Hi Ed. I think it is these inherent contradictions in any system - mechanical, psychological, economical, political, which create such tensions that we develop other systems such as law, economic or psychological theory, or even mechanical which is why we need engineers and mechanics.
The only way I see out of the dilemma is 'oversight committees' or a form of 'public forums' that can constantly point out these contradictions. Another one we deal with in Canada is 'the first past the post' in counting votes. I like your thoughts. Respectfully, Thomas Lunde on 2/12/02 9:24 AM, Ed Goertzen at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Hi Thomas: > > I expect you are aware that the two primary motivators are fear and anger. > > They elicit the response of flight or fight. Only secondarily posture and > submission. > > I think I have hit on the elemental problem in politics. It involves the > brainwashing of the public. > > I expect that 99.99% of people are not aware that there is an elemental > "conflict of purpose" between the electoral system and the political parties. > > The electoral system is designed to fulfill the democratic purpose of > obtaining for the people a reperesentative in the cvommons whose purpose is > to "govern the rulers" > > The purpose of a political party is to elect sufficient number of their > club to sieze the reigns (sic) of power in order to convert public wealth > into private profit for their friiends. It has been that way since Queen > Elizabeth I invested in the privateering of Sir Francis Drake. The impetus > for democracy was to let more of the Lords & Nobles into the game. Then the > business people wanted in, so they extended the franchise. > > Have a lovely day > > Regards > Ed G > > > > > At 02:46 PM 11/02/2002 -0800, you wrote: >> Hi Gail and Michael: >> >> Yes, I agree, it is often dissent 'by whose ox get's gored' and if it is >> my ox, then I respond with indignation, anger and the sense of impotence >> and betrayal. >> >> Still, on the other side, sad for me to admit, is a significant number of >> people, primarily those with strong business and capitalistic interests who >> feel their ox has been gored for the last 8 years and they have some >> sympathy within parts of the work place in mining, resource development and >> the complicated rules and regulations in certain area of their interests >> and as they see it. restricting their potential to grow and have the >> freedom to gain. >> >> Gail said: >> >> >>>> "" >>>> >>>> >> >> "" "" And that is it - we are dysfunctional - the system, the people, the >> educational system, the work system, the legal system - the news system, >> the profit system - the whole bloody lot. >> >> >> >> We need a profit system that is moderate - not excessive. >> >> The other option is to continue until we create a catastrophe. >> >> And first, like Medicare, we first have to define the principles that we - >> as a country want to follow. >> >> Until we can collectively agree on a set of principles we will not be able >> to define and implement the tools to bring us the results the principles >> postulate. >> >> Respectfully, >> >> Thomas Lunde >> on 2/6/02 7:25 PM, Michael Gurstein at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> >> >>> Hi Gail, >>> >>> "" "" are threatened no matter by whom or to what end, people get angry >>> so the issue is not the anger but the interests. >>> >>> I also have the feeling that some of the edges of the grand conflicts of >>> our time, which were mitigated by the broad sweep of social >>> democracy/social welfarism and the rising post WWII tide, have now begun >>> for a variety of reasons (being explored by FW for example) to shift back >>> to their more normal state of being raw and occasionally bloody. >>> >>> The anger is a symptom of folks who are hurting and who feel rather let >>> down that the social consensus which used to prevail and which they were >>> more or less comfortable with, no longer holds and so we have the kind of >>> thing quoted by Ed and the responses to Harris in Ontario. >>> >>> MG >>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: G. Stewart [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] >>>> Sent: February 6, 2002 9:39 AM >>>> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>> Subject: Anger in politics >>>> >>>> Ed, Mike, Keith, >>>> >>>> Having already a sufficient number of lines in the water on FW I don't >>>> want to add another or would be sending you this question on-list. (If, >>>> in response, you have a comment you'd like to put on-list, please don't >>>> hesitate. It's not a private question.) >>>> >>>> "" (re Gordon Campbell in B.C.) "" with which the Harris government >>>> in Ontario had come into office and behaved. >>>> >>>> """" >>>> >>>> """""""" a province, safe within the arms of a larger federation, I >>>> suspect it might be in difficulty in a system of government that >>>> requires the consent of the governed to make it work. >>>> >>>> Perhaps all this is so self-evident as not to be worth mentioning but >>>> sometimes the necessary foundations of a situation become weakened >>>> through being taken so for granted they are not articulated? >>>> >>>> Your wisdom on this, gentlemen? >>>> >>>> Regards, >>>> >>>> Gail >>>> >>>> Gail Stewart >>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>> >> >>> >> >> > > > >
