Such 'policies' are based upon a very basic belief system...one that is just one level above blind belief. It is the belief that other people will support our view(s)/laws/social conventions/etc.
Of course, this does not happen in reality. Contracts are broken on a regular basis. Stop lights are run on a regular basis. People are bilked out of their money on a regular basis. Neil gets new neighbors on a regular basis…. Until humanity learns it’s true unity, which has a result…and that result is transformative, the current cycle of blindness will continue. Or, there will continue to be the ‘…calling in the dead of the night’ of that aviary friend of Neil’s! On Mar 7, 1:12 am, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 04 Most systems are inadequate, outdated or are open to subversion.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 > > ... > > read more »- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
