This good sense still leaves questions of public scrutiny Vam - these are a real can of worms, though if one was a Blackbird, one would presumably want to open such.
On 7 Mar, 04:40, Vamadevananda <[email protected]> wrote: > Further : > > 01 A policy is just that, a policy. It means an intent or a > contextual rule. In practice, it would have to be implemented by > PEOPLE and, perhaps, an ORGANISATION, and would likely require the > availability and support of SYSTEMs. > > 02 Most people do not have the necessary integrity, intelligence, > committment and capability to implement policies according to their > intent. > > 03 Most organisations are mere " hard boxed " inflexible structures, > with individual nodes rooted in power than in the spirit of serving > the policy intents. > > 04 Most systems are inadequate, outdated or are open to subversion. > > I face all of the above in my everyday experience ! So, a policy > needs to be laid out around the above realities. A well - designed > policy is a good start. > > On 6 Mar, 19:12, bruce ralph <[email protected]> wrote: > > > A lot of public policy decisions have an underlying dogmatic element > > that are made on an emotional basis. A primary source of dogma is > > religion unfortunately. This is bad for decision making in the 21st > > century simply because the world has become more interdependent and we > > all have common interests. Guess what. Theres always going to be > > groups that don't like each other for one reason or another. We still > > have to get along. Fortunately, I think the current U.S. government > > understands that. > > > On Mar 5, 5:38 am, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > The view has been around for centuries Don. Max Weber's pessimistic > > > view of the iron cage of bureaucracy is nearly 100 years old. The > > > idea is to take this into account in designing organisations and > > > democracy, probably through public choice theories that accept that > > > human nature is not golden. > > > > On 1 Mar, 16:22, Don Johnson <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Which is why 'honest politician' is widely accepted as an oxymoron by > > > > the mainstream public. More transparency would be a good start. At > > > > least with domestic policy. Foreign policy is a different kettle of > > > > fish and some level of obfuscation is necessary to achieve national > > > > goals. National goals being safety and adequate access to resources > > > > vital to our development. Foreign aid should only be allowed if it > > > > promotes the first two goals. > > > > > dj > > > > > On Sun, Mar 1, 2009 at 10:03 AM, archytas <[email protected]> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > There are ways we could try to improve. Clearly we have almost no > > > > > effective 4th Estate and much politics is parochial to within a few > > > > > hundred yards of where the parliament buildings are - yet as soon as > > > > > one starts one only has to think of the European Parliament and the > > > > > Strassborg gravy-train every month! I'd take a guess that the kind of > > > > > glad-handing and so on it takes to get on in a party situation (and > > > > > the possible influence of vested interests very early on) actually > > > > > exclude the honest. > > > > > > On 1 Mar, 14:34, Don Johnson <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > >> "On the other hand, the party alternatives and structures available > > > > >> at > > > > >> the moment all disgust me so much, I couldn't imagine getting > > > > >> personally involved - yeeuuch!" > > > > > >> My sentiments exactly. Not to mention the cesspool the press will > > > > >> drag your family through. I suppose if you're already rich and > > > > >> famous > > > > >> you're used to it but no one as anonymous as you and me would be > > > > >> stupid enough to do it. It's just insane. > > > > > >> Maybe it's time to read Federalist No. 10 again. Revisit what James > > > > >> Madison wanted for the young republic. It's amazing how much things > > > > >> stay the same. The issues Hamilton and Jefferson struggled with are > > > > >> alive and well in today's politics as well. Fascinating. > > > > > >> dj > > > > > >> On Sun, Mar 1, 2009 at 7:46 AM, frantheman > > > > >> <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > >> > Parties - one of the most important components of modern > > > > >> > representative democracies, and one of the most difficult. Their > > > > >> > role > > > > >> > has developed historically over centuries to the stage where many > > > > >> > more > > > > >> > modern constitutions actually accord them a formal role. Yet there > > > > >> > is > > > > >> > something basically undemocratic about them. The basic idea behind > > > > >> > representative democracies is that citizens elect a > > > > >> > representative, or > > > > >> > representatives to the legislative assemply to represent them. > > > > >> > Ultimately, the representative is responsible to his/her > > > > >> > constituents > > > > >> > and must return to them regularly to have his/her madate renewed. > > > > >> > End > > > > >> > results of this tendency include pork-barrel politics, > > > > >> > sectionalism, > > > > >> > corruption and chaos. > > > > > >> > In the original British and US systems, elected representatives > > > > >> > made > > > > >> > common cause with others of similar views within the assemblies and > > > > >> > the roots of parliamentary parties were born - Tories and Whigs > > > > >> > (although the tendency is much older, going back to medieval > > > > >> > Italian > > > > >> > Guelphs and Ghibbelines or republican Roman boni and viri novi - > > > > >> > probably a deep-seated geneto-cultural grouping tendency). Today, > > > > >> > parties have - in many cases - a stranglehold on politics; many > > > > >> > European countries work with a "list" electoral system, which > > > > >> > allows > > > > >> > for a proportion of representatives being elected on the basis of > > > > >> > party lists. There are positive aspects to this - proportional > > > > >> > representation is guaranteed (unlike in the British [or US] system > > > > >> > where, given three parties a party which obtained an [admittedly > > > > >> > unlikely] even geographical constituency spread of 34% of the vote > > > > >> > could obtain 100% of assembly seats) and legislators are protected > > > > >> > from narrow constituency pressures to concentrate on their real > > > > >> > job - > > > > >> > legislating. Such systems also offer stabilising mechanisms, such > > > > >> > as > > > > >> > minimal levels of votes necessary for party representation so as to > > > > >> > avoid the chaos caused by profligate party splintering, which can > > > > >> > also > > > > >> > result in minor parties exerting undue influence in the > > > > >> > negotiation of > > > > >> > coalitions (Israel is a cautionary example here - in Germany, on > > > > >> > the > > > > >> > other hand, a party has to have 5% of the vote before it gets > > > > >> > representation in parliament). > > > > > >> > Of course, the down side is that elected representatives become > > > > >> > mere > > > > >> > ciphers, cloned nonentities, whose only function is to vote > > > > >> > according > > > > >> > to party policy. Literally, toeing the party line. Many western > > > > >> > party > > > > >> > systems (and there is no significant difference across the > > > > >> > political > > > > >> > spectrum) allow their parliamentary representatives less freedom of > > > > >> > conscience than Stalin's CPSU. You can buck the party whip all > > > > >> > right, > > > > >> > but then, you'd better start looking for a new job after the next > > > > >> > election. And then the questions arise as to where the control > > > > >> > within > > > > >> > the parties really lies, who is responsible for the formulation of > > > > >> > party policy, and whether these processes have anything to do with > > > > >> > democracy. > > > > > >> > I won't even go into one-party systems here - although they are not > > > > >> > always as un- or anti-democratic as one might think. > > > > > >> > As Neil says, it takes more than just a few bleats about > > > > >> > transparency. > > > > >> > We have become cynical and resigned about politics and increasingly > > > > >> > disengaged in the representative democracies. Those who really > > > > >> > profit > > > > >> > from this process are those interested in manipulating power for > > > > >> > their > > > > >> > own ends. > > > > > >> > On the other hand, the party alternatives and structures available > > > > >> > at > > > > >> > the moment all disgust me so much, I couldn't imagine getting > > > > >> > personally involved - yeeuuch! > > > > > >> > Francis > > > > > >> > On 1 Mrz., 08:30, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > >> >> Getting to the meat is key. Access to justice is still poor in > > > > >> >> the > > > > >> >> West and I suspect lawyers don't help this because of the money > > > > >> >> system. We need to be able to say boo to various gooses and I > > > > >> >> suspect > > > > >> >> we need a kind of constitutional reform pretty much not discussed. > > > > >> >> This isn't proportional representation or whatever, but about > > > > >> >> recognising how rotten power becomes. That senile old bastard > > > > >> >> Mugabe > > > > >> >> is a current classic - we need to be able to call him this, not > > > > >> >> 'Mr. > > > > >> >> President'. I remember being inspired by his intellect and > > > > >> >> rhetoric > > > > >> >> as a young man. New Labour in the UK look nearly as bad - maybe > > > > >> >> all > > > > >> >> that stops them giving us starvation and cholera is that we could > > > > >> >> rise > > > > >> >> up? Party politics, whether of the one-party state or > > > > >> >> multi-party is > > > > >> >> a major problem, not a cure. We have been taken into an unjust > > > > >> >> war > > > > >> >> and killed thousands in a manner as evil as anything Mugabe has > > > > >> >> done, > > > > >> >> and could not stop this by street protest or voting. I see a > > > > >> >> corruption of reason everywhere and am pretty damned sure I'm not > > > > >> >> paranoid. I believe we could find structural ways to prevent the > > > > >> >> corruption, but we need more than a few bleats about transparency. > > > > > >> >> On 28 Feb, 14:58, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > >> >> > The squeaky wheel gets the grease. I guess one could say the > > > > >> >> > same > > > > >> >> > about the worst of any group and perhaps the woman might be a > > > > >> >> > bit > > > > >> >> > uniformed in that light. She seems to have partitioned a single > > > > >> >> > group. The chosen people concept surely would not bring about > > > > >> >> > much > > > > >> >> > more that condemnation of the unchosen. I > > ... > > read more » --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/Minds-Eye?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
