"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 <nwte...@gmail.com> 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 <nwte...@gmail.com> 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 <rigs...@yahoo.com> 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 <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