Perhaps the previous post, "Legitimacy of Minimum Wages" (the word "authenticity" is used this time as a translation for legitimacy) have a question: what attitude should be the question of "minimum wage" is? Wedged in a tone of voice is more threatening, saying only: "yes" or "no"?
Well, once again, so are those who say they are naive in the trace-sitting her. As if they think that everything is finished in a single command, also in an ideology.
Actually, the answer is not "yes", not "no", so dramatically. No one is entitled to act as "tingteng", to serve as a subject of "super-conscious" is capable of handling all the problems that are embedded in the community.
Otherwise, the answer is that Habermas is the phrase, "the formation of opinion and political will" (Meinungs-und politische Willensbildung). These phrases then build their products legality of the law (which in this case refers to the legal minimum wage).
However, the question is, what is meant by this phrase? And, how this sentence can be associated with minimum wage?
Departing from this question, we will menelisik how the voice of liberalism (as well as libertarian) who are determined to support the understanding of individualism, while stout defending the interests of employers. More precisely, they object to the basic minimum wage.
At least, they see it is the employer's absolute right to determine the limits of employee salaries. They said, "employers have the capital, so employers have a right to decide anything."
If the philosophical approach, they also restore the right of employers to human rights. In addition, among these countries is also believed that a third entity that is not right at all to the crisis interventions among employers of these workers. Similarly, among the liberal part of this argument.
But, what of socialism among the strong urge to enforce the minimum wage?
Of course, socialism is clear support among komunitarian understand, that right should be returned to the sovereignty of the people. In this context "worker" is often just as they quickly momokkan people. At least, they believe in each employer's stand on the strength of such workers.
In amongst this again, the voice of workers to be heard, even at a certain moment they think the employer should obey the will of pekerja.Di addition, they also want to state interventions in the end this conflict. Similarly, some arguments among this socialism.
However, the fact that the two crises that digegerkan by this extremism? What is the way out of this crisis is as easy as that early speech accusing them of the grave as Socialists, put him back to good arguments that were anti-socialist dihadamnya standard for this?
It is not that simple, or, not easy for us to say "yes" or "no" only.
Before we are ready to say "yes" or "no," we must also be ready to go through the process first. Because, the process is more important than consequently. Are like, "the process is the solution." Without the process, there is no validity of any law that terumus. Just how the building process, the validity of this?
For that, we will enter the description of Habermas in his democratic berwacana (Deliberative Demokratie); the "formation of opinion and political will" is. In this idea, the concept of human rights (human rights, liberalism ~ ~ employer) and the concept komunitarian (socialism sovereignty ~ ~ workers) have a place of their own. It's no longer the exclusive character of Kantian.
Meaning, "formation of opinion" is a citizen action (whether the employee or the employer, or anyone who feels affected) to discourse their hearts, and all their interests in public spaces (Öffentlichkeit).
They have the right to challenge any kind, according to the meaning of public space as a "state that can be accessed by all involved." They are also allowed to fight for those interests. Meanwhile, their right to a follow-speech (Sprechakt) must be fully guaranteed.
Thus, this course will tie the discourse. And, this discourse is the process.
Interestingly, this process is not very stressful, as is often imagined. But, the process is capable of describing togetherness (Solidarität) among the affected. Integration (integration) was created by berseminya "a sense of involvement" in the law will be formulated.
Thus, obedience to the law is able to link the stability and avoid any tension. Because, the law is the law terbenah a valid, recognized and felt by all who are involved in the initial formulation.
However, what about the sequence of this discourse-ended in a common law? That is, how the process is terminated discourse (though, the process will always continue meralatnya)? This is where the state function, which serves to represent "us." Mean "we" is not a unilateral power of arrogance.
Otherwise, "we" just may be the employer, employees at the same time. Simply put "we" are "indigenous community residents" (Zivilgesellschaft). And, the word "we" are said to all the (involved).
Then, the decision was designed to realize as a result "we," is no longer as a result of "their," or "us". As a result, the moment we began to feel "belonging" is? Can we measure this through a balanced level of discourse that can be measured through the maturity of the arguments that have been displayed.
Here, Habermas believes, if the discourse has matured, even chew time, the "togetherness" will be in a specific agreement, in which no conflict of interest to dijernehkan, or at least can be mitigated (not diredamkan).
In the language of Habermas, this is called "equiprimordial", the equivalence between "I Autonomous" and the "Sovereign People." Thus, a law that 'more' legitimate achieved. So, for those purposes, it is recommended that broad dissemination of discourse, and to stimulate active discussion among the citizens, to build the maturity of the arguments.
Indeed, the crisis is still ongoing, and should continue to be allowed to continue. But, apparently, the more valid a law, the less well krisisnya.
Then, on the other hand, countries must also be a reflection of the will of the people indigenous community. Country here, not secetek as understood in the context of the classical Hobbesian state, or a Rousseauian.
Therefore, in Habermas, the country need not rush to conclude the law prior to the maturity gained discourse. And, instead of country-absolute power is exclusive, sebaleknya is a power of a political character of the communicative actions of the nationals.
Similarly, the country is a manifestation of sound "indigenous community residents" themselves. The idea is that once a Hobbesian state aligning the concept does not consider the human ability to "borrow another perspective," as well as improving Rousseauian often "reduce the minority vote."
Habermasian not. Habermas asserts that the state-of-the meaning of democracy berwacana not consist of the atomistic selfish, and he understood the law has always allocated space for the revised, and to defend the rights of the minority to continue to fight for its interests.
Intersubjektif value is missing in the classical political theory, but also not in political theory to religion whatsoever. This value also soften the ambiguity between the "law is coercive" (Zwangsgesetz) with "the law is freedom" (Freiheitsgesetz).
Nevertheless, the question: why today there is a tendency of countries to behave recklessly, supposedly in the name of efficiency (Effizienz) by taking a short cut way to the Natonal-law without first thinking about what it really boils down of its own nationals communicative action?
And he said, "the country is not valid." Indeed, this tendency is not only in the minds of the country that is not legitimate, but also on the minds of liberalism and socialism, which are each very proud to act under the influence of philosophical subjects (Subjektsphilosophie).
Sebaleknya, if there is a state (political system) and citizens (Lebenswelt) aims to purify this crisis, then everything should be berlapang breast meaning of an attitude that menghurmati indigenous community residents themselves.
Of the country, they should listen to the voice of citizens, as from there they stood. Meanwhile, the employers, they should listen to employee complaints. Meanwhile, the workers, they should listen to burden employers. Then, at a communicative level, through mutual-understanding, and mutual-learning, then a consensus will be achieved.
But, unfortunately, this process would never happen in the country that is not valid.
Upon failure, the law was achieved not so valid. This is because the process has not gone legitimate. Just imagine if the legal minimum wage was enacted hastily, without passing the right, without considering voting indigenous community members, the law that cut fine vegetables are overshadowed by suspicion, and would face a crisis that increasingly negative.
So, here we submit that the greatest strength lies in the ideological-rather than specific countries or in the morgue, but the indigenous community residents themselves. However, amid the sound of it we may, not a right to determine the right salary is the employer?
True, but what employers exercise (I'm autonomous) if the right is not recognized by the employee (the sovereign people)? And, any use of the law, if the law is only used to protect the interests of employers, but can not be used to protect the interests of workers?
Hatta, to state what, if the state fails to protect the indigenous community of his people? So, like it or not, the concept of indigenous community members is a joint (locus) on everything, which even surpassed some of the weaknesses of the concept of the modern state.
Unfortunately, the concept of modern state practice, the executive is only in contact with the people through elections. We just enjoy the direct involvement of political-perhaps only once in five years.
Right now, countries should hinge on the concept of citizen power, which in Habermas called the "revolution of daily life." Which means: we can change the decision of the country, only daily requirements collected from the indigenous community residents.
Arakian, there is another question: Will this idea is too idealistic? Not really! Why? Because Habermas does not revamp the whole of modern political theory. Sebaleknya, still swoop in trias politica, in addition to the emphasis on freedom of media and the citizens of the communicative action.
Thus, Habermas is the real start of the realisitik. However, whether this idea is too normative? It was! Why? Because Habermas accidentally put the target level of perfection that soar. The goal is to bolster the ongoing efforts towards a better, and better yet, to form Sittlichkeit (morality).
So, not everything can be solved by simply streamlining the country? Not really. Because, streamline state (libertarian), or menggemokkan countries (Leninism), they have not even summarize the question of authenticity. And, of course, the question of authenticity is beyond question the size of the country.
The legality is also then realized "rule by the ruled" (der Regierung Regierten). This then reconnect the linkage between "a single political system" with "Lebenswelt diverse." Thus, if the communicative power (Macht kommunikative) people are not rolling in political power, then everything would not have meaning. Never have meaning due to the expiry of validity.
That is the meaning of democracy berwacana Habermas, and how we see it in the micro case: the minimum wage. Put simply, democracy berwacana should start from "what is" (Faktizität) and "what is confirmed" (Geltung).
Surprisingly, the context that the poor among liberalism, also naked from the socialism. Meanwhile, the country is "not valid" day was more and more it looks totalitarianism. Therefore, it is only shallow people who continue to greedy with his own ideological fanaticism, no want to think about the process of aiming towards the consensus.
Again, only the shallow kind.
Individual is the editor Ummahonline.com Aqil, also the Asian Public Intellectuals Fellowship 2009/2010, sponsored by the Nippon Foundation, Japan. He can be contacted through aqilfithri@gmail.com.
Listen
Read phonetically
Features
Frequently Asked Questions
