Scalia and Thatcher Wisdom…

And there are untold billions of great things that have occurred as the result of consensus.

The point is it's a bad quote. A blanket statement that couldn't possibly hold up to scrutiny. It's just being used for political points and to make the OP feel smart or something.

 

I understand the point you're trying to make, but that's where critical thinking comes into play. Of course it's not meant as a blanket statement. There's almost no one-liner that going to be accurate 100% of the time. But I'd still argue it does have some merit and it falls to the individual leader to understand when that time comes.

 

I would have to say the consensus quote just doesnt make any sense and I'm not even sure what its trying to imply, its the classic dumb person trying to sound smart type of quote

 

As I read it, its essentially a license for cranks and contrarians to think of themselves as smart or bold. The consensus is that the earth is round and the moon isnt made of swiss cheese, it really has nothing to do with leadership one way or the other.

 

Yep. It comes when the leader doesn't agree with the consensus. I'm not sure what else there is to spin here.

 

Its pretty rich coming from Margaret Thatcher, what consensus was she breaking with? That working people shouldnt be crushed under the boot of capital? Pretty sure the opposite was actually the consensus in the party she became the leader of! More or less the consensus worldwide by the 1980s too!

 

Personally, I am not sure what we can really glean from this one. What is critical thinking? If the scientific field reaches a consensus that human action causes climate change, does a leader demonstrate critical thinking by contradicting that claim? If so, does this mean that the scientific field has not demonstrating critical thinking in reaching that conclusion? Or can two parties demonstrate proper critical thinking and justifiably reach opposite conclusions? If so, it doesn’t seem like our method of reasoning is particularly reliable.

Basically, if two parties have an epistemic disagreement, we need some way to settle this. If we can’t ask a third party, since this would be appealing to consensus, what is our criterion for a justified claim?

 

Scalia wasn't wrong. In a constitutional republic, our rights are not subject to being denied by the majority. The hard part is determining precisely what those rights are and where lines should be drawn given that the Bill of Rights was written pretty vaguely.

 

I don't think I defer to the public's "consensus" on moral questions. But I think scientific questions or other areas involving subject matter expertise are different. There are at least theoretically objective answers even if we're still learning things. Newton nor Darwin understood everything, for example, but their findings were critical. It's the same reason we wouldn't want an engineer to perform heart surgery or a doctor to build a bridge.

 

Yes, if someone convinced everyone else that it was a good idea to euthanize anyone over 75 that consensus would be the result of leadership. Leadership can be a good thing (MLK) or a bad thing (Hitler). MLK helped convince a lot of people that Black people deserved equal rights. Hitler helped convince a lot of people the Jews should be exterminated. Both were leaders.

 

As I said, you don't know. So instead you find the "data" that you want to be real and cry about the hordes denying your "truth".

All you want is an autocratic leader to declare your alternative facts as truth.

 

What majority are you talking about? A 5-4 majority can literally deny your rights on the very court he once sat on.

 

I think the principle is that we do not defer to the executive or legislative branches or to the people through direct voting when fundamental rights are implicated. De-segregation and same sex marriage are two examples where the Court was ahead of popular opinion at least in many places around the country. Of course, the Court can take away a right too (as it did in reversing Roe). For better or worse, we have a system where the courts decide whether or not laws are repugnant to the Constitution. It's not a perfect system, but I'm not sure that I can come up with a better one either.

 

You both raise valid points. However, I think people are getting wrapped around the axle that every word in the quotes need to be taken as 100% applicable, 100% of the time, and by the strictest definition of each word without any room for interpretation. If that caveat were true, you'd be 100% correct.

I do think that what was meant (and we'll never know, this is my opinion on interpretation) was
“[Not knowing when to challenge the] Consensus [of opinion by mob rule] is the absence of [a necessary quality of good] leadership”

 

We have one of the worst systems of government among countries that call themselves democratic, we could literally come up with a better one merely by adopting theirs with almost no modification

 

Genuinely curious about the specifics. Pick one or two, and I will read up on how they're set up and handle things such as disputes about fundamental rights.

 

Where there is still a consensus only it deviates from the consensus elsewhere.

 

It would be more accurate to say that the foundation of our Constitutional Republic is rule by the majority with respect for the rights of the minority. There are terms to describe governments in which a minority rules, authoritarian, totalitarian and dictatorship immediately coming to mind.

 

You could pick any parlaimentary system and it would function better. If we insist on having a head of state/president to vote on, France does that.