Bruno, it seems I cannot shake you out from the 'classical' format that -WHOEVER (Nominative, not: "whomever" which is Accusative) *lies* himself into getting the (questionable?) majority of the voting population (and THEN can do WHATEVER his interest dictates - in the name of such majority - ) means *D E M O C R A C Y *. NO, it does not. You may call it a distortion, or any political malaise, but democracy (the cratos of the demos) is the rule of the (entire) population, not a select majority only, leaving any size of minority suppressed in the system. It is not timely, to implement such system in our (ongoing) World. - So be it. - I try to keep the vocabulary clean and do not compromise for ongoing corruptions.
Religious authoritarian systems are not apt for a democratic instalment, unless *every member* of the society is equally devout to that religion. (I don't mean the 'IS' method: to cut off the heads of all the infidels). An example of the efficiency of the ongoing voting technique: We changed domicile (State) before election, so we could not vote. We wanted to vote for candidate* A* and in the new state candidate* B* got the majority of votes. We were not upset, because in the nationwide election candidate *A* became the president anyway. Our vote - if cast - would have been wasted, *yet efficient*. Regards John M On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 12:00 PM, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 23 Sep 2015, at 21:24, Brent Meeker wrote: > > >> >> On 9/23/2015 3:15 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >>> >>> On 22 Sep 2015, at 23:55, John Mikes wrote: >>> >>> Bruno, I am at a loss with your explanation. I lived the active first 50 >>>> years of my life in Europe and never heard about such 'liberalism' (for a >>>> short time was even connected to the Hungarian Liberal Democratic Party). >>>> >>> >>> In my counntry the right party has the name "parti libéral", for >>> example. Liberal means "open to free markets". >>> May be that is only in West Europa. >>> >>> >>> "Liberal" was in no connection with right/wrong, or even right/left, >>>> only pointed to some freedom of action in the political arena. And the >>>> other thing: >>>> >>>> Democracy IMO is an oxymoron, the full "demos" cannot exercise it's >>>> full "cratos" for ruling, >>>> >>> >>> >>> Democracy means, for me, presence of election. It can be partial, like >>> in the beginning where woman did not have the right to vote, or like in the >>> antic greece were election was for the educated class, and not for slaves, >>> or it is "universal", meaning everyone can vote. In some country it is >>> "everyone *must* vote (in Belgium election are obligatory). >>> >>> Then a democracy can be corrupted, and/or under the influence of >>> corporatism, and/or sick etc. Democracy is not the final state of politics, >>> it is the prerequisite of having a representative politics. If the main >>> powers (mainly justice and press) are not independent, a democracy can be >>> de facto a tyranny disguised into democracy. I think that is the case today >>> (since prohibition). >>> >>> It is the like the Islamic bill or right, which is a copy of the >>> universal definition except that they have added "as long as it verifies >>> the Charia" for each principle (which of course changes the very idea). The >>> same with Obama who signed a text which respect the human right except for >>> a category or people, but something have to be universal to make sense. The >>> human right applies to all humans, or there is no more human right at all. >>> >>> >> Democracy is necessary but not sufficient for good government. >> > > I agree. > > > Supposing that democracy is enough was the mistake of George W. Bush and >> the neo-conservatives. >> > > That mistake, but also the mistake that we can impose democracy to others, > or the even more naïve idea that by eliminating a dictator will make people > opting for a democracy. > > A democracy needs a lot of generation of thinking people. > > And just one generation of people can make it disappear, or weakened so > much that it "stays" as a democracy only for a part of the population. > > > > > They thought that if we just held elections in Iraq all would be well. >> But there must be limitations on government, constitutional restraints and >> traditional restraints. Otherwise whomever has the majority assumes that >> democracy means they can oppress the minority. >> > > The case of Egypt is quite remarkable in that respect. They made a > successful revolution to set back a military dictatorship. They succeeded > in making a democracy, that is, organizing election. They vote for the > Muslim Brotherhood, and when they realized the Muslim Brotherhood was > killing the democracy and imposing a religious dictatorship, the people > made a second revolution to re-install the military dictatorship, and even > to fight the Muslim Brotherhood (courtized and encouraged by Obama, by the > way). They have understood that a secular military dictatorship is far > better than a religious dictatorship. Somehow, they understood they were > not ready for democracy. too much people still believe that they know the > truth and impose it to others. > That was a bit of a relief, and it is sad this occurred only in Egypt > although in Tunisia some bit of reason to hope remains. > > > > > > >> >>> >>> >>> becuase every person has different aims, goals, interests, etc. Those, >>>> who call a "majority-rule" a democracy are establishing a minority whose >>>> interests are trampled down by the so called "majority" which is not even >>>> so sure, to BE a majority indeed. Voting is cheating, candidates LIE in the >>>> campaign and the voters compromise their (real?) interests for the least >>>> controversial lies. What is even worse: the "elected" persons don't even >>>> follow their own lies later on in practice. They go after their (untold???) >>>> interest. Impeachment is difficult. >>>> >>> >>> Yes, but that is because our democracies are sick. It is not because a >>> car is broken that a car is not supposed to be driven. >>> >>> And I wish the minority having no power, but a problem with more than >>> two parties is that the minority can have tremendous infuence. Indeed the >>> minority will often makes the difference when the majorities disagree. But >>> the french Condorcet has already studied the impossibility of satisfying >>> everybody by a voting procedure, and democracies can evolve, and we can >>> change the rules, ... unless the system has been corrupted. >>> >>> It is not because we can die of cancer that we are not alive. It is the >>> same with democracy, they can get sick, and the election might no more >>> represent what the people desire. >>> I am opposed to referendum and participative democracies, because this >>> can give all the power to the media. >>> >>> >>> >>>> One word about 'capitalism' - with a caveat not to fall into Marxist >>>> traps: >>>> it is the open exploitation of the power of wealth over the have-nots, >>>> be it by employment, marketing, or production policy. Not the "haves" - >>>> mind you, but the oligarchs, super-wealthy owners, political donors, etc. >>>> etc. established since Adam Smith. >>>> >>> >>> I disagree, even if in practice, some facts can lead to the perversion. >>> But the non-democratic ruling consist in putting the perversion right at >>> the beginning. Free-market is a win-win game, when it is not perverted by a >>> minority (like today). The rich needs, in that case, to enrich the poor, as >>> they have interest to make the poor into clients. It works, in the sense >>> that most democracies have much less people starving than tyrannies. Now, >>> when the rich exploit the poor, it means that the democracy is not >>> functioning. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Growth is NOT maintainable with the limited resources existing. >>>> >>> >>> Computer science provides a non limited resources. >>> >>> >>> >>> And a >>>> (cut-throat?) Competition as life? thanks, but no thanks. . >>>> >>> >>> I would defend the universal allocation, and the right of laziness, but >>> for this, we have to be lucid and realist on the economical difficulties >>> which can rise in that case. >>> >> >> We also have to have a lot of resources and considerable inequality so >> that taking from the richest to give to the poor and lazy does not >> significantly burden them. >> > > > We need a difference of potential/richness to make the economical engine > working. But when people play honest, the rich enriched the poor, and > themselves. the difference between rich and poor is maintained, but the > poor is still less poor today than yesterday. Sometimes, a poor from a rich > country is richer than a rich from a poor country. Universal allocation is > a sort of right to be "poor", which can be explained if you have a passion. > You will paint all your life, and may be somepeople will get rich, or not, > soon or later, with your painting. or you do research and just find > nothing, but again, even in that case your work can be useful, like showing > the path that it is preferable to avoid. A right of "poorness" would allow > a better long term perspective, and that can help to "enrich" people much > more in the long term. > > The problem, now, is that when your amount of money is such that it makes > it *much* more profitable to use the money to corrupt people and stole > their money by using lies and exploiting the fear created by those lies, > then bandits can take power. Such lies are usually person (like the jews, > or the homosexuals, or the atheists, or even the "terrorists" etc.) or > products (like alcohol, medication). > > > > > > > >> >>> I personally hate competition, but it is right, and without progressing >>> in politics, instead of regressing, it is a necessity. >>> >>> >>> >>> Do you mean cooperative and collaborating goodwilling people dead? >>>> >>> >>> On the contrary, without a democracy, cooperation is quickly impossible. >>> It leads to the ruling of the strongest, like with mafia. democracy, I >>> think, is the main tool for cooperation. people do my milk, and I teach >>> math to their kids. That is win-win. >>> >>> The hard problem here is that after a long productive cooperation, some >>> people or group of people can multiply the gain immensely by cheating, and >>> up to some amount, they can hide the cheating by corruption. I have no >>> definite solution for this, but I don't think that is a reason to abandon >>> the democracy, by which I mean a voting system (I recall). We can try to >>> have laws making corruption harder, but there is no absolute vaccine >>> against that. >>> >>> I don't think that stopping prohibition will restore automatically a >>> sane democracy, but I am sure that not-stopping the prohibition will >>> perpetuate and aggravate the sickness of the current democracies. So >>> stopping prohibition is the first thing to do. It is the main engine of >>> corruption and terrorism of all kinds. >>> >> >> So you think the 9/11 attack was because Bin Laden because Islam forbids >> drinking alcohol? the Iraq war was because W. couldn't legally buy >> marijuana? >> > > I have no certainty, and I am still trying to understand. But there are > evidences for something like that, although it does not concern alcohol, > which is legal, nor marijuana, which is cultivated mainly in America (South > and North) but of opium (heroine) (without mentioning petrol) coming from > Afghanistan). > The Taliban seemed to have stopped the production of heroin, and it looks > we have gone there to restablish the culture of opium and the production of > heroin, perhaps for the American and European markets. Yes, that is > possible (to be franc, I do have contradictory evidences on this, so I have > not yet definite plausible conclusions). > > About Irak I have no clue at all of what did happen. Saddam Hussein seems > to be a secular, "installed" by the US to protect us from the madness of > the Ayatollas in Iran. > > I would have been in position of Bush Senior during Gulf war 1, I would > have said to Saddam that if he go out of Kuwait, and sign a serious peace > treatise with israel, I would offer him an atomic bomb. > > Of course that is easy to say after the facts, and for the second Gulf war > I did swallow for a time the lies on Irak. (Despite I already knew at that > time that Bush senior and junior (like many) were prohibitionists (making > them into liars). > > Marijuana is still schedule one, despite 75 years of debunking of the > proofs of dangers, and 75 years of discoveries of therapeutic benefices. > > Also, schedule one means that the research of benefits is forbidden, but > research for dangers is allowed, which is a total nonsense. > > An exercise that I give often on facebook (!): > > 5 years of prohibition of alcohol has given Al Capone. What can give 75 > years of prohibition of Marijuana? > > Bruno > > > > >> Brent >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "Everything List" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >> email to [email protected]. >> To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. >> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >> > > http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ > > > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
