" I would generally prefer a type of democracy based more on access to justice and less on elected representatives living on planet politics."
Reminds me of Plato's vision -- its relevance and its apparently superhuman dimensions. On Jun 30, 4:55 am, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > I remain a believer in wisdom and know of decent, courteous judges. > In the UK and my experience more widely, the problem is access to some > point of worthwhile judgement. We are generally not able to get > information, conduct enquiry or get legal representation in order to > put a case. I would generally prefer a type of democracy based more > on access to justice and less on elected representatives living on > planet politics. Somehow, we need better, more open dialogue about > what is going on and what we might do to prevent the abuse of power. > One problem I don't hear addressed much is that even in dreaming of > anything radically different we exclude mechanisms that won't go away > and will revert us to default systems, including the one of revolution > just turning the circle 180 degrees. > Sociology has dreamed itself up its own dark regions through cultural > identity fetishes and endless failures in listening and recognising > the need for time-bound decision-making and observation. Generally, > we are teaching people to be the horrible bureaucrats who won't act on > evidence and simply appease the system and now corrupt bosses whilst > kids die and the intergenerational transmission of criminal misery > continues in front of their noses. The judges Molly mentioned are > always good at critical reasoning and we have almost stopped teaching > this and confidence in it entirely. We are also passing a good 70% of > people who can't begin to think for themselves, and seeing academic > staff drawn from this pool a few years later. I'm out of it - there > is no changing this from the inside. > > On 30 June, 00:11, Tinker <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > You didn't answer anything, you took a poke at the messenger :-) > > > peace & Love > > > On Jun 29, 2:02 am, frantheman <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On 29 Jun., 07:21, Tinker <[email protected]> wrote:> to not answer = > > > 'no' answer > > > > > Doesn't it? :-) > > > > Sometimes a question is not answered because readers don't consider it > > > worth answering. > > > > *** (wonders) Why am I answering this? ... *** > > > > Francis- 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
