I see you missed my cue in ... "A very good question ! And, if not, what ?"
I believe in democracy, not because of the models so far touted or how it is in practice in a many countries, but because, unlike you and Plato, I believe in people and chaos, and I trust the future for the improvements waiting in its wings. Perhaps, in the next 300 years... On Feb 15, 3:26 am, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > I rest my case on the grounds this house doesn't even have anyone > prepared to state they believe in democracy. > > On Feb 14, 5:55 pm, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > I wonder if there ever is national self-interest. India was a > > substantial cost to Britain in terms of taxes here, whilst the Nabobs > > made the loot. Apple is awash with offshore cash, benefiting from > > cheating on our quality of work life. Mao, in the biographies of > > those who knew him, was a highly self-interested monomaniacal mass > > murderer. > > > On Feb 14, 2:16 pm, rigsy03 <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > During the 18th C. the pattern was English goods to India, India > > > cotton to China and China tea to Britain. Tea was the most profitable. > > > The Opium War...Treaty of Nanking (1842) pretty much sealed China's > > > fate and it didn't modernize as quickly as Japan. The chapter is a > > > sorry tale- most are. Then there are the internal rebellions (Taiping) > > > which killed 20-30 million. Clumsy American policy- here and there. > > > Anyway, I am left with sympathy and respect for China. Again, it is > > > superior weapons and national self-interest that overwhelms- a broken > > > record. > > > > On Feb 13, 9:38 am, 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?- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text -
