conclusion.rmd

# (PART) Discussion {-}

# Conclusion

> Democracy is not being, it is becoming.
> It is easily lost, but never finally won.
> --- William Hastie (1904--1976)

<!-- THIS stuff, what I am dreaming of, just simply does not scale very well. That is a problem, be honest about that -->

<!-- - what does this add to the debate on the *crises of the welfare/tax state*? -->
<!--    - what does this add to the debate on the *crises of pluralist/representative democracy*? -->



<!-- [ ] you won't get there entirely (fung on revolution and deliberation) -->

<!-- Note somewhere that risk (for example, Beck) may be another topic for deliberation. Here, too, people have systematic misunderstandings (Kahnemann 2012), and it's about power (Paul Slovic) but there are also some truths (Sunstein), it's the same conflict between objective truth and relative truths and autonomy. -->

<!-- really be hard about this: this is a charge that civicon (thin leftiest supporter) also faces: does it just mullify dissent? -->
<!-- - feminist critique: mullifying critique -->
<!-- but, I would argue, it mullifies dissent not because of learning phases, but because there was not enough -->
<!-- My answer out of that is actually - counterintuitively -- longer, deeper, learning.
actually this is a somewhat fundamental addition: it's not just "facilitating dialogue" (whoch is what deliberation seems to degenerate into) – we need "didactiv reduction"; again the schools for democracy goes quite deep here. -->

<!-- deliberation is messy, it's not fast, and it does not scale, that is just the way of the lifeworld.
programming is much nicer.
but it's not clear that we can do without this -->

<!-- Notice towards the end: these are not revolutionary insights.
In part, because item development may still be in its infancy, and in large part, because the sample was quite limited in diversity --- missing liberals, in particular.
Still, it is very interesting, and it would be crucial to have larger samples to extract more items. -->


## Limitations

<!-- limitation: there wer eno liberals! -->

<!-- it's actually a little iffy that inequality (though materially represented!) wasn't really discussed.
instead, people got around this by kinda blaming the state
or maybe not, maybe they were really just polite or properly abstract, and trying to avoid making redistribution into a weird, one-off thing, discretionary -->



<!-- limitation: did not really get into the whole ses-status / different cognitive ability Stufentarif
If, even under the brand of liberal democracy most demanding of political autonomy, people of lower cognitive ability or socio-economic status were to misunderstand taxation, be unable to engage in reciprocally comprehensible argument and as a result, opt for taxes against their material interest, social inequality research would face a whole new process of perpetuating privilege.
Not only as social scientists, but as citizens, too, we must know how no one gets left behind in our schools of democracy [@DeTocqueville1840; @Rosenberg-2002-aa].
Liberal democracy, at bottom, requires that political participation *can* be made autonomous from power, status and wealth, and on this condition hinges the feasibility of liberalism as a political philosophy [@GutmannThompson-2004-aa K1431]. -->


## Better Deliberation

<!-- %Rosenberg 2004:
%12:
%12:
%``In my view, the value of the focus on deliberation is that it leads democratic theory beyond a consideration of individuals as essentially asocial agents that act simply to maximize their personal interests under conditions of collective action.
%However I do not believe that the deliberative democrats have gone far enough in their consideration of the social character of the individual, either as a subject or an agent.
%In this regard, they have a tendency to continue to characterize cognition as an essentially psychological attribute, one that reflects a basic and universal human nature.
%They also tend to reduce the emotional bond between people to a secondary question of private'' -->


## Further Research

<!-- ittq? -->
<!-- poll q dims separately -->

<!-- we probably have the f enough theory.
what we need is more and better data
enough with the proof of concepts
the central premise of organising a civicon has been validated.
it's not wrongheaded; people WANT this.
do it for real -->

<!-- Ideal: Citizen Scientists
this could be down for a longer period of time, maybe several weeks per year, and these people would return to their communities and be knowledge about some things in great detail.
It’s not so much about teaching these people what’s going on, but about making them ask their own questions – they become, rather than learn from scientists.
Oddly, these lay scientists may be the bests scientists all around; because they are pragmatic, and they are unencumbered by strategic considerations that all to often plague the modern economy. -->