Democracy clearly isn't just about voting occasionally for parties we probably think are corrupt. In the UK we have slipped to the cynical position that all candidates are broadly the same, self-interested jobsworths - I used to hear this regularly in years gone by and think it was a very unworthy position - now I believe it is the sensible position, though only if we genuinely want to change the system. The changes needed are 'big' but not impossible or ideological. It's obvious our main political parties do not want to take part and are really only interested in 'business as usual'. Our government is focused in Westminster and one has to wonder why this has to be the case given electronic communication. There is no real way to monitor what our MPs do or to get rid of useless or corrupt ones. My guess is that most of them are both and that this is inevitable because of the party system, but I would stress I don't know this as the information for informed decisions is not generally available to us - we have to make 'guesses'. The media is little better than an adjunct to 'business as usual' rather than a fourth estate.
I want to see a smaller State. We have massively expanded the public sector - so much so it is impossible to gauge the real size as we have all kinds of off-balance sheet finance initiatives, QUANGOs and charities providing basic services. Sweeping this away would almost certainly cost 2 million jobs and I have no belief private sector entrepreneurialism can fill the gap - this kind of economics has long been a lame duck itself. My guess is that 6 million people are already unemployed and many others under-employed. There are massive deficits in our pensions and welfare and at the same time we have a very large body of jobsworths on very high salaries adding to the pension burden. The answers are miles away from any proper public dialogue. On 2 Oct, 13:16, Molly Brogan <[email protected]> wrote: > Great point, rigsy. The structure of government and function of > leadership of any group should be determined by its developmental > needs. I think what Chomsky is calling for is more purity in > democracy, less corruption, more voice for citizens and organizational > opportunities for subgroups. Democracy in the true spirit of > democracy. The challenge, is to create a form that will serve the top > and bottom levels of development for citizens, those self motivating > and sustaining, those not. Chomsky's view isn't new but it is > timely. The American transcendental poets each spoke of > individuality, freedom, citizenship and the mandates of democracy and > were a big influence on the politics of their time. > > Souvenirs of Democracy. by Walt Whitman > THE business man, the acquirer vast, > After assiduous years, surveying results, preparing for departure, > Devises houses and lands to his children—bequeaths stocks, goods—funds > for a > school or hospital, > Leaves money to certain companions to buy tokens, souvenirs of gems > and gold; > Parceling out with care—And then, to prevent all cavil, > His name to his testament formally signs. > > But I, my life surveying, > With nothing to show, to devise, from its idle years, > Nor houses, nor lands—nor tokens of gems or gold for my friends, > Only these Souvenirs of Democracy—In them—in all my songs—behind me > leaving, > To You, who ever you are, (bathing, leavening this leaf especially > with my > breath—pressing > on it a moment with my own hands; > —Here! feel how the pulse beats in my wrists!—how my heart’s-blood is > swelling, > contracting!) > I will You, in all, Myself, with promise to never desert you, > To which I sign my name. > > On Oct 2, 12:00 am, rigsy03 <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Citizens can be content in empires and monarchies, as well, if there > > is peace and security, fair taxation and laws, accepted social strata > > and freedoms, etc. A vote doesn't mean much if you are saddled with a > > corrupt government/politicians and call it a democracy, republic or > > the city council. And if nations decide to defeat trade rivals by > > unfair practices, they are probably asking for wars/war monger > > dictators who appeal to the basic needs/wants/resentments of their own > > citizens. > > > On Oct 1, 10:20 pm, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Exactly the issue Neil…’we’ cause the problems and on many different > > > levels. However, I’m not sure it is due to lack of democracy…not > > > saying this is not the cause, just not sure. > > > > The ‘old’ unions had their function and arose in a different time > > > based upon specific needs. All such things change. And is it really a > > > mystery as to why specific characters arose to power? I’m not sure > > > this is a puzzle at all. > > > > On Oct 1, 3:44 pm, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Indeed Orn - there is definitely a baby in this bathwater. I would > > > > hope never again to experience the 'Zil Chill' of the former Soviet > > > > states or the grim feelings I've had elsewhere away from these shores, > > > > though we need to understand we cause many of these problems by > > > > failing to achieve more democracy. I'm an old union man, but don't > > > > want to see a return of the old unions - however, a new form of > > > > insured representation for all is possible. If 'democracy' could > > > > produce Hitler we need to know why and how - even Mugabe was once > > > > voted in for real. > > > > > On 1 Oct, 17:41, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > As critical as I am of the ‘democracy’ that I know, mostly with the > > > > > intention of retaining and/or improving it, I am quite thankful that > > > > > this lifetime was not spent in Cambodia or other such countries. The > > > > > current experiment is preferable when a comparison to what is is > > > > > conducted. And, when compared to the codified words “…in order to form > > > > > a more perfect union…”, the ongoing process is seen and must be > > > > > recognized. I do. > > > > > > On Oct 1, 9:26 am, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > We like to think of the UK Parliament as the 'mother of > > > > > > parliaments'. > > > > > > We are much the same in sport - always resting on our history of > > > > > > inventing the games others now beat us at! Most civilised countries > > > > > > seem more democratic than Britain, but I only ever visit or live in > > > > > > them as an alien. In France, in the late 70's I discovered my > > > > > > illusions were just that as police and troops laid waste to a shanty > > > > > > town with bulldozers and I found out how casual labour was treated > > > > > > (I > > > > > > was undercover on a drugs bust). The US has always seemed so much > > > > > > more democratic with all kinds of elections we don't have - yet it > > > > > > generally is not. > > > > > > I actually find a lot not to like about democracy - the Athenian one > > > > > > had a privileged Demos and practised ethnic cleansing of an economic > > > > > > kind we see in Domesday Books all over the world - and there are > > > > > > obvious problems such as asking the uninformed to make decisions. > > > > > > This latter is a key problem as it lets in charisma and all the old > > > > > > techniques of persuasion because we can always rely on the majority > > > > > > not to be able to follow the argument. The Germans were probably > > > > > > the > > > > > > best educated, most scientific, most cultured people on the planet > > > > > > when they voted for Hitler and the Nazis. Hitler may have seized > > > > > > power illegitimately, but Germans voted for him in droves in > > > > > > elections > > > > > > around the country. Other countries had their own Nazis in > > > > > > considerable numbers. We will vote for any dross - this should make > > > > > > us rethink democracy. > > > > > > > On 1 Oct, 17:00, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > Sadly, I couldn’t get tickets to hear Noam here in Portland this > > > > > > > week. > > > > > > > > And, I have found that he gets much of what you say we should fear > > > > > > > right Neil. He just isn’t quite as charismatic in his brand of > > > > > > > ‘evangelism’ as some though. > > > > > > > > I fear we in the Colonies are at the cusp of yet another Civil > > > > > > > War… > > > > > > > only not so ‘Civil’. The ‘best’ political action my disillusioned > > > > > > > brain can imagine at this time, other than a true ‘new’ tea > > > > > > > party, is > > > > > > > to fulfill the ancient cry of ‘Throw the bums out!’. I was > > > > > > > skeptical > > > > > > > about the actuality of the BO regime from the start and now that > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > ‘party in power’ has vetoed health care for we the people and has > > > > > > > reinvested in the demonstrated failed practice of sexual > > > > > > > abstinence as > > > > > > > well as a continued hegemony, it really is time for change. > > > > > > > Eisenhower > > > > > > > was much wiser. > > > > > > > > As a sort of Paul Revere of the day, I call upon ‘we the people’ > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > see that every political person in power is replaced...with 3rd > > > > > > > party > > > > > > > individuals if possible. There is no other way to gain political > > > > > > > attention today. This even though I fully embrace Noam’s notion of > > > > > > > Anarchy: > > > > > > > > “…Anarchism, in my view, is an expression of the idea that the > > > > > > > burden > > > > > > > of proof is always on those who argue that authority and > > > > > > > domination > > > > > > > are necessary. They have to demonstrate, with powerful argument, > > > > > > > that > > > > > > > that conclusion is correct. If they cannot, then the institutions > > > > > > > they > > > > > > > defend should be considered illegitimate. How one should react to > > > > > > > illegitimate authority depends on circumstances and conditions: > > > > > > > there > > > > > > > are no formulas. …” – Chomsky > > > > > > > > (more at:http://www.chomsky.info/interviews/19961223.htm) > > > > > > > > On Oct 1, 7:24 am, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Chomsky has been right for many years. The academy in which he > > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > others flourished is long gone - we are all, at our relative > > > > > > > > levels of > > > > > > > > ability in the margins as resistance fighters. I would put the > > > > > > > > argument personally given limited space. An old guy > > > > > > > > (undoubtedly a > > > > > > > > 'comrade') turned up at our door a couple of days ago. Sue and > > > > > > > > I are > > > > > > > > died in the wool lefties and he was asking if Labour could rely > > > > > > > > on our > > > > > > > > vote. I didn't want to upset the old chap. Our MP isn't fit > > > > > > > > for the > > > > > > > > job, our councillors useless, almost childish. Britain is > > > > > > > > broken - > > > > > > > > there is no system worth voting in. We'd like to be able to > > > > > > > > vote in a > > > > > > > > space for radical reform for the establishment of actual > > > > > > > > democracy. > > > > > > > > We're nearly 60 years old, let down by false promises and the > > > > > > > > default > > > > > > > > return of business as usual however we vote. We are at war and > > > > > > > > can't > > > > > > > > even vote against this. Etc. etc. ... even the old 'sense' of a > > > > > > > > pragmatic choice in a dirty world doesn't work on us - this was > > > > > > > > part > > > > > > > > of the broken promises. It's conference season here, with a > > > > > > > > general > > > > > > > > election coming in 6 months. The old dross is rolled out by > > > > > > > > all. The > > > > > > > > Prime Minister's wife makes a speech blessing him as 'her hero' > > > > > > > > - the > > > > > > > > only indication I can draw from this is the public is still > > > > > > > > regarded > > > > > > > > as gullible and pathetic. > > > > > > > > > The job is one of anarchy - the tearing down of the lies on > > > > > > > > 'free > > > > > > > > trade'. 'democracy' and so on - but the aim is not anarchy > > > > > > > > (strictly > > > > > > > > meaning leaderlessness) - it's about new construction free of > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > chronic fears we have about each other. What Chomsky isn't > > > > > > > > good on is > > > > > > > > recognising much we should be fearful of - > > ... > > 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
