* think in a way you are right,, it would be chaos,, but remember the US is a republic not a democracy.* *Allan * On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 3:52 AM, James Lynch <[email protected]> wrote:
> What I think is implied is to overcome an implicit fault (individuals > and organizations greed, collusion) with a better option. I'm jumping > in with little on this (per my MO) but the next question becomes what > can we implement that would make the rewards of desirable behavior > greatly outweigh individual greed. So by offering a positive outlet > for something we cannot eradicate we use it as an advantage. Back to > my jumping in with little: what in the world could we do to accomplish > or begin such a thing? ;-) > > You are probably right about true democracy requiring MUCH more > effort, it is interesting to consider by whom and how it could be > organized. Like a game of cards over discussion of the impacts of > water regulations on a local farming community. Raise a question and > people just point you to some reading or say, 'you gotta talk to > Steve, he knows everything about that aspect. He plays on Tuesdays." > Something tells me that is how things happen now, except it is with > select individuals. Direct democracy sounds like chaos, but I wonder > what could come of it! > > On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 1:54 PM, Allan H <[email protected]> wrote: > > The problem with democracy does not lay in the concept but those who > > manipulate the principal for their personal gain or wealth.. the real > > question is how do you eliminate the greed from democracy? Maybe a > > communal democracy where all wealth and expenses are shared from the > > wealth equally? > > Allan > > > > > > On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 4:38 PM, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > >> The idea of replacing democracy with something else is interesting Vam > >> - but what would get to the heart of the ineducable demos problem > >> without a vile and elitist aristocracy (as I suspect we have now)? > >> You keep some junk rigsy! I play bridge on my PC. An autocrat, > >> methinks you ain't. They lack humour and irony. At some point Gabby > >> you have to be reflexive on whatever stings you to sting. Pretty much > >> anything is up for attack as tyranny, from chronic political > >> correctness to tolerance that tolerates everything. > >> > >> I suspect out current situation is defined by a moment in 1906 (ish) > >> when British, US, French, Russian and Japanese (built in UK) warships > >> were queuing up at China's door to put down the Boxer revolt (done > >> with extreme prejudice) and the Blue Book at the UK treasury listed > >> heroin profits with no shame. Imperialism has merely shifted to a > >> more US base, largely because the planned British, French and Russian > >> "invasion" to support the Confederacy in 1861 didn't get financed > >> (there were meetings in Berlin to divide the world). > >> > >> My own view takes the main issue as providing systems in which no one > >> lives in want. This is no simple matter and inevitably raises control > >> issues, including population control and wealth distribution control. > >> We have to do some conceptually with what we allow as bureaucracy and > >> how we think of freedom and power. Those granted control have to be > >> granted it in a manner that can be controlled by the rest of us. I > >> suspect that to get to the rub of any of this requires we understand > >> that this is a world of plenty ruined by much of what we currently > >> do. A key component would be for leaders to be more randomly selected > >> (from a qualified list) for temporary service and living ordinary > >> lives for most of their span - thus being of the society they help > >> create (Max Weber's 'iron cage of bureaucracy' helps a bit here as > >> something to avoid). > >> > >> A key behavioural component in need of debunking is 'identity > >> conflated with world-view' - broadly people being so dumb they don't > >> realise they have merely copied Idols rather than found > >> individuality. We mimic thinking we have actually found something > >> individual. This probably prevents us having a decently rational > >> fellowship. Religion is a bete noir here and yet a possible > >> solution. > >> > >> > >> On Feb 13, 2:38 pm, rigsy03 <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > No- to your last question- but it's tough sledding to be an autocrat. > >> > I guess I am an independent conservative with senses of humor and > >> > despair. By the way, you were right about attempts to modernize > >> > Afghanistan in the 30's- which failed- so thank you. There was a good > >> > article in my 1958 Enclyclopaedia Britannica which led to my moving > >> > the furniture around in the den so I could get to the volumes along > >> > with Ridpath's history volumes and then- sit down- I lugged up the old > >> > Commodore 64 so I could play a bridge program, etc. having lost the > >> > art of finesse along the way. > >> > > >> > On Feb 12, 11:04 am, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > I don't believe in democracy as standardly dreamed up. The problem > is > >> > > an idiot demos. But my contention is that I believe in the rights > of > >> > > this demos more than most who claim to be democrats. Most > situations > >> > > in everyday life contain no true democracy - work being the classic. > >> > > We rarely believe social groups can work without a chain of command. > >> > > >> > > There are alternatives to "strong leadership" (which gives us goons > >> > > like Blair, Bush, Putin, hitler - etc. the list is almost endless) > and > >> > > the farce of the current GOP list. The Dutch polder system is an > >> > > example. But we generally shy away from collective decision making > as > >> > > too slow. > >> > > >> > > Anti-democracy is built in to our systems. Think about our likely > >> > > collective reluctance to pay me 90% of our resources if we had a > >> > > business - yet we might not understand how those few doing such > taking > >> > > in the general economy take in the same way from us through ideology > >> > > of the deserving rich. We would easily be able to vote against 'my > >> > > 90%' - but how do we vote against Apple's sweatshops and cash held > >> > > offshore? > >> > > >> > > Are you a democrat? > > > > > > > > > > -- > > ( > > ) > > |_D Allan > > > > Life is for moral, ethical and truthful living. > > > > > > > -- ( ) |_D Allan Life is for moral, ethical and truthful living.
