If we are so committed to the principle of voting on things, why not actually commit to this idea and see it through to its logical end? We ought to have a discussion about how “democratic” our society really is if we hold democracy to be such a key identifying point of our identity, so much so that we’re willing to go to war for it and impose our system (out of the goodness of our hearts, of course) on others. I mean to say that if we’re all for democracy in principle, and by that we mean letting the peasants vote and take power in decision-making processes, let’s extend that principle to stuff that actually matter to us in our actual lived lives.
Lots here as usual; maybe I can edge in briefly at: "a system where peasants can police themselves" - That's precisely what Tocqueville found in American in the early 1830s. Citizens policing and enforcing laws by themselves in a spontaneously organized way that required only the most minimal local judiciary system and almost no actual police force. He says in Europe common people protect and feel an admiration for criminals because they hate and fear their rulers; but in America everyone knows the laws, considers them reasonable and has a stake in upholding them and so everyone become in effect a police officer and thus criminals are quickly apprehended and dispatched with in an appropriate way as prescribed by law.
So was that brief shining moment in the 1830s "the ideal system that we’re talking about here" ? - Not at all! Principally because it was ONLY "bottom heavy" - County, then State - with nearly nothing at the "top" - that is, a federal government empowered in a very minimal way which in fact was granted no power to even establish any kind of police force - No FBI - so, no question of voting who gets to run it.
But also - more interestingly - it was not your ideal because what Tocqueville found was also light at the bottom - founded on individuals, families and private endeavor. As such there really was very little scope for determining: "goal[s] they want to dedicate their community’s time and resources towards" - the community had few resources beyond the human capital deployed as private endeavor and private decision making. Sure they ponied up the tax money for a constable and for roads and to hire a teacher or two, etc - but there were no "goals" to speak of and thus no potential for those goals to be hijacked and perverted by parties with hidden agendas.
Ah - but it WAS just a brief shining moment and there is no going back - history took another turn, perhaps necessarily.
Nov 11, 2022·edited Nov 11, 2022Liked by Rurik Skywalker
This piece reminds me of what Solzhenitsyn admired of America most, the civic communities and associations at a local level (town, borough). [He hated the rest and was vociferous about it. Hence no longer a useful item to show off Soviet tyranny, he was quickly marginalised.]
About the rest, there are times for Julius Cesar, but also times for Cassius as well.
Your debate is a recent version of many predecessors. The American Constitution, IMHO, was one of the more intelligent and historically-informed attempts at implementing a democratic republic operating by rule of law.
By these rules, you don't just run around yelling, "There oughta be a law," but engage in the political process to show why a change in the legal structure is appropriate, and argue for the changes, whether simply legislative or radically constitutional, needed to effect a modification.
Good luck with that.
There are lotsa complaints about the current system, but few suggest even half- serious corrections.
Sure we're on the same page. The only way crim hierarchies can be contained is to have government by the people, as per Lincoln's lyrical definition. Most people do not object to hierarchies but are unwilling to tolerate their exploitation and oppression, which is pretty much all the time, sooner or later.
If all of the people have access to all of the information, and then formulate policy, then to be implemented by the public service, the hierarchies are automatically relegated to their "actual rightful share of the goodies".
Where you and I disagree is that you presume the hierarchies can continue to exist whereas, having lived in such a situation, I know that under genuine democracy (populism) they will disappear as a force to contend with. But, at the end of the day, it would be interesting to discover what would indeed happen.
I am, of course, presuming from your previous comments, that you agree that all people have the right to determine their own future.
>Regime-approved intellectuals and the peasants that they hold in their intellectual thrall tell us that voting and the power of the people ought to be limited, even though the reasons that they give for this are arbitrary and inconsistent. Why should the mayor’s office be democratized, but the CEO position of Gazprom left alone?
Well, in America anyway, there are lots of small business owners who know from experience how government regulation and interference weigh them down. To support the democratic election of the CEO of say, Exxon, seems like inviting more intrusion into their own business.
I mean, what businesses would be exempt from democratization? For how long??? I’m sure the process would evolve once started so would the populists come for all business owners, regardless of the size of the business, and try to insert themselves into their business decisions? Seems likely.
Also, people are idiots. So any populist movement would just empower idiots on a mass scale. Doesn’t sound like a great idea.
And...Populism is just the tool that wanna be elites use to fight for a bigger piece of the pie for themselves, isn’t it Rolo? So what are we really saying here? That we need a new regime? Sure, we do but they will just screw people over in different ways so I don’t really see the point of it all.
Good timing, Rolo. All that you said, I said, in a 2007 book titled 'Delusions of Democracy'. Globally, the book was described as propounding "astonishing insights" and other such nice words by the 70 or so people who actually read it. Ergo, the book was a catastrophic literary failure.
One of the first readers warned me this would happen. "Write a novel around the message" he suggested. "Fuck you" I thought, outraged and disappointed. But, 15 years sulking later I bowed to reality and wrote the novel "The Lost Track". The response has been excellent but no publisher will touch it because it contains proof of Rupert Murdoch's criminality. Publishers, it seems, are alergic to broken legs and bullets.
Unperturbed, I am now about to write a filmscript version, differing only in more gratuitous violence and sex, all of which actually happened, and all against the backdrop splendour of the Northern Territory's Kakadu National Park and Arnhem Land. Croc Dundee on steroids. And, yes, it will sell and yes, the money will help publishers overcome their fear of assassination.
But this is but democracy pre-campaign PR. And today, you Rolo, have kicked the ball well into midfield and others seem to be into the game as well.
As you said, the penny is beginning to drop. People are questioning the horrific inconsistencies of faux-democracy, so dressed up in garish "freedom" colours, and "patriotic" bells and whistles. while millions die for war profits and even more millions perish from corporate-created famine, toxic medicines, and disease.
As do you, I suspect this is the moment the world has been shaping up for for many centuries. People Power. An end to hierarchies sustained only by repression and exploitation. And seeing that you have kicked the ball at the right moment, may I suggest you place your energies in this direction.
Meanwhile, if anybody wants to get their heads around the otherwise confusing equations applied as chicanes on the road to freedom, the novel "The Lost Track" walks you at an easy pace though this minefield by comparing our pseudo democracy with a model that sustained and endured for 24,000 years and still works today. Just request a free PDF copy at tonyryan43@gmail.com
I hope Rolo does not mind, because we are very much on the same page in this pivotal moment in human evolution.
Lots here as usual; maybe I can edge in briefly at: "a system where peasants can police themselves" - That's precisely what Tocqueville found in American in the early 1830s. Citizens policing and enforcing laws by themselves in a spontaneously organized way that required only the most minimal local judiciary system and almost no actual police force. He says in Europe common people protect and feel an admiration for criminals because they hate and fear their rulers; but in America everyone knows the laws, considers them reasonable and has a stake in upholding them and so everyone become in effect a police officer and thus criminals are quickly apprehended and dispatched with in an appropriate way as prescribed by law.
So was that brief shining moment in the 1830s "the ideal system that we’re talking about here" ? - Not at all! Principally because it was ONLY "bottom heavy" - County, then State - with nearly nothing at the "top" - that is, a federal government empowered in a very minimal way which in fact was granted no power to even establish any kind of police force - No FBI - so, no question of voting who gets to run it.
But also - more interestingly - it was not your ideal because what Tocqueville found was also light at the bottom - founded on individuals, families and private endeavor. As such there really was very little scope for determining: "goal[s] they want to dedicate their community’s time and resources towards" - the community had few resources beyond the human capital deployed as private endeavor and private decision making. Sure they ponied up the tax money for a constable and for roads and to hire a teacher or two, etc - but there were no "goals" to speak of and thus no potential for those goals to be hijacked and perverted by parties with hidden agendas.
Ah - but it WAS just a brief shining moment and there is no going back - history took another turn, perhaps necessarily.
This piece reminds me of what Solzhenitsyn admired of America most, the civic communities and associations at a local level (town, borough). [He hated the rest and was vociferous about it. Hence no longer a useful item to show off Soviet tyranny, he was quickly marginalised.]
About the rest, there are times for Julius Cesar, but also times for Cassius as well.
Brilliant!
Was just discussing education’s role in this. The rot starts in school. Kids are trained to rote learn and follow orders, not think.
Your debate is a recent version of many predecessors. The American Constitution, IMHO, was one of the more intelligent and historically-informed attempts at implementing a democratic republic operating by rule of law.
By these rules, you don't just run around yelling, "There oughta be a law," but engage in the political process to show why a change in the legal structure is appropriate, and argue for the changes, whether simply legislative or radically constitutional, needed to effect a modification.
Good luck with that.
There are lotsa complaints about the current system, but few suggest even half- serious corrections.
Sure we're on the same page. The only way crim hierarchies can be contained is to have government by the people, as per Lincoln's lyrical definition. Most people do not object to hierarchies but are unwilling to tolerate their exploitation and oppression, which is pretty much all the time, sooner or later.
If all of the people have access to all of the information, and then formulate policy, then to be implemented by the public service, the hierarchies are automatically relegated to their "actual rightful share of the goodies".
Where you and I disagree is that you presume the hierarchies can continue to exist whereas, having lived in such a situation, I know that under genuine democracy (populism) they will disappear as a force to contend with. But, at the end of the day, it would be interesting to discover what would indeed happen.
I am, of course, presuming from your previous comments, that you agree that all people have the right to determine their own future.
>Regime-approved intellectuals and the peasants that they hold in their intellectual thrall tell us that voting and the power of the people ought to be limited, even though the reasons that they give for this are arbitrary and inconsistent. Why should the mayor’s office be democratized, but the CEO position of Gazprom left alone?
Well, in America anyway, there are lots of small business owners who know from experience how government regulation and interference weigh them down. To support the democratic election of the CEO of say, Exxon, seems like inviting more intrusion into their own business.
I mean, what businesses would be exempt from democratization? For how long??? I’m sure the process would evolve once started so would the populists come for all business owners, regardless of the size of the business, and try to insert themselves into their business decisions? Seems likely.
Also, people are idiots. So any populist movement would just empower idiots on a mass scale. Doesn’t sound like a great idea.
And...Populism is just the tool that wanna be elites use to fight for a bigger piece of the pie for themselves, isn’t it Rolo? So what are we really saying here? That we need a new regime? Sure, we do but they will just screw people over in different ways so I don’t really see the point of it all.
Good timing, Rolo. All that you said, I said, in a 2007 book titled 'Delusions of Democracy'. Globally, the book was described as propounding "astonishing insights" and other such nice words by the 70 or so people who actually read it. Ergo, the book was a catastrophic literary failure.
One of the first readers warned me this would happen. "Write a novel around the message" he suggested. "Fuck you" I thought, outraged and disappointed. But, 15 years sulking later I bowed to reality and wrote the novel "The Lost Track". The response has been excellent but no publisher will touch it because it contains proof of Rupert Murdoch's criminality. Publishers, it seems, are alergic to broken legs and bullets.
Unperturbed, I am now about to write a filmscript version, differing only in more gratuitous violence and sex, all of which actually happened, and all against the backdrop splendour of the Northern Territory's Kakadu National Park and Arnhem Land. Croc Dundee on steroids. And, yes, it will sell and yes, the money will help publishers overcome their fear of assassination.
But this is but democracy pre-campaign PR. And today, you Rolo, have kicked the ball well into midfield and others seem to be into the game as well.
As you said, the penny is beginning to drop. People are questioning the horrific inconsistencies of faux-democracy, so dressed up in garish "freedom" colours, and "patriotic" bells and whistles. while millions die for war profits and even more millions perish from corporate-created famine, toxic medicines, and disease.
As do you, I suspect this is the moment the world has been shaping up for for many centuries. People Power. An end to hierarchies sustained only by repression and exploitation. And seeing that you have kicked the ball at the right moment, may I suggest you place your energies in this direction.
Meanwhile, if anybody wants to get their heads around the otherwise confusing equations applied as chicanes on the road to freedom, the novel "The Lost Track" walks you at an easy pace though this minefield by comparing our pseudo democracy with a model that sustained and endured for 24,000 years and still works today. Just request a free PDF copy at tonyryan43@gmail.com
I hope Rolo does not mind, because we are very much on the same page in this pivotal moment in human evolution.
Art Gallery
Agreed. Personal kudos is irrelevant. We all need to get into this, boots and all, and expose the medical mafia before they kill more children.
It would also be useful if we connected as email allies and shared cutting edge research. If you agree, I am at tonyryan43@gmail.com
Loving it!
Typo?
a new status quo where the people are hapless and at the mercy of their oppressors
are NOT hapless?