On 8 Feb, 14:57, Vamadevananda <[email protected]> wrote: > On Feb 8, 6:25 pm, Pat <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On 6 Feb, 23:24, Vamadevananda <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > " ... we allow the rich to get off with all sorts." > > > > Nobody allows them anything, Neil ! For one, they are more > > > resourceful, more driven, more smart than the bureaucrats, to be found > > > out or to be found guilty enough to be penalised ... remember, ' I am > > > with the law. It has nothing to do with justice.' Secondly, they are > > > quite liberal to those who'd look the other way or choose to be with > > > them. Why ? Because, they can. > > > In other words, power corrupts. So, how do we take the power and re- > > distribute it? > > I wouldn't know, Pat. Lenin did it, and how. Gandhi suggested : Those > with money should know that it is kept in their trust, on behalf of > the society, inclusive of one's own family ; and, that, the trustees, > Govt included, must look at and go to where the people are, in the > villages, to make the village communities self sufficient. >
Which implies that the rich also need to be responsible. I agree; however, they're not usually. Back to: power corrupts. > Sometimes, however rarely, a guy like Harshvardhan comes up king. He > used to bring ALL his treasury to bank of Ganges and distribute it > among the poor who'd throng there. Or, so the historical tale goes. > I have no reason to disbelieve it. If he HAD done that, it would be almost certain that someone would have written it down. If he had not, why would someone invent the story? I tend to believe most of our more ancient tales have a basis in fact, altohugh many details have been added/deleted through the ages. > > And, more importantly, do we even have a 'right' TO > > take the power and re-distribute it if we could? If we all did that > > which we could simply because we could, that would be, by definition, > > anarchy. That's not exactly law-abiding, is it? > > Gandhi's suggestion is only one I know of that is viable. And, non - > violent. > Absolutely! There's no point in nuking the rich. The headlines would be rife with the fallout from that. ;-) > > > > > On Feb 4, 8:41 am, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Go all the way with you on the reasoning Francis and then some. > > > > Wouldn't stop me doing a deal (did one with a Shankhill butcher once - > > > > you know what I mean). For me the moral questions lie in why we allow > > > > the rich to get off with all sorts. I see this as an undecidable one > > > > can only do one's best with. We probably don't disagree much. In > > > > practice with informants you have to make sure you ain't being ripped > > > > off (the norm) and that you aren't just making space for them to take > > > > over. We might also wonder why we don't ever seem to get our law > > > > right. If we did we'd not fall into moral reasoning need so much. > > > > I've been looking a cop blogs of late. They are a surprising > > > > indication of how despicable our politics have become. I've started > > > > my own at wordpress (allcoppedout). A publisher is interested if I > > > > can write a book quickly enough - Monday books. Did wonder if you > > > > might want to tell your own tale 'from the dark side'. > > > > > On 3 Feb, 17:42, frantheman <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > On 3 Feb., 03:10, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > No morals involved Francis. We do people for pennies in benefit > > > > > > fraud > > > > > > on the basis of information from much slimier sources. > > > > > > This, of course, is the deeper point, Neil. I often think we want to > > > > > have it both ways in the western "democracies." (i) We want to > > > > > believe, at least at some level, that government is (however > > > > > imperfectly) the result of our collective approval, the implementation > > > > > of some kind of social contract renewed through regular exercise of > > > > > the electoral franchise - "in the name of the people." (ii) We also > > > > > generally agree that morality is important and even - in certain areas > > > > > at any rate - demand morality from our elected representatives. (iii) > > > > > At higher collective levels, however, we seem to have no problem in > > > > > accepting a totally pragmatic, realpolitikal view of communal > > > > > activity, which, ultimately, reaches its peak in the Clausewitzian > > > > > definition of war as a continuation of politics by other means > > > > > [actually a misinterpretation of Clausewitz's thinking, but that's > > > > > beside the point]. This is a kind of schizophrenia, or at least deep > > > > > inconsistency, in our attitude towards the "res publica". > > > > > > I'm not in the least suggesting that I myself am free of this > > > > > attitude! Personally, as a salaried, PAYE employee, whose tax is > > > > > deducted at source from his wage packet, I have absolutely no sympathy > > > > > for fat-cats, who get caught trying to cheat the system. I'm not sure, > > > > > however, that I'm comfortable about the idea of rewarding criminals to > > > > > shop other criminals. It implies a sort of double-standard which can > > > > > often be the thin end of a very dangerous wedge. Maybe the best we can > > > > > hope for is that, having weighed-up costs and benefits, we do approve > > > > > of this kind of action by our elected governments but continue to have > > > > > a collective bad conscience about it, that we do not simply regard it > > > > > as ok and go on with business-as-usual, even using such arguments to > > > > > justify persecution of the weak little guys, often hounded in our > > > > > welfare systems (because, basically, they're much easier to blame and > > > > > nail than the powerful, well-regarded, big-bucks, white-collar > > > > > criminals). > > > > > > In this sense, perhaps we DO get the governments we deserve. > > > > > > Francis- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text -- 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.
