...for what it's worth, My grandmother's house is only 400+ years old.
Freudian slip? :-)
Michael Redler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:Hi Kieth,
There's a lot of stuff you threw out there. To address it all would take a
heck of a lot of time -- suffice to say that I agree with most of it.
Switzerland: If part of it's government was based on the US constitution,
you wouldn't know it. It gained it's Independence over 700 years ago and I
think they had it pretty much nailed down before Jefferson put pen to
paper. I visited my grandmother two weeks ago as I've done almost every
year since I was an infant. Her 700+ year old house is a testament to
their cautious attitude toward "progress" (I'm alluding to housing
development).
You are right about voting. Before my Aunt could build her new house, it
had to be approved by those in her neighborhood. She, in fact, had to
build a stick frame of the house to show its size and shape and offer a
visual aid for all who would approve it (or not).
"Presidents": They have seven of them, representing all of the regions of
the confederation. Since Switzerland has four national languages, They are
usually fluent in two or three of them (German French Italian and
Rhetto-Romanish). This makes me wonder about the whole one nation, one
language thing.
I don't want to go on too long -- especially since I think you already did
a great job covering much of this. I just wanted to offer some perspective
as a witness to quite another interpretation of democracy. I sometimes see
my relatives and the country they live in with envy. This is a country
that hasn't experienced war within its borders since the crossbow was the
weapon of choice. They have a well organized, cohesive government where
you don't have to own a car and you would be hard-pressed to find a hungry
child -- all of this while the language (and sometimes culture) can change
within a thirty minute walk.
Mike
Keith Addison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hello Michael, Hakan and all
Hakan,
Thank you for spending the time to point toward better examples of
democracies than the US. As a dual citizen, I think that Switzerland
is an especially good choice.
Are you really? That must make for some interesting comparisons.
I posted this before, but I think I'll post it again, seems pertinent
right now.
What difference does "one person one vote" make when non-person
corporations that are inimical to democracy and the public interest
can buy off the entire political apparatus? It's just a meaningless
formula now, it obscures the reality as much as reveals it. How many
of those increasingly meaningless votes even get cast? - or how few
rather? You think that's what "democracy" means? You have to abandon
these formulas and look at what really happens in people's lives.
How about a rich country that didn't allow its women to vote until
13 years ago? Probably some backward oil sheikhdom in the Gulf or
something, eh? Switzerland, actually. I think it's the oldest
democracy in the world, going back to the 13th century, and much
admired, though certainly not without its flaws. Everywhere you look
you find exceptions to these simplistic formulas, both better and
worse. I don't want to interpret what Hakan said, but I believe he
was talking about realities, not just empty forms.
Switzerland, by the way, modelled its current federal constitution
on the US, in 1848. Government there is a very local business,
strictly bottom-up, the federal government is tiny and hardly seems
to matter. There's no clear division between the governing party and
the opposition. The Swiss don't just vote once in four years, they
seem to be voting most of the time - in fact they vote whenever they
feel like it, it's a citizens' right to organize a referendum on
just about anything. Interest and turnouts are high. Not so easy to
recognise today's US in that mirror image, is it?
Who's the president of Switzerland? The name doesn't spring
immediately to mind, does it? Or maybe, does Switzerland have a
president or a prime minister, or a chancellor, or what? Don't know?
Neither do I. Sounds good to me.
It would seem the leaders, if that's quite the word (I think it
isn't quite the word), don't have much choice but to abide by the
consitution, and anyway nobody seems to take very much notice of
them.
At the time James had got a lot of Americans all upset with his talk
of teledemocracy, which they saw as Direct Democracy, in other words
"mob rule". I said this to one of them:
Anyway, you see teledemocracy = Direct Democracy = Mob Rule, the
preferred alternative being the Rule of Law, and, what, the status
quo? Somehow I don't think you're that happy with either of those.
The bit above ending with the Patriot Act ["Now the Homeland
Security Bill basically suspends our Constitution under Color of
Law, on top of the Patriot Act"] is either the Rule of Law at work
or shows that it's a weakling, easily purloined. It also looks more
than somewhat like what you have now is Mob Rule. Law and justice
are not the same. That allegedly virginal and unraped lady in the
white dress has a set of scales and a sword, usually a two-edged one
that seems to cut a lot more with one edge than the other, and no
wonder, since she's blindfold. Blind justice? I think what they
meant, or should have meant, was impartial justice. Now how much of
that do you find in the Rule of Law? And how does all this have a
bearing on what's going on and not going on in your local forest? If
not, why not? It's deadlocked. How to break the deadlock? What's
befallen your own project looks to me like a good example of Mob
Rule and the Rule of Law being available to the highest bidder. You
might succeed in tipping those scales your way (not that the blind
lady will even notice), but it shouldn't be happening in the first
place. So much for business-as-usual when it comes to democracy.
What democracy? What's better, to go on and on flogging a dead
horse, or try something new?
> If the country is a democratic monarchy or democratic republic,
it does not matter, they are
> both democracies.
"Democracies" throughout the world vary wildly with how each country
defines it.
But who exactly defines it in these countries? Is the defining of it
itself ever a truly democratic process? What was I saying about
Churchill? "... what I tend to think of as Churchill's critical
threshold level, when he mouthed that nonsense that you can fool some
of the people all of the time and you can fool all of the people some
of the time but you can't fool all of the people all of the time -
while knowing very well that there's absolutely no need to fool all
of them all of the time just as long as you can fool enough of them
enough of the time. Which all our governments succeed in doing."
"The 20th century has been characterized by three developments of
great political importance: The growth of democracy, the growth of
corporate power, and the growth of corporate propaganda as a means of
protecting corporate power against democracy."
-- Australian social scientist Alex Carey
From yet another previous message:
I don't think the system in the US is a good reflection of who you
are as a people, you're much better than your system, and I think
most people sense that in differentiating between Americans and
Washington. I think this is what they want from you:
"U.S. remains biggest terrorist nation in the world. We're the
largest arms exporter. We're funding the next generation of Saddams
in places like Pakistan and Uzbekistan. We ignore international
treaties and laws whenever we like. No combination of world powers
has been able or willing to hold this rogue state accountable for
its transgressions. The only force that can is the American public
itself. In 2004, we'll have the chance. The essential first steps:
Educating ourselves, seeking out multiple alternative news sources,
and making up our own minds. The essential next steps: Use that
knowledge, spread that knowledge, and get busy!"
-- 2003 Media Follies! by Geov Parrish, WorkingForChange.com, January 4,
2004
http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=17475
Sad, eh? But all is not lost, not by a very long way.
Regards
Keith
So, I believe that it certainly does matter. We can agree to disagree.
Mike
Hakan Falk wrote:
Mike,
I have gone though this with direct democracies and representative
democracies on the list and in detail before. If the country is a
democratic monarchy or democratic republic, it does not matter, they are
both democracies. The maybe only and closest to direct democracy today, is
Switzerland, but they still have a heavy mix between direct and
representative. A true direct democracy have not existed since Athens
around 2,500 years ago, so it is the only I have studied. Indirect
democracies are many and each with its own small variations, at least
those
I have studied.
I have heard Bush, all other presidents and almost all involved in public
representation, express the opinion that US is the greatest democracy in
the world. To this I might add 80% of the Americans that I encountered. I
lived in US for a year and visited around 60 times.
When did I say that children necessarily are cute? Most of the children
did
however not have time to develop their intellect, sense of responsibility
and logic reasoning. Among Americans there are probably more exceptions
than among children.
Yes, it scares me that they are in charge of the most powerful military of
today. Unfortunately we do not have any global licensing and permits for
countries to have a military force.
Hakan
_______________________________________________
Biofuel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/biofuel
Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable):
http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/
_______________________________________________
Biofuel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/biofuel
Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable):
http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/
