trash is another's treasure". There is a C-64 Mahjongg game that calms
my spirit versus the PC version plus I just may tackle some of that
adventure/quest software where I was cast out in the first few moves.
I have tossed the 128 software as the hardware expired except for the
faster disk drive. Anyway, I am a patient soul. :-) But not a very
good bridge player...
On Feb 13, 9:38 am, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> 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 <rigs...@yahoo.com> 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 <nwte...@gmail.com> 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 -
0 comentários:
Postar um comentário