Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ

THE PRINCIPLES OF PUBLIC OPINION

Not for the Public:
1. Executive action
2. Merits of a question
3. Analysis of the solution
4. Criteria for handling the question

For the Public:
5. Judge if actors are following settled rule of behavior
6. Criteria suitable to nature of Public opinion for #5
7. Reasonable behavior follows settled course in handling a rule

Democratic ideal never defined the function of the Public.

What if all submit to inquiry? Then the test reveals nothing.

A rule should be organized so that experience reveals its defects.
A rule must involve means of clarification, amendment, and due notice.
Amendment should not be continual or unforeseen.
These are not exhaustive or definitive criteria. To some they cannot be applied. Then the public best not act at all.

Limit of public intervention by judgement capacity.

Test of public inquiry surest clue to sincerity and confidence of the claimant.
In absence of law, is he willing to abide by forms by which law may be made?
We are maintaining a society based on the principle that all controversies are soluble by peaceable agreement, even if this is not true, to confirm the habit of reason.

Test of inquiry is the master test to extend frontiers of reason.

Particular reformers must look for support among ruling insiders.
Public can be refined by breaking up wholesale judgments.

Locate objective tests which actor is worthy of support.
Public support is like bank's gold reserve.
During crisis arguments are lost in fog of propaganda.

These most difficult problems are when the public is called upon.

TEST: Which party is willing to submit to inquiry and abide by result?

If choices were profound, elections would be catastrophic.
Instead assumption is the opposite.

Nation is stable when nothing of radical consequence is determined by its elections.

Real difference: Ins become entangled w/ interests, Outs take power, restore balance due to not being committed to those interests.

Ins are effective = absence of disturbing problems
Can't back each reformer, judgment must be cumulative

THE CRITERIA OF REFORM

Most issues dealt with by ruling elite, public only catches echoes of debate.

Settlements made continually -> ruling party has confidence, outsiders arrayed behind dominant insiders.
If interested parties cannot agree, there is crisis.

Essence of popular government is support Ins when going well, Outs when going badly.
No choice = no popular government

STABLE SOCIETIES = differences not big

Test is not if objectors are right, but merely that the leader can commit his constituents.
Criticizes but does not rebel = no concern.

Man willing to pay the price for heresy probably has an arguable case.

By measuring assent and conformity, the public can detect the presence of a defect in a rule. But it can only detect the presence of a defect, not the merits of the defect.

THE DEFECTIVE RULE

How rule violations are justified
A new rule requires assent, no matter how wise, otherwise there would be no rules.

How to know if sufficient assent is given?
Assent is lacking if there is protest or disobedience. How to measure?

Only public matter if public tribunal is attacked. How to know if a protest is made: Is the spokesman authorized? Burden of proof on those who deny leadership.

TWO QUESTIONS BEFORE THE PUBLIC

The public only deals with failures.

1. Is the rule defective?
2. How shall the agency be recognized which is most likely to mend it?
A member of the public can only usefully concern himself w/ these.

THE MAIN VALUE OF PUBLIC DEBATE
Not the merits of the arguments, interested advocates likely to expose each other if free discussion is insisted on. Betray the partisan is the purpose.

Public interest: There shall be rules
Individual's business is not public concern, that the individual obey the rules is.
Interested in law, not in laws.

Public is not dispenser or rules or morals, but a reserve force to be mobilized on behalf.

Public must recognize that system of rights is necessary, but no particular system is sacred, and not meddle in merits.