Democracy...

[ldsoftwaresteve]

Guys, it isn't who, but what they do when the get there. The system should stop the most lying, conniving SOB from hurting the 'governed'.

 

Also, you speak of the 'governors' as 'our leaders'. Am I the only one who sees something wrong with that?

 

I want them to stay the hell out of my life. If left alone, I can take care of myself just fine thank you very much. I'll supply the chicken on my plate and my medications when I need them.

 

When I am not left alone, then I want them to step in and ensure my right to be alone and unhindered. That's their job, or at least it should be.

 

So what, exactly, do you think the governors should be doing there anyway?

[InfiniteNow]

The truth is that our government should govern not by people and whatever whim the majority choose to believe at any given split second in time but by correct identifications and limits imposed upon our actions that reflect those identifications. Further, the system should be based upon our identities as human beings. Voting should have very little impact upon anyone if the system is set up properly.

 

I go back to my previous question: "Why aren't they done yet?"

Steve,

 

I've been chewing on this one for a while now... It's a heady topic indeed. A thought I had this morning while cleaning up was that the society itself changes constantly. It's dynamic. In some ways, the moment you get your governmental sysetm setup perfectly, it no longer matters or applies because all the parameters and contexts with which it was designed to deal have since shifted and changed. Reminicient of the Uncertainty Principle... can't accurately measure both position and velocity at the same time.

 

This means that the system needs to be setup using gray terms, broad concepts, and abstract ideas... all of which will allow the system to flex alongwith the changes in society. However, when society changes in a way that isn't ideal, so does the system and this causes problems (and frustrations for those who care enough to be aware of it all).

 

There is only one absolute right way to lead if you are dealing with just one person (yourself). Once you bring groups, and collective and eccentric ideals and opinions into the mix, then the all encompassing governmental framework you seem to desire and idealize falls completely apart.

 

 

I don't necessarily disagree with your point nor your desire for a better system. Know that. I just am trying to answer the "why?" part of it.

 

 

Cheers. :)

[ldsoftwaresteve]

InfiniteNow:

There is only one absolute right way to lead if you are dealing with just one person (yourself). Once you bring groups, and collective and eccentric ideals and opinions into the mix, then the all encompassing governmental framework you seem to desire and idealize falls completely apart.

Your responses are always thoughtful, I.N. :hihi: Thanks.

However, you're ignoring the concept of Human in your response. Human doesn't change. It's the same now as it was when the first ones came into being. (and if it isn't, how isn't it? that can be understood and become a part of our identity for the purpose of designing a valid system).

Conditions change but our identity remains the same. The environment changes (hell, we're mostly responsible for that - and how much of that is caused by government interference?). That I agree with. But what it means to be a human being dealing with other human beings and survival requirements, Qua Human, stays the same. That should be irrespective of belief systems.

And the rules for relationships and limits on human action should remain the same. IF that stuff is affected, it should be affected only a little once it is properly identified. The big problem is that it isn't properly identified. Our 'politicians' take polls to determine what they should be doing and don't practice the science of politics (In my mind at least) at all.

If we asked the question, "Why aren't they done yet", it would bring focus on the possibility that we wouldn't have to see their sparkle-toothed, photo-op, disingenuous smiley faces on tv or on the front page any more. To the extent we do, they are failing.

Like I said, I'd be overjoyed to send them on 2 year, all expenses paid vacations if they'd just get the damn job done and leave us alone.

[InfiniteNow]

It does appear that it may be time...

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolution

 

 

EDIT: As long as we couple it with this...

 

 

Your responses are always thoughtful, I.N. Thanks.

Anytime...

 

 

Cheers. :hihi:

[ldsoftwaresteve]

lol. My wife's favorite comment is, "Well, what're you going to do about it?"

 

Even though I am more than 95% certain that your tongue is firmly in your cheek, I will take you seriously. :hihi:

 

I think the road must be paved with an understanding and clearly defined specification of what constitutes a human being. A definition that at once defines it as a living thing and differentiates it from all other living things with an emphasis on its means of survival.

 

With respect to societal issues: What conditions are necessary for it to survive and in order to provide those conditions what limitations on human action must be enforced. That implies that the use of retaliatory coercive force must be abdicated to a societal organization that exists for the sole purpose of enforcing rational limitations of human action.

 

A proper government should have as its purpose to make it possible for people to survive and thrive in territory governed by it. We also need to clearly define the role of government and what its responsibilities are and what they are not. The same goes for a human being: What kinds of things are the responsibility of the individual and what are not.

 

In preparation for all of the above, I also think that morality must be subsumed by science and not abdicated to religion. This would be a valid first step. The so-called Rights of Man should be redefined in light of what we can identify from a rational moral code which I think goes hand in hand with defining what it means to be human. I don't see how they can be separated since without morality we could not survive.

 

Anyway, that cup of coffee looked so good I'm going to go make one for myself. :cup:

 

Cheers to you too.

[InfiniteNow]

As a people, we generally do not log and track what each individual elected official does with their time and money... with our vote. We're too busy doing other things like surviving and discussing the nature of time (and all other in-between parts of Maslow's hierarchy of needs).

 

Also, as unfortunate as this is, politics has become more an art of distraction and covert activity than an art of representing and making the best judgements for a society. As you said, they most often line their own pockets (and those of their friends) and wish to continue doing so. Because of this inherent desire to continue getting richer, they tell the public whatever they think they want to hear in order to ensure re-election.

 

...but, ultimately, we the elecorate are the ONLY ones who can even begin to hold them accountable for their actions.

 

If you haven't yet read through this thread, please do so and offer your thoughts. This strikes me as a conversation that should continue, as it's ever changing.

[Boerseun]

Read a novel the other day that described a so-called 'ideal' political set-up. And they had one good idea there: Anybody who intentionally stands for the presidency automatically disqualifies himself. Because seeing as its such a shitty job, if you actually volunteer for it, you must have some sort of hidden agenda! :confused: