methods probably offend naive western liberalism, but I see no harm in
that to say the least. I might not approve his booze prohibition but
would have gone along with this in the circumstances in front of him
(including personal abstinence). I'm not so sure on the death penalty
for miscreant politicians and bureaucrats - though I note Professor
Black in the USA has listed perpetual hell as appropriate for the
worst banksters.
The last genuine 'audit' in the UK concerned arms dealing with the
vile Saudi regime - Blair personally put a stop to that. Real
evaluation is rare - science is largely about this - and what we get
is performance management - usually a bent system involving juked
statistics. I take it 'Anna' does not mean big brother is the
Orwellian sense!
On Dec 31, 6:40 am, Vam <atewari2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Participatory Democracy is about trying to create Audit and Citizen
> Care institutions...
>
> Quite along same lines that modern organisation performance management
> practice verges... 1) Accts, Policy & Process Audit and 2) Customer
> Care, which create the 360 degree path around the Executive / Govt -
> Doing / Performing, How / Targeting and Utilising, and What / WTF is
> being delivered.
>
> And, true, to go beyond writing papers and expressing pious
> thoughts... it has to be fought the Anna Hazare way in India, which
> incidently I found to be better than Occupy Wall Street, in Anna's was
> more defined - he wanted a Law, a statute that had been well worked
> upon and provisioned with anti-graft investigation and govt services
> delivery audit, systems and processes, and unprecedented prosecution
> speed and sentence quantas... all laid out in consultation with the
> public over long.
>
> The Right To Information and Vigilance Commission were others. And the
> autonomous Election Commission before that. The Judiciary alone was
> doing the doing the job. The Comptroller & Audit General used to do an
> excellent job but invariably ignored.
>
> Yeah... institutions, that need to be fought for in the streets
> because the govts, as companies, do not want any meaningful audit,
> much less prosecution for ill doings.
>
> On Dec 31, 12:48 am, Allan H <allanh1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Participatory Democracy is the answer but the problem is eliminating the
> > super citizen or corporate citizens..
>
> > It will work when corporations have a limited time copyright say 15 years
> > then it automatically becomes public domain. the problem is not so much
> > in organizing citizens,, but in controlling the super citizens who use
> > wealth to control the government.
> > Allan
>
> > On Fri, Dec 30, 2011 at 6:31 PM, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Some way off-beam I've just read that it's men who differ most from
> > > chimps genetically - to do with the complexity of the Y chromosome and
> > > its influence on sperm production. I tend to hold to such distinction
> > > and its irrelevance to public equality.
>
> > > I believe, like Vam, that answers can come from more participatory
> > > democracy. I also believe that merely asserting this is no answer at
> > > all. One can too easily imagine Obama or Palin making the statement.
> > > Or some half-assed Bolshevik. Just as allowing people to amass wealth
> > > allows them to amass power, the demos can also be scripted power that
> > > can be as bad. It's a mistake to make this into a 'faith choice'
> > > issue. The usual academic turn at this point is to notions of social
> > > contract.
>
> > > On Dec 30, 2:54 pm, Vam <atewari2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > I have a feeling that this character, Vam, has usurped all the space
> > > > that is there... so that no one else may now be allowed entry !
>
> > > > Well, fkrs, there is no limiot to space if you did not know ! So, get
> > > > over that excuse.
>
> > > > Also I might have taken this conversation into an area you might not
> > > > be as comfortable.
> > > > Hell, in that case, have the balls to say so !
> > > > Females may forgive, not because I used the term but because I do not
> > > > know of the term to draw you all in the same order. I hold absolutely
> > > > no distinction between genders, if you would believe.
>
> > > > On Dec 30, 8:36 am, Edward Mason <masonedward...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > Indeed, Vam!
>
> > > > > On Thu, Dec 29, 2011 at 5:17 PM, Vam <atewari2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > Gabby... Hunger everywhere is wrong. There is enough food on this
> > > > > > planet to feed everyone. But the economics has not made it possible.
> > > > > > Even when the law declares...
>
> > > > > > Yes, the Supreme Court here ordered the Govt to distribute excess
> > > food
> > > > > > grains in its silos among the hungry ! But the Minister simply said,
> > > "
> > > > > > It is not possible."
>
> > > > > > And no one was booked, can ever be booked, for causing hunger !
>
> > > > > > Rigs... Neil is speaking of the same thing... we all are.
> > > > > > ... how to take control of at least the critical aspects of our
> > > lives.
>
> > > > > > I wish people here could extend this discussion, in thought and idea,
> > > > > > and... among other things, become more free, more happy, more self -
> > > > > > empowered. So that they end up doing things in that light. Often,
> > > > > > almost always, they do not.
>
> > > > > > I believe Edward is speaking of the same thing... action in the light
> > > > > > of knowledge. Not mere emotions, which economics of the day exploits.
> > > > > > And so is Allan, when he uses his " beliefs " for making decisions.
>
> > > > > > We are all trying to take more control of our lives.
> > > > > > And, bringing it on this platform is BEAUTIFUL.
>
> > > > > > On Dec 30, 1:15 am, gabbydott <gabbyd...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > >> If the law is not the law but an ass, it explains why in truth
> > > there is no
> > > > > >> one to blame. If the law is the law than you know it is being set
> > > up by
> > > > > >> men. The same is true for economics. And you would eventually find
> > > someone
> > > > > >> to blame.
>
> > > > > >> As for your seeds metaphor, it is no coincidence that the children's
> > > > > >> interests are not visible in this specific court room or market
> > > place. They
> > > > > >> are not to be held accountable for what they cannot oversee yet.
> > > There are
> > > > > >> proofs for that, which have been accepted as such.
>
> > > > > >> As for the limitation of science and objectivity, you are right. If
> > > one
> > > > > >> could get all peer reviewers from the past, the present and the
> > > future
> > > > > >> together in one room discussing each theory properly, then we'd
> > > have it! ;)
>
> > > > > >> On Thu, Dec 29, 2011 at 4:44 PM, Vam <atewari2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > >> > "... trees don't exist unless someone observes them."
>
> > > > > >> > That's the limitation of science and objectivity. That's why the
> > > law
> > > > > >> > is an ass. That's how predatory economics has clear toehold in
> > > > > >> > society. They all get away because there is no crime committed
> > > unless
> > > > > >> > one is caught or there are effects to show here and now !
>
> > > > > >> > How is one to establish and measure crimes that are seeded... for
> > > > > >> > which there are no observers, no complaints... for which there
> > > are no
> > > > > >> > laws... or for which laws can be extended or interpreted to
> > > exclude
> > > > > >> > them !
>
> > > > > >> > The truth is : There trees galore that are invisible now... in the
> > > > > >> > seeds, which will sprout months, years, decades and centuries
> > > later !
> > > > > >> > Without admitting this fact, we can never hope to tackle climate
> > > > > >> > issues, environment and sustainability problems. There is no one
> > > > > >> > specific to blame. Much ( e.g. emissions ) is approved and
> > > admissible
> > > > > >> > as of now, and is not a crime. And, the effects are invariably
> > > long -
> > > > > >> > term, so there are no objective proofs here and now.
>
> > > > > >> > Try presenting theories and results of studies and research in a
> > > court
> > > > > >> > of law... and they will either be unconvincing or simply countered
> > > > > >> > with another of the same !
>
> > > > > >> > On Dec 28, 11:14 pm, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > >> > > That states the issue more or less as I see it rigsy - though I
> > > don't
> > > > > >> > > do the Xtian thing as religion. It's more that much could be
> > > > > >> > > recovered in religion if we could get away from its
> > > factionalisms.
> > > > > >> > > What gets to me in economics or any form of social science is
> > > we seem
> > > > > >> > > to forget we are just (or should be) trying to do our best and
> > > are
> > > > > >> > > making decisions that affect human beings rather than some
> > > culture
> > > > > >> > > under glass or whatever. I don't want to leap into faith in
> > > theory
> > > > > >> > > beyond something that retains realistic hope of reasonable
> > > equality
> > > > > >> > > and freedom for most people.
> > > > > >> > > I don't think religion per se can achieve this, but a better
> > > > > >> > > understanding of it might help. One can throw up thought
> > > experiments
> > > > > >> > > - such as whether the unseen tree exists and so on - but people
> > > are
> > > > > >> > > inclined to forget these are classroom tricks to get some
> > > thinking
> > > > > >> > > done rather than assertions trees don't exist unless someone
> > > observes
> > > > > >> > > them. Economists have forgotten their models are thought
> > > > > >> > > experiments. Some of the models rely on such stupid notions of
> > > human
> > > > > >> > > nature as to be risible. Expecting people to behave rationally
> > > seems
> > > > > >> > > absurd to me given what we know of ourselves as social animals
> > > now.
> > > > > >> > > What I've seen in a great deal of academic modelling is more or
> > > less
> > > > > >> > > similar to what Vam (and others) point out as putting something
> > > on
> > > > > >> > > paper and arguing as though that is all that should be argued
> > > when
> > > > > >> > > they have, in fact, destroyed context.
>
> > > > > >> > > On Dec 28, 5:21 pm, rigsy03 <rigs...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > >> > > > There has always been a natural system of economics at work
> > > in the
> > > > > >> > > > world but it has been distorted- it's chief ruination has been
> > > > > >> > > > mankind- resulting in predators given an abnormal rein, false
> > > terms
> > > > > >> > > > such as meritocracy, patriotism, the greater good, etc. I
> > > suppose it
> > > > > >> > > > boils down to greed and disregard for others plus having no
> > > moral
> > > > > >> > > > foundation to act as a check and balance. One can trace wars
> > > back to
> > > > > >> > > > greed as well as count the off-shoots such as envy, etc. It
>
> ...
>
> read more »
0 comentários:
Postar um comentário