Allan, dear, I still remember the well defined organisational order of The German Democratic Republic - and no, the reality did not match the beautiful wording.
On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 7:43 AM, Allan H <[email protected]> wrote: > * 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. > > >
