Feel free to crucify me, but I made this video about what I think will happen...

Well done, arras! This is one of those 'I-wish-I-wrote-this' posts.

I'm not sure that abandoning democracy (in principle, anyway) will solve the problem of disconnect between power and responsibility, but I heartily agree with your diagnosis of some basic problems, especially the role of information overload - which can sometimes defeat the efforts even of critical thinkers to properly assess a situation.

Tuthmosis III said:

Well done, arras! This is one of those 'I-wish-I-wrote-this' posts.

Click to expand...

Thanks TuthmosisIII

Tuthmosis III said:

I'm not sure that abandoning democracy (in principle, anyway) will solve the problem of disconnect between power and responsibility,

Click to expand...

Whenever you agree or disagree with me that real democracy can or can not work, fact is that idea that there is democracy in our countries is used to manipulate people when if fact small elite have disproportionate influence on our government. We do not have real democracy in reality. It's fiction.

I believe first step to improve things is to recognise that there is such elite, find out who they are and make them accountable for what they are doing.

Problem I personally see is that there always will be some elite and it will always attempt to hijack power. Now I believe it is better to give them legal means to do so as that makes it easier to control and regulate their power. Otherwise they are going to work against system in secret.

Another thing is that I believe socio-economic system should be set in such a way, that it would not create large concentration of power in society (mainly in form of wealth but that depends on type of socio-economic system). Differences between people should not be extreme as that tends to break society in to hostile groups whose interests are mutually exclusive.

I believe first step to improve things is to recognise that there is such elite, find out who they are and make them accountable for what they are doing.

Click to expand...

- Arras

Well said, it's nice to know it's not just me who says this

But watching for those who grab too much power and influence is what the man meant when he said that "the price of liberty is eternal vigilance ", or something like that.

Thanks Black Dog and I agree about vigilance and liberty. However I also believe that we can set up system in such a way that it can help us maintain liberty. Just like system can help us fight criminality.

Isn't history of society about finding such system? (and I mean more about constantly improving and adapting it not finding absolute one)

Sargon of Akkad said:

The High Priests of Marduk - YouTube

Click to expand...

Two things here too; the anthropology of mankind got to this point for return to farming as an uncritical form of thinking; but we know it is just a naive theory, The explanation for progressive thinking for after all our deeds is that we come to a decision of what humanity is to accomplish; but this is somewhat perceived in a Kantian non-active sort of mind over mind project in the future. Really, people submit to authority without questioning it. So freely, what is it that they really do and what's more going to do?

Nobody, believes these movies, but Sargon of Akkad makes me think for the future of a paralyzed urban development.

I'm not critical. You're good propaganda writing, and I am able to take a moral approach.

arras said:

Whenever you agree or disagree with me that real democracy can or can not work, fact is that idea that there is democracy in our countries is used to manipulate people when if fact small elite have disproportionate influence on our government. We do not have real democracy in reality. It's fiction.

Click to expand...

That is what I meant by 'in principle'. So far, all governments are really variations on the theme of oligarchy, even ones which pay copious lip service to the idea of democracy. And, assuming you mean direct democracy when you say "real democracy", you are quite correct.

arras said:

I believe first step to improve things is to recognise that there is such elite, find out who they are and make them accountable for what they are doing.

Problem I personally see is that there always will be some elite and it will always attempt to hijack power. Now I believe it is better to give them legal means to do so as that makes it easier to control and regulate their power. Otherwise they are going to work against system in secret.

Click to expand...

I completely agree with these thoughts. The rub, of course, is getting the vested interests already in place to buy into true accountability. But it can't hurt to shine the light whenever and wherever you can. As much as I despise the abuses of the media, when these are curtailed - watch out!

arras said:

Another thing is that I believe socio-economic system should be set in such a way, that it would not create large concentration of power in society (mainly in form of wealth but that depends on type of socio-economic system). Differences between people should not be extreme as that tends to break society in to hostile groups whose interests are mutually exclusive.

Click to expand...

This would be great, but I have doubts. Setting up a system where the various forms of social power (to borrow from Michael Mann, whose ideas I'm finding intriguing at the moment) do not tend to coalesce around a privileged group at some point seems to be very difficult, historically speaking. Unfortunately time is the enemy of vigilance. It takes more energy to keep one's eyes open than to sleep.

Tuthmosis III said:

That is what I meant by 'in principle'. So far, all governments are really variations on the theme of oligarchy, even ones which pay copious lip service to the idea of democracy. And, assuming you mean direct democracy when you say "real democracy", you are quite correct.


,,,,,

Click to expand...

Could there any hope for Ralph Nador's anti-corporate Policies, in Canada, someone like David Orchard, an ex-farmer from Saskatchewan?

Tuthmosis III said:

That is what I meant by 'in principle'. So far, all governments are really variations on the theme of oligarchy, even ones which pay copious lip service to the idea of democracy. And, assuming you mean direct democracy when you say "real democracy", you are quite correct.

Click to expand...

Well yes, even if I do not like that name -"direct democracy". It sounds as if there could be some other "indirect one". But I believe once you have "democracy" by representatives, it is not democracy any more. I frankly find it amazing that people who go to decide something once per 5 years can think they are in power.

Tuthmosis III said:

This would be great, but I have doubts. Setting up a system where the various forms of social power (to borrow from Michael Mann, whose ideas I'm finding intriguing at the moment) do not tend to coalesce around a privileged group at some point seems to be very difficult, historically speaking. Unfortunately time is the enemy of vigilance. It takes more energy to keep one's eyes open than to sleep.

Click to expand...

That is actually good point. When you look at things in nature, you notice life goes through circle and "renew" itself periodically (most dramatically demonstrated in spring, summer, autumn, winter circle but there are others). I believe human society (and culture and civilisation as well) is no different and every system needs this "renewal" every now and then to stay alive and working. We can not expect to set (hopefully good) system in place and then hope it will stay that way all till the end of time. It does not work that way. Nothing is static and everything "ages" in a way. The most successful systems are those with build in margin of flexibility and adaptability which are capable of "reforming" from time to time.

In other words, if we let things on their own, it will go to hell eventually, no matter how good they are.

Not bad! Appreicate the effort you put into the video. Never thought i would hear your voice. Did enjoy listening to the video, even though i thought it was just a little pessimistic. I could be wrong, but i think more people, not less, are becoming a bit more inquisitive and forced into thinking more critically with each passing day thanks to the net', in spite of it own distractions.

Oh! And... Kate Middleton is going to have her baby au naturale!? You asked "Who knew?" And i say "Not this guy!" That was a shock.

I frankly find it amazing that people who go to decide something once per 5 years can think they are in power.

Click to expand...

Indeed, yes. Think how many issues we are actually voting on when we elect one party or another. Thousands of issues, and we get (a) Party A OR (b) Party B yes or no to all these issues. Once every 4 years or so (in the UK), and they're free to renege on any of these issues. And, in fact, they usually do. Most famous, I suppose, was Thatcher's campaign slogan of 1979, featuring a poster with a long queue of unemployed people with the slogan "Labour isn't working". She then gained power and made the problem 10 times worse, reaching over 4 million in official figures. The real figures were much higher.

The only way to (a) engage ordinary people and (b) to curtail the vested interests of the crooked rich is to devolve Government as much as possible to local politics.

People here don't really give a damn about what happens at the other end of the country: the south of England, for example, generally still refuses to accept the damage Thatcher did to the north. But tell people that their local hospital is under threat or anything which affects them directly, and they're far more likely to get involved. At the moment, the mechanisms for this are few and largely ineffective.

Our political parties have something called the Whip System, a ridiculous analogy with fox hunting, where the "whipper in" can control the dogs. Whips are party members who bully, bribe and coerce MPs into voting how the party wants them to. How democratic is that? Not even slightly. MPs are supposed to represent the wishes of their constituents. We've had the sickening experience where local people do not want their local industry to go, but the MP votes for it to go simply because of the whip system. His/her career can be on the line if he doesn't tow the line.

In fact, there's so much wrong with the British political system that I hardly know where to begin. Another major problem is that ordinary people have been convinced that consensus politics and dissent within parties is actually a sign of weakness, and they hanker after "strong leadership". I think it was Lord Hailsham who called the Thatcher Governments "an elected dictatorship".

Maggie and Ronnie -- what a ruinous pair! Yet, there's a statue of Ronnie in London!

Sargon of Akkad said:

Please read the thread in the above post. It's not on the decline, and I wish I was being pessimistic.

Click to expand...

Is that you Carl?

Sargon of Akkad said:

When I said that a day will come when people don't even understand the need for critical thinking, I did not realise that day would be today.

This is a long read, but a very important one, please read it:

https://www.facebook.com/LovesARant...total_comments=212&notif_t=feed_comment_reply

Click to expand...

Okay, i looked it over some more and thought it over and i am not seeing any new phenomenon here that i haven't seen before after being on the net for the past 15 years. And then even in the letters to the editor from the old paper publishing days (Well except being edited for grammar and legibility... Woof!) Or even when crowds would bay for the blood of whomever from the centuries proceeding our lives, I am kind of thinking of the mobs with pitch forks cliche or the eradication of the Bastille even.Just depends on the topic i guess. If it involves purely emotion driven topic, then you might as well forget about critical thinking! Especially when it involves such an emotion driven case like James Rigby.

May be i am too much an optimist?

Sargon of Akkad said:

And it wasn't acceptable then, too.

Click to expand...

When it came to order in society, no it wasn't. And yet, even kings, emperors, pharaohs, Presidents, Prime ministers and demi-gods feared the power of an emotionally driven mob, right?

Optimism has led us to a point where thousands and thousands of people are in favour of just ripping the alleged murderer apart in the streets.

Click to expand...

I may be daft, but how did optimism lead to this conclusion, or are you referring to my earlier comment?

When does it end, if we remain silent?

https://www.facebook.com/allyouneedtodoisthink

Click to expand...

Honestly, i don't think it will end anytime soon and nothing from history suggests it will. If anything, i think instances like these are, rather than a lack in critical thinking seems more suggestive of a bit of a break down to a societies law and order.