. I think the notion of not advancing special interest agendas is a good one, but the last sentence would be contested by leftists on the committee. It seems to presume a certain conclusion (one we might all agree with) that would seem to be out of place in this particular context. Instead, I might say something like "given the historical evidence of the dangers that powerful governments propose, a well-educated democratic citizen is one who views government as the power of last resort, when all other social institutions are unable to address the problem at hand." I think that leaves the issue more open and probably more acceptable to non-libertarians. Of course libertarians can just shrug and say "fine, I've just been unable to find too many, if any, problems that non-coercive institutions can't solve." My own view, both on principle and pragmatism, is that it is always better in these faculty committee contexts to try to phrase things in terms of comparing the empirical performance of alternative institutional arrangements. That leaves room for people who disagree about the empirics to at least agree on what the questions are. Steve Horwitz =========================================================================== Date: Wed, 22 Jan 1997 12:35:17 -0800 (PST) From: Fred Foldvary Regarding the limits of government and negative effect of taxation, On Wed, 22 Jan 1997, Steven Horwitz wrote: > in this particular context. Instead, I might say something like "given the > historical evidence of the dangers that powerful governments propose, a > well-educated democratic citizen is one who views government as the power > of last resort, when all other social institutions are unable to address > the problem at hand." > > I think that leaves the issue more open and probably more acceptable to > non-libertarians. No disagreement there. Maybe the point can be made in a neutral fashion by recognizing that in considering policy, the costs need to be accounted for as well as the benefits, even when using government as the last resort. A cost of a last-resort program includes the impact of the taxation and bureaucracy used to implement it. A cost of only treating the effects of social problems while ignoring the cause is the continuation and possible worsening of the problem. Fred Foldvary =========================================================================== Date: Wed, 22 Jan 1997 17:18:12 -0500 From: jnarveso@watarts.UWaterloo.ca (Jan Narveson) Subject: democratic citizenship The couple of suggestions I've seen late this afternoon pay some heed but perhaps not quite enough to this: democratic citizens are aware that the state is for THEM, NOT vice versa; that its citizenry constitutes the substance, the backbone of society, government is essentially there to keep people from bumping into each other too hard, AND citizens absolutely should be skeptical about the powers of the state. A well-justified skepticism about what states will do if you let them is, after all, what promotes democracy in the first place. __________________________________________________________________________ Jan Narveson (Professor) Department of Philosophy, University of Waterloo; Waterloo, Ontario, Canada, N2L 3G1 (519) 888-4567-1-2780# (from touch-tone); or 885-1211, ext. 2780 (via switchboard); FAX (519) 746-3097 Home: (519) 886-1673 (answering machine) e-mail: jnarveso@watarts.UWaterloo.ca