Is democracy truly a universal human goal?

[namelesss]

the biggest problem with politics is that people don't use the same definitions for the same words.

The biggest problem with communication is that everyone is a different perspective and their understanding of 'concepts/words' is from a unique perspective. The best one can do as the speaker is to define one's meanings and intentions in the use of unclear words. The hearer can now better the speakers intentions/perspective. Then the situation is reversed for the hearer to become the 'sharer' of his perspective.

People generally agree on politics when they speak the same language...

Holy moly, Batman, what planet is that on? Perhaps the same language group has their own politics with which they perforce generally agree as the language defines 'reality/world-view.

But often times, the same language is foreign because of the different definitions.

See initial response. All have/are different perspectives.

I was just trying to clarify my definitions - so that everything I said was taken as I meant it.

Best of luck with that. Tough going, usually!

Not as a rant.

okey dokey
Peace

 

[Kalash]

The biggest problem with communication is that everyone is a different perspective and their understanding of 'concepts/words' is from a unique perspective. The best one can do as the speaker is to define one's meanings and intentions in the use of unclear words. The hearer can now better the speakers intentions/perspective. Then the situation is reversed for the hearer to become the 'sharer' of his perspective.


Holy moly, Batman, what planet is that on? Perhaps the same language group has their own politics with which they perforce generally agree as the language defines 'reality/world-view.


See initial response. All have/are different perspectives.


Best of luck with that. Tough going, usually!


okey dokey
Peace

Generalities.

People agree that peace is better than War...
People agree that freedom is better than slavery.

The terms "peace" "war" "slavery" and "freedom" have come to mean different things to different people.

Peace isn't just a state of being - it's something we must kill to protect and prolong.

War isn't something to despise, it's something we should cherish because it's good for the economy.

Slavery isn't the ownership of one person over another outright, it's the idea that someone can tell you what do do and you will be punished if you fail to comply...

And Freedom...
Well... the idea and philosophy of freedom died with the founding fathers.

It's being reborn.



In a general sense - freedom, peace, and prosperity are goals sought by every living human being.
They agree politically that these ENDS are the goals.


The problem is the definitions of these terms, and how to best achieve them...
If you break apart the language/interpretation barriers, people would move in the same direction politically - as their end goals are the same.




You're right though - I'll need luck defining what I'm trying to say.
It's a pity a common language isn't a common language.

---- see "the world is too perfect" thread on my bubble theory ----

It's a summary of this problem.

 

[namelesss]

In a general sense - freedom, peace, and prosperity are goals sought by every living human being.
They agree politically that these ENDS are the goals.

If you admit to speaking in a general sense, I have no problem with your statement. When you say 'every' then it gets personal, and is incorrect in that sense.
I have no goals. Any 'peace' that I have/am has nothing to do with anything but me. It is an internal thing.
'Freedom' is a vain illusion that I do not entertain. No 'free-will/choice', no 'freedom.
And I have no need for 'prosperity' as I have enough and am comfortable with that. Take away half, and I am still comfortable with that. Might have something to do with 'peace'.
But, in general, .. well.. I wonder the definition of 'prosperity' in non-capitalistic cultures... Well, actually, after a bit of thought, I would even question the 'general' assumption after all.

I'll need luck

and skill

defining what I'm trying to say.
It's a pity a common language isn't a common language.

because perspective is individual, and there are no 'common minds'.

 

[yougene]

Yougene - "The core of the problem can be addressed by researching, and encouraging healthy INDIVIDUAL human development..."

Well... yeah.
Exactly.

Individual development requires individual liberty...

It's a circular problem. You need healthy human development to have a healthy democracy, but you also need healthy institutions for healthy human development.

That's the great thing about capitalism though. If the government institutions are lacking, a self-actualized individual has a shot at setting up supplementary institutions. Obviously that's also it's greatest weakness.

My point is, change is likely to originate from aggregations of developed self-actualized individuals, not the other way around.

The entire concept of a constitutional government is to ensure individual liberty.
Our government has failed int this purpose.
They are actively destroying our individual liberties so that we cannnot grow as individuals - but as part of the collective.

Individuals are incapable of choosing anything for themselves at this point - because we rely on the government to decide nearly everything for us...

Where we can build houses...
Where we can dig holes... both on our private property...
What property we may and may not own...
What we may DO with this property once we own it...
What we can eat or buy...
What we can sell...

They punish us for buying certain vehicles...
They reward us for getting married...
And reward us again for having kids...

Those things put us at a predisposition for certain behaviour. This isn't Korea though, if you are set on having relative autonomy you are allowed to have it(at this point anyway).

 

[Kalash]

It's a circular problem. You need healthy human development to have a healthy democracy, but you also need healthy institutions for healthy human development.

That's the great thing about capitalism though. If the government institutions are lacking, a self-actualized individual has a shot at setting up supplementary institutions. Obviously that's also it's greatest weakness.

My point is, change is likely to originate from aggregations of developed self-actualized individuals, not the other way around.

It's just a matter of breaking the traditional strangle hold upon the person preventing self-actualization in order to achieve this aggregate =P

Those things put us at a predisposition for certain behaviour. This isn't Korea though, if you are set on having relative autonomy you are allowed to have it(at this point anyway).

Your definition of "relative" must be pretty broad...
That, or you haven't been paying attention to the laws and executive orders being passed lately...

Free speech is restricted to certain "zones"
Warrantless wiretaps allow the government to monitor your phone...

And the drug laws...

Malum prohibitum laws...
There is no autonomy when your "master" tells you you cannot do something.

Though just like all children, mommy (the govt.) tells us not to touch the hot stove, but we still have to learn for ourselves.

 

[IGNVS]

is democracy truly a universal human goal?



no




edit: it is however a law of this universe. we do need to live with the decisions other people make.

 

[erosion]

<<
Vigilance was to be the cost of liberty.

We stopped paying the price, and now we suffer for it.<<

Yes, but how far wide did this liberty extend in the first place?



>>But they are.
To support a president under the current political system...
Promote the current political system - and hope it corrects itself despite historical evidence that it will only continue to grow more corrupt (Insanity?)- and then leaving the same problems existent before Ron Paul's presidency to linger - threatening future generations?>>

However, as contradictory as such a pursuit may seem, we can pursue both incremental change within the existing system, while at the same time pursuing more radical tactics of resistance and the construction of new, separate social structures. There might not be a single unifying theory, but these tactics can compliment each other, impelling change on multiple fronts.

>>
There were problems...
However the bill of rights were a critical part of getting the constitution amended.

The problem was that the Constitution did not establish equal protections - it did not ensure liberty and justice for all...>>

And what I'm saying is that it would be impossible to establish liberty and justice for all simply through constitutional law. Most often, we are in the greatest lack of liberty when acting as private persons, in households or the economy. The equal rights and protections accorded by the constitution are very limited, and they are in that way illusory.


>>
Criminal cases are nearly all fraudulent - there should be no criminal law short of theft, enslavement, and murder.

All matters are civil - between two people.
One person (plaintiff) feels wronged or harmed...
One person (defendant) is accused of the wrong or harm suffered.

Theft is even civil - however it becomes criminal when the plaintiff does not feel that his time is best spent trying to recover his losses at the hands of the defendant - and he asks the state to step in.>>

Fair enough. However, not all of these "civil matters" can be solved via monetary settlements. And a switch to civil law does not ameliorate disparities between individuals in terms of their legal resources.




>>
Assume that your house is your castle - anything you do inside it is your RIGHT to do (so long as no one else with rights complains of you violating their rights...) You cannot enslave someone on your property, chain them so they can never leave... You cannot murder someone on your property...>>

If this issue were easily resolved, there would be no political controversy. The question of politics is the question of WHEN, exactly, the exercise of my freedoms infringe on the exercise of yours.

enough for now.
I'm quite tired.

ebola

 

[Canis aureus]

Is democracy truly a universal human goal?

No, I think it's even presupposition or presumption, a condition. Or then, would there be a any other sort of fair way to deal with human affairs?

BTW, why did you put it that way? I mean, why democracy should be understood as a goal, an end? Wouldn't it be better just a starting point (like condition of right way to proceed), only if satisfied, then making or marking the whole action human. All other ways to handle social decision-making and such are in my opinion more or less plebeian. Democracy is the way that things should be.

 

[IGNVS]

realy you can only ask is democracy OUR goal. to each individual bler. saying anything is a universal human goal just dosent make sense because humanity isnt united in life. not yet anyway. and when they are it will be a kingdom and an anarchy and a communism and a democracy all at the same time!

 

[MyDoorsAreOpen]

^^^ Canis aureus and IGNVS, what I was essentially asking is, is democracy something that any sane person would prefer to totalitarian forms of rule, excluding despots and their cronies themselves, regardless of cultural factors?

I think I've come to the conclusion that no, it's not. There are some people in the world who would feel more comfortable with indigenous systems of social organization and group decision making that do not involve everyone having an equal voice.

 

[Kalash]

^^^ Canis aureus and IGNVS, what I was essentially asking is, is democracy something that any sane person would prefer to totalitarian forms of rule, excluding despots and their cronies themselves, regardless of cultural factors?

I think I've come to the conclusion that no, it's not. There are some people in the world who would feel more comfortable with indigenous systems of social organization and group decision making that do not involve everyone having an equal voice.

But again - a true direct democracy IS a totalitarian form of government...
It's just that a majority is the authority that cannot be questioned.


I don't think anyone would say that a totalitarian form of government is preferable to a limited government that must respect the rights of the individual citizens...

And a democratic process is certainly a fairer way to go about this...
But if you have a true direct democracy there can be no governing authority that ensures the protections of the minorities' rights.


A limited direct democracy cannot exist...
Just as communism (a beautiful ideal) cannot exist.

Both require a regulatory FORCE with supreme authority.
In communism, the government becomes totalitarian - in an effort to distribute all goods evenly - but this task is impossible when only one side has the force of guns and threats of violence.



Even our limited representative government has been corrupted by authoritarian democratic principles - such as the drug war - where the will of the majority - no matter how well or ill informed - becomes THE LAW.

That the will of the majority is swayed heavily by those seeking more and more power, the will of the people - through deceptions and incitements of fear from these power seekers, the general opinion (democratic process) erodes the protections, removes the limits upon the government/people seeking to rule, and the majority vote away the rights of the minority.

An informed public is a public with power.
A fearful, ignorant public is a tool for authoritarian leaders seeking to grab more power.

We see how much people don't pay attention - look what has happened the last 7 years under Bush...

Lies, warnings of terrorism (i.e. terrorist threats made by the government against the people), false accusations of foreign threats, fabricated terrorist attacks within our borders, and suave attempts to change the topic when the truth begins to be exposed.


Don't pay attention to the WMD's - Iran has a nuclear weapons program!
It doesn't matter that Iran does NOT have a nuclear weapons program - Look at the Pakistan assassination!


With a public attention span of 3 days to a week (occasionally a month if the media keeps covering it...) it is no wonder that we're not informed.
When is the last time you discussed the Iraq war with someone?
Unless you're talking about the presidential candidates?

I bet it wasn't for more than a month or two after it began... Or a month or two since the last big event.
It's still in the news, but the people lose interest - stand silent.



Because the stories always have to be different - new and fresh - in order to grab the attention of the public, and a continuation of a story that's old is boring...
The stories never relate - they're separate stories that don't tie together... unless you look back months at a time to see the connections.

 

[Kalash]

Yes, but how far wide did this liberty extend in the first place?

Not as far as it needed to.
But it extended as far as the founding fathers believed to be possible while uniting under a common flag/constitution.

Their concept of liberty of each individual was unique - as far as we know, it's the first time ever used in a mass scale in a real government.

They were bound to make mistakes.

>>But they are.
To support a president under the current political system...
Promote the current political system - and hope it corrects itself despite historical evidence that it will only continue to grow more corrupt (Insanity?)- and then leaving the same problems existent before Ron Paul's presidency to linger - threatening future generations?>>

However, as contradictory as such a pursuit may seem, we can pursue both incremental change within the existing system, while at the same time pursuing more radical tactics of resistance and the construction of new, separate social structures. There might not be a single unifying theory, but these tactics can compliment each other, impelling change on multiple fronts.

Alright...
True.
I just don't see a collective effort working on both fronts.
That would be fairly contradictory...

>>
There were problems...
However the bill of rights were a critical part of getting the constitution amended.

The problem was that the Constitution did not establish equal protections - it did not ensure liberty and justice for all...>>

Like I said - it was a new concept.
And no, the constitution did NOT establish equal protections...
It did its best (for white men) and was amended to fix the disparity in race and sex....

Sure - they made mistakes...
But could anyone today REALLY argue that a black woman does not have equal RIGHTS as a white man?
...
Actually... with affirmative action, she may have BETTER chances of getting a job than the white man...

But differences in potential are not the same as differences in rights.

If we're truly free, we're truly responsible for ourselves.
Each PERSON has a right to pursue happiness in his/her own way (or... we did at one point) so long as you do not infringe upon the rights of another...
As established in the Declaration of Independence and - theoretically - the Constitution.

Fixes?
http://new.revolutioni.st/changes.html

And what I'm saying is that it would be impossible to establish liberty and justice for all simply through constitutional law. Most often, we are in the greatest lack of liberty when acting as private persons, in households or the economy. The equal rights and protections accorded by the constitution are very limited, and they are in that way illusory.

You are confusing rights and privileges.

It is not a RIGHT to go to a grocery store and buy food.
It is a privilege granted to you by the grocery store owner.

It is not a RIGHT to walk across your neighbor's lawn...
It is a privilege they may grant you or deny you at their will.

The "rights and protections accorded to the constitution" - when is the last time you read the 9th amendment?
I promise your politicians haven't in a long while - if ever.

But we forget this.

The strongest argument against the bill of rights was that it would be used by the government to enumerate the RIGHTS secured to the people - and other rights that SHOULD be secured to the people would not be recognized nor protected.

Looks like that argument was well founded, huh?

>>
Criminal cases are nearly all fraudulent - there should be no criminal law short of theft, enslavement, and murder.

All matters are civil - between two people.
One person (plaintiff) feels wronged or harmed...
One person (defendant) is accused of the wrong or harm suffered.

Theft is even civil - however it becomes criminal when the plaintiff does not feel that his time is best spent trying to recover his losses at the hands of the defendant - and he asks the state to step in.>>

Fair enough. However, not all of these "civil matters" can be solved via monetary settlements. And a switch to civil law does not ameliorate disparities between individuals in terms of their legal resources.

They can if they are truly civil matters.
Theft can be repaid... through either servitude to the victim for work done until the debt created is paid off....

Murder is different - and I denoted that it should be a criminal case - and only murder should be a criminal case...
Or, when the debt from theft or embezzlement is in an amount greater than X - where X is the value of the person's skill set and personal worth that may be used to repay the debt created...
Vandalism should be treated the same way...
Property damage.... same thing....

However the desire to make EVERYTHING criminal - and take the power of coming to a consensual agreement between the two parties is removed by putting a court and law enforcement (and even a 3rd party - the prosecutor) into the whole thing...
It doesn't make any sense at all.

And it allows for disruptions of equal justice by permitting this 3rd party to stake a claim in theoretical rights of "society" - not rights of victims of an act, but so called "moral rights" that prohibit certain conduct.

The state prosecutor/attorney general/etc... has become nearly all powerful.
They can press charges against anyone - and even if someone raising the complaint DROPS the charges, may proceed in a criminal prosecution of the alleged offender.

The fundamental concept of Standing is no longer in place.

Because of this, our rights suffer...
Because of this, courts are no longer a "last resort" but the first resort for solving disputes between the sovereign.
And because the courts are playing such a heavy roll in our rights and liberties - and the redistribution thereof... We are no longer sovereign - capable, and having the authority, of solving our own private disputes.

>>
Assume that your house is your castle - anything you do inside it is your RIGHT to do (so long as no one else with rights complains of you violating their rights...) You cannot enslave someone on your property, chain them so they can never leave... You cannot murder someone on your property...>>

If this issue were easily resolved, there would be no political controversy. The question of politics is the question of WHEN, exactly, the exercise of my freedoms infringe on the exercise of yours.

enough for now.
I'm quite tired.

ebola

But that's an easy one.
If you're on my property without my permission, you have NO rights.
If you're on my property WITH my permission, you have limited rights - you are there by MY privilege and that privilege may be granted only if you have orange paint on your nose.
Remove the paint, remove the privilege, remove all your rights.
<personal rant>
It isn't a right to live in a drug free world... It's a desire.
It isn't a RIGHT for me to prohibit you, my neighbor, from drinking coffee because I feel it's, "bad for you... and makes you hyperactive, and could potentially make you commit a crime against me."
It isn't a RIGHT for me to grant that power (of prohibition) to the government - who rules by privileges derived from the rights of the people.

http://revolutioni.st/liberty.html
And also - the link - individualism v. collectivism
It can't be done.

No GROUP can claim RIGHTS higher than the RIGHTS of the individuals making up the group.
The U.S. government is made up of individuals that have limited privileges defined in the constitution - derived from the rights of the sovereign individual citizens.

Prohibition isn't one of these powers, as it infringes upon the RIGHTS of the minority - those NOT voting for prohibition - when there is no direct correlation between the prohibited act and an infringement upon the rights of the majority.

Drugs do not cause crime; drug LAWS cause crime - black market production, black market justice.

Prohibition is NOT congress acting to "regulate interstate commerce" but is a "Deregulation" - like they tried to pass with the internet... making it a free for all black market industry.
(Which Ron Paul voted against...)

</personal rant>

"We reserve the right to refuse service..."
Business owner's RIGHT.

In public - you own yourself...
If I harm you, I'm harming your property.
It's a violation of your rights.

I'm struggling to come up with a scenario where this will be in contention...

Free speech is just that...
Free.
Certain sacrifices of your morals and or ideals are necessary for a free people to co-exist.

Public land is just that - public.
You enter it by privilege, and by doing so acknowledge that you may be exposed to things you would rather not be exposed to.
You do not have a right to censor these things from EVERYONE just because they offend you...

Your life, liberty, and property are crucial - and are to be protected by the government...

No one may restrain you, harm you, or kill you while you are in public.
They may harass you as much as they please.
However you have a right to leave their presence as well.
If you are followed or threatened, your life, liberty, or property have been endangered, and you attain the right to strike out in self defense.

Each case must be decided individually...
For the government to issue edicts that "the public" must have "this act prohibited" is in violation of the rights of the individuals wishing to practice this activity.

If a specific act AT ALL TIMES creates a DIRECT THREAT to another party, this act will be criminal in and of itself, as the party being threatened will have standing to bring the case to court.

Skateboarding?
It doesn't create a threat to another party AT ALL TIMES - only when a place is crowded.

If someone on a skateboard crashes into someone - they are responsible for the harm/injury to that person and/or their property.
Same as in a car.

Prohibitory laws are never constitutional.
They are never in the best interest of the public - as each one consecutively strips A minority of certain RIGHTS.
You will NOT ALWAYS be a part of the majority.


First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left
to speak out for me.

Pastor Martin Niemöller

They've already come for the drug users...
They've already come for the prostitutes...
They've already come for the free members of the press...
They've already come for the anti-war protesters...
They've already come for me.

But I haven't been silenced yet.

 

[ebola?]

>>
But we aren't supposed to have mass-democracy or political equality.
Disciplinary control by the state is prohibited by the constitution.
Malum prohibitum crimes are prohibited by the constitution.

The constitution does not GRANT rights.
It does NOTHING to the sovereign people.
It only places limitations upon the intervention in the lives of the people by the government.

The government has crossed these limitations and is in violation of it's contract with the people - it is in violation of the Constitution.

As such, it has undermined it's authority - as the constitution is the sole source of governmental authority.

Our rights are divine - they are existent prior to the establishment of government.>>


Here is where you and I likely break. In the absence of any clear and distinct set of indicators of what our natural rights might be (I welcome you to name one or some), I have no reason to believe in natrual/God-given, etc. rights. It is then likely that rights are socially constructed, as humans interact with one another. I would guess that this process need be multifaceted, fluid, and involved various tactics of compromise and coercion. Once generated, rights become stable by way of consensus and hierarchical force. Per this picture, the legal processes that limit the ability of the state to infringe on our rights play a part in constructing these rights.

>>
They have increased their powers to supersede our rights.
Because of this, we have the disciplinary attempt to control the master (the individuals) by the servant (the state) through discipline and threats.>>

But how could this be otherwise? The modern nation-state has always given pretense of acting as the servant of the wider populace while less visibly functioning as the tool of a privileged minority.


>>
If you trade with someone, you enter into a contract - a contract is a legal matter.
If you touch someone, you infringe upon their rights - you violate their property by infringing upon their person as they are self owned - this is a legal matter.
If you step on someone's lawn you are trespassing - this is a legal matter.>>

Aha! This is another crucial matter where we disagree.
1. In many contractual relationships where parties enter under juridically equal terms, they are enmeshed in other, perhaps less visible, relationships of power and inequality. Let's take for example employment and the labor market. Buyers and sellers enter the market on seemingly equal terms: anyone can sell whatever she has and buy whatever she can afford. BUT the worker agrees to submit to doing whatever her employer demands during her working hours. This is command, this is domination. Furthermore, workers and employers do not enter into these contracts on equal terms. Unskilled, low wage workers typically have little recourse but to work for whoever happens to be hiring and for whatever wages are being offered, or the idle worker may starve (yes, some workers face a less bleak situation and/or wield greater power). Entrepreneurs face losing their investment, but they exercise more autonomy in forming the labor contract and exercise greater choice in selecting who they hire.

These sorts of relationships of power and inequality (eg, in the family, hospital, workplace, etc.) undergrid relationships of seeming equality between citizens of the state. The limited relationships of equality between citizens of the state function in the reproduction of power and inequality in the institutions of the everyday by presenting the illusion of a political society composed of autonomous equals.

2. If a system of natural rights, based solely or primarily on rights to private property, is to be just, we must assume the present distribution of property claims to be just. A cursory glance at history shows private property to have evovled out of pillage. A just system of rights, then, must go beyond current property claims.

>>
The law has failed in this purpose and has become a tool of control by the state that was meant to serve but means to rule....>>

But the law has never functioned pristinely; it has never solely or even primarily served to neutrally arbitrate between equals. The bureaucratic hierarchy of the state precludes this possibility.



>>The constitution grants PRIVILEGES to the State in order that it may protect the NATURAL RIGHTS of the sovereign individuals.>>

Breaking away from the assumption of natural rights, though, I think that the way in which the Bill of Rights constricts state privilege simultaneously plays a central role in creating the natural rights that we take for granted (eg, freedom of speech, assembly, religion, etc.). What appears as natural, god-given, whatever, is something we created outside of our explicit awareness.

>>
The law, therefore, is in violation of its purpose - those enforcing it are in violation of their purpose, and those creating the law are in violation of their purpose.>>

The law has never and could never live up to this purpose. This leads me to believe that it is being put to other uses.

ebola

 

[ebola?]

>>True, but the system does not exist autonomously from the masses. They are still very much in the equation. The masses simply don't have the cohesion or necessary skill set to make the best possible input. This ofcourse is perpetuated through the system for various reasons.>>

Well, yes. Innovative cooperation transforms social structures. However, I believe the root tendencies of hierarchical organizations (those headed by supposed representatives to be of the most interest) to limit the possibilities for the lower ranks of these organizations to change them.

Put otherwise, the problem is not that the masses lack a set of skills which would enable them to collaborate through participatory democracy. The problem is rather that hierarchical organizations are incapable of giving the masses autonomy through representation, so the result is rule by a more insidious oligarchy. Representation becomes a myth and democracy becomes a farce.

>>
In the cosmic nanosecond of 2000 years, that doesn't really mean much to me. I'm not saying an ideally perfect system is possible. Nothing is ideally perfect. I just think systems form acceptable balances between autonomy and completeness all the time, and this is no different.>>

Maybe I'm too intoxicated, but I'm not understanding the trade-off between autonomy and completeness. What is this completeness?

And as for our nanosecond of history, well, I guess I have be begin from what we have. Trust me, you don't what my utopian fantasies unrestrained.

>>
Because it's such an interdependent system there really is no linear way of "fixing" it. I think the core of the problem can be addressed by researching, and encouraging healthy individual human development.>>

But more concretely, what are some things we might do to improve the human condition? Also, what is this "linearity", why does it not apply to a system of interdependence, and what is the alternative way of thinking?

I would agree that work on multiple fronts with marked self-consciousness of our positions and limitations holds the most promise. I'm being way too vague though.

>>Harder said than done ofcourse. With the various culture wars going on not only between agrarian and industrial society but even amongst the different fields of academia how are we even to begin threading such a consensus?>>

I think that consensus will need be built on the basis of common goals, decentralized, "federalist" organizational linkages, a web of intensive and extensive interdependence, and the pursuit of tolerance as an ideal (if only as a means towards greater ideals).

In societal organization, there is a choice: groups which diverge irrevocably in their ideals, goals, etc. may separate themselves from one another, or agreement (or at least coordinated action) between the two groups may be externally coerced. E.G., one group can invade and enslave the other, the two groups may create a body of political officials that decides upon and enforces the ways in which the groups interact (a state), and so on etc.

Under what circumstances is it politically and ethically sound for agreement to be coerced? I don't have a solution here...

As to your two examples, I don't see a conflict between industrial and agrarian societies. Rather, I see a larger system that binds to the two together. Although there are exceptions, the overall trend is exploitation of agrarian and related institutions by industrialized (maybe "modern") institutions with greater economic power (I say institutions and not nations to highlight that the "first" and "third" world are scattered within many nations). I don't think many people are pushing for the agrarians to "win", stopping industrialization in its tracks. The question becomes, how can this relationship between institutions (eg, the world polity and economy) be transformed so that its participants afford greater autonomy and overall success.

>>Regardless the work is being done slowly but steadily and will someday reach maturation. That is if we don't destroy ourselves in the meantime.>>

My predictions aren't so rosy. I see present economic relations reinforcing prior, more visible relationships of domination and exploitation. Some people are linking themselves together in...well, admirable and noble ways. Will it be enough? We'll see.

ebola
enough for now...sorry for the verbosity

 

[yougene]

>>True, but the system does not exist autonomously from the masses. They are still very much in the equation. The masses simply don't have the cohesion or necessary skill set to make the best possible input. This ofcourse is perpetuated through the system for various reasons.>>

Well, yes. Innovative cooperation transforms social structures. However, I believe the root tendencies of hierarchical organizations (those headed by supposed representatives to be of the most interest) to limit the possibilities for the lower ranks of these organizations to change them.

I understand as student of the humanities you may have an aversion towards hierarchical structures. I would like to point out that EVERYTHING in the observable universe is a hierarchical structure( not the same as hierarchy of domination ). It's like a fractal structure that permeates everything we observe.

If you manage to level the playing field, congratulations, you've just created a vacuum in which a new hierarchy will eventually emerge.

Put otherwise, the problem is not that the masses lack a set of skills which would enable them to collaborate through participatory democracy. The problem is rather that hierarchical organizations are incapable of giving the masses autonomy through representation, so the result is rule by a more insidious oligarchy. Representation becomes a myth and democracy becomes a farce.

I think both statements pose partial insight into the matter. Hierarchies do have inherent structural flaws, but ALL structures have inherent structural flaws. One flaw( which is often a strength in healthy hierarchical structures ) is the stratification between different levels. But this isn't just a top down stratification, each level is stratified to every other level. What is needed is to harness this property to bring balance amongst the different rungs of the ladder, not a complete flattening(which isn't possible).

>>
In the cosmic nanosecond of 2000 years, that doesn't really mean much to me. I'm not saying an ideally perfect system is possible. Nothing is ideally perfect. I just think systems form acceptable balances between autonomy and completeness all the time, and this is no different.>>

Maybe I'm too intoxicated, but I'm not understanding the trade-off between autonomy and completeness. What is this completeness?

And as for our nanosecond of history, well, I guess I have be begin from what we have. Trust me, you don't what my utopian fantasies unrestrained.

>>
Because it's such an interdependent system there really is no linear way of "fixing" it. I think the core of the problem can be addressed by researching, and encouraging healthy individual human development.>>

But more concretely, what are some things we might do to improve the human condition? Also, what is this "linearity", why does it not apply to a system of interdependence, and what is the alternative way of thinking?

I would agree that work on multiple fronts with marked self-consciousness of our positions and limitations holds the most promise. I'm being way too vague though.

>>"But more concretely, what are some things we might do to improve the human condition?"
On what front? Just on the individual front there are many things to do. Cognitive development isn't enough for a sustainable world anymore with so many other crucial lines of development. Emotional intelligence, moral development, and interpersonal development are all things we should be developing to greater extents somewhere.


>>"Also, what is this "linearity", why does it not apply to a system of interdependence, and what is the alternative way of thinking?"
People are accustomed to thinking within the paradigm they were trained or brought up in. To an economist the world is seen through the eyes of the economy, to a sociologist the world is seen through the eyes of power, to a scientist the world is seen through the eyes of gross matter. Each paradigm has it's own world view and even steps on the toes of other world views. What they all have in common is that even though on a precise level they contradict each others assertions they are all useful partial representations of reality. What we need is more cross paradigm thinking and cooperation.

Linear is good on a small detailed scaled but it's usefulness is limited when dealing with the bigger picture. The world is a system, you often need multiple precise inputs to get the desired output. This requires alignment of individual, cultural, and societal conditions and structures, which doesn't always include concrete linear actions, but a dynamic interplay.

>>Harder said than done ofcourse. With the various culture wars going on not only between agrarian and industrial society but even amongst the different fields of academia how are we even to begin threading such a consensus?>>

I think that consensus will need be built on the basis of common goals, decentralized, "federalist" organizational linkages, a web of intensive and extensive interdependence, and the pursuit of tolerance as an ideal (if only as a means towards greater ideals).

I completely agree with what you say, especially federalist organizations. Alot of people on here seem to fear federalisation of the world. I think it's a very promising structure for the world of the future. I just hope it's done in an agreeable fashion when it does happen.

Perhaps it will be a federation of federations. That would be interesting.

As to your two examples, I don't see a conflict between industrial and agrarian societies. Rather, I see a larger system that binds to the two together. Although there are exceptions, the overall trend is exploitation of agrarian and related institutions by industrialized (maybe "modern") institutions with greater economic power (I say institutions and not nations to highlight that the "first" and "third" world are scattered within many nations). I don't think many people are pushing for the agrarians to "win", stopping industrialization in its tracks. The question becomes, how can this relationship between institutions (eg, the world polity and economy) be transformed so that its participants afford greater autonomy and overall success.

There is no conflict between industrial and agrarian societal structures. The conflict has to do with the heavy correlations between the world views of the two societies. Industrial = Rationalism, Agrarian = Syncretic Mythic. The civil war only served to make this dichotomy more concrete within our political system. I think the binding institution IS the industrial structure. It builds on top of the agrarian foundation.

>>Regardless the work is being done slowly but steadily and will someday reach maturation. That is if we don't destroy ourselves in the meantime.>>

My predictions aren't so rosy. I see present economic relations reinforcing prior, more visible relationships of domination and exploitation. Some people are linking themselves together in...well, admirable and noble ways. Will it be enough? We'll see.

Always very likely. Question is, how does that play itself out in the bigger picture given present conditions? It can go either way( but at least it can go either way in the present day ).

 

[shrimpchips]

Agree to disagree, I am no philosopher or anything, but in a community there is always a leader. Democracy will cause havoc because there are too many different ideas and the only way to create a community is to have one thing in common which EVERYONE must agree on. Of course, there are always oppositions but democracy? No way. People get too greedy and selfish and we need that leadership figure in a community.

 

[eEz]

in answer to the thread title, no.

 

[ebola?]

I am bringing this thread back...

>>I understand as student of the humanities you may have an aversion towards hierarchical structures. I would like to point out that EVERYTHING in the observable universe is a hierarchical structure( not the same as hierarchy of domination ). It's like a fractal structure that permeates everything we observe.
>>

My background is actually mostly in the social sciences. I guess I was too sloppy in my speech. I don't oppose hierarchy as such, but rather hierarchical authority. Any conceivable anarchist organization would involve groups organized into sub-groups, and so-on, but this organization would need be voluntary. Accordingly, there will always be "natural leaders", but we needn't arm leaders with weapons of coercion.

>>What they all have in common is that even though on a precise level they contradict each others assertions they are all useful partial representations of reality. What we need is more cross paradigm thinking and cooperation.>>

I agree whole-heartedly!

>>Linear is good on a small detailed scaled but it's usefulness is limited when dealing with the bigger picture. The world is a system, you often need multiple precise inputs to get the desired output. This requires alignment of individual, cultural, and societal conditions and structures, which doesn't always include concrete linear actions, but a dynamic interplay.>>

I still think that I'm not quite getting this "linearity" concept. To what extent does linear thinking overlap with reductionist thinking?

>>The conflict has to do with the heavy correlations between the world views of the two societies. Industrial = Rationalism, Agrarian = Syncretic Mythic. The civil war only served to make this dichotomy more concrete within our political system. I think the binding institution IS the industrial structure. It builds on top of the agrarian foundation.>>

But not only is there a clash of worldviews (which I think is somewhat empirically valid), but industrial and agrarian institutions function in a systemic web of exploitation. I think that this problem is the more urgent one.

But it is somehow gratifying that our ideas appear to be converging.

ebola

 

[mulberryman]

Put otherwise, the problem is not that the masses lack a set of skills which would enable them to collaborate through participatory democracy. The problem is rather that hierarchical organizations are incapable of giving the masses autonomy through representation, so the result is rule by a more insidious oligarchy. Representation becomes a myth and democracy becomes a farce.

...

Maybe I'm too intoxicated, but I'm not understanding the trade-off between autonomy and completeness. What is this completeness?

I don't know if I can compete with your intellect, ebola, but I do understand what you mean about democracy becoming a farce. In todays world we are all so completely divided on the issues. 52% on this site, as it has recently been clarified, for example, would still believe that the government has enough of our interests at heart to be able to dictate what we may or may not put into our bodies, even if they disagree with what exactly is forbidden. No one majority can ever actually rule when the most anyone can hope for in their cause is 49.9%, and even that is reaching.

It is interesting though that you bring up the fact that our 2000 years is such a small fraction of time in the greater sense. Perhaps what we need is to actually unify our thinking in some sense. Perhaps evolution will do this for us. I hate to infer that maybe the Nazis were right, but maybe we need less genetic diversity in our species. Or to be a little more PC (and yet decidedly not), maybe medicating our children (and ourselves) into conformity is actually very noble and compassionate. Factor the drug war into this, and my what a paradox...

 

[Roger&Me]

It is only human to want to at least be able to have your say in the way your country affects your life. I think that eventually, democracy will pop up wherever the causes and conditions allow for it; as it agrees fundamentally with the human disposition. It will come and go like the seasons, but I don't think it will ever permanently disappear.