Misrule and Criminal Rule of America

CaryP

Senior Member
Messages
1,432
Misrule and Criminal Rule of America

Originally posted by Grayson@Aug 31 2004, 10:04 AM
We and the Government as it stands:

Three billion years of evolution have imbued all life on earth with one basic motivation: All living organisms, including all human beings, always act in what they consider to be in their best self-interest. This unalterable motivation is the source for all other emotions of all living organisms. This motive is also the precursor of the Negative Golden Rule, which first appears in the writings of the nascent periods of major religions and civilizations.

The Biblical Golden Rule states: \"Do unto others what you want done to yourself\" The Negative Golden Rule states: \"Do not do to others what you do not want done to yourself\". This nugget of wisdom goes back thousands of years. It appears in old Judaic teachings as well as in the ancient Tibetan Buddhist aphorism: \"Let all hear this moral maxim and having heard it, keep it well: Whatever is not pleasing to yourself, do not that into others\".

The actual Golden Rule, as embedded in the New Testament of the Bible, is adverse to human emotional and evolutionary motivation. Unfortunately, St. Matthew was not familiar with human nature when he said in (7-12) \"Therefor all things whatsoever ye would that men do to you, do ye even so to them. For this is the law and the prophets\".

Immanuel Kant, too, knew little about human nature when he torturously invented his Categorical Imperative. Since this long-winded moral exhortation is nothing but a convoluted version of the Golden Rule, it is just as ineffective as the Golden Rule. Most people are not even aware of this Kantian moral imperative and nobody pays any attention to it. This type of philosophizing exposes Kant as just another one of the many philosophers who lacked a basic understanding of human nature and reality.

The same psychological principles that apply to the moral code of a society, also apply to individual members of a society who merely wish to enhance their coexistence with other members of their family or society. All human beings have an infinite number of wants, needs and desires. It is impossible to know and understand all of the wants and likes of another person.

Therefore, it is impossible and presumptive for a person to decide what may be desirable for another person, merely as a projection of his own desires. A projection of our own likes would rely on the unrealistic assumption that others have the same needs and desires as we do. We know from everyday observations that other people do not have the same likes as we do and, since we can merely surmise what others may like, we will almost certainly create dismay more often than happiness.

So, we are not concerned with the political machinations of governments. We are merely concerned with the interaction between governments and our singularly individual needs. Our main individual concern in maintaining our own health, wealth and happiness is the need to protect ourselves from impositions created by governments.

We must be careful to achieve this objective without conflicting with the government and its laws, without rocking the boat of government and without even giving the appearance of interfering with the demands of the government.

Nothing good is going to happen if we attack any government in any way, form or shape. It is best if we leave confrontation to self-destructive hotheads. Rational persons have only one objective in life, and that is to be as happy as humanly possible. People who fight the government are not happy people and they usually lose.

We therefore cannot change the world, or the people in it, to any substantial degree. What we can do and what we must do in order to achieve happiness is to be fully aware of the way the world works, to align ourselves with the reality of the situation and to cope with obstacles in a non-confrontational, rational and efficacious manner.

It is the nature of governments to deprive their constituents of their hard-earned wealth by taxation and inflation; at worst, governments may subjugate us or kill us. Governments may not hesitate to force their constituents to become the willing or unwilling canon fodder of military involvements. If we should try to shirk this duty, we may be shot as deserters, just to set an example.
Our government will demand all such sacrifices in the interest of the Common Good of the Nation, as defined by the government. If it is in the interest of the political leadership, appropriate propaganda will persuade citizens to believe in and act upon false or spurious objectives.

Those who suffer from the tumultuous emotion of patriotism, commonly encourage the love of one's own country and its frequent offspring, war. Politicians invoke patriotism to stimulate sacrifices from those who will suffer the most from war. As George Bernard Shaw asserted so humorously but succinctly, \"Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all others, merely because you were born in it\".

Patriotism is to politics what faith is to religion: The unquestioned acceptance of information that is either unverified or that may actually be in conflict with factual evidence. Patriotism is the incubator of wars.

Similar to religion, patriotism is an emotion, as opposed to a rational thought process. Studies and surveys have consistently indicated that approximately 90% of persons in any given country have strong patriotic sentiments. This percentage is similar to the percentage of people involved in other faith-based activities, such as religion. This same percentage also reflects the bell-curve of the general intelligence level of a population: 90% of all persons in a Caucasian population group register an IQ below 120.

It is counter-productive to look to the government for gratuitous benefits. So-called free goods or services offered by the government are not free but always carry a hidden price tag: The price we pay could be a restriction of our freedom to act independently, or we may receive goods and services that are of inferior quality.

Governments only provide such services or goods that the Free-Market has declined to provide, usually due to a lack of demand for a product at a specific price level. Private investors do not hesitate to launch commercial satellites but they do consider it unprofitable, unproductive and a waste of resources to send space vehicles into the distant universe. Only governments engage in such wasteful endeavours in order to enhance their appeal to the patriotic masses.

We always need to be cognizant of the fact that the government, any government, has no money and no wealth of its own. Governments, as represented by professional politicians, have only four methods of acquiring financial resources that they can then dole out to further their own objectives. 1. Direct taxation of its citizenry; 2. Indirect taxation involving the counterfeiting of its own currency, also known as inflation; 3. Wars provide for the looting of other countries. 4. Political manipulation of the economy.

Bureaucrats, the true executive branch of any government, pursue only two objectives: To preserve their own jobs with a minimum of work and to create or enlarge their own private empires, their circle of influence. Ordinary citizens have no contact with the political power structure. Even in a democracy, members of the electorate are always restricted to dealing with bureaucrats, rather than having direct access to their elected representative.

The primary objective of bureaucrats is to lead simple and hassle-free lives. If we are dependent on their favourable response, we will find it to our advantage to flatter their sense of self-esteem. Bureaucrats will not condone any attempt to question their sense of importance: Keep it simple, flatter them, make life simple for them, do not contradict them, and all will be well. Do not rock the boat of government: It is far easier to simply slide through the quagmire of bureaucratic impositions.

The government has practically unlimited resources. Our own resources are limited and puny in comparison. If a government needs additional resources, it merely has to tap the wealth of its citizens by taxation. This approach to wealth is clearly an option not available to ordinary citizens.

At all costs, we should avoid a situation where the government may just want to set an example of its power to deal with any perceived or imagined obstructionism: If we expose ourselves to such a situation, we may lose all we have, including our freedom, on the altar of a god called Idealism.
Idealists, like Pastor Niemoeller and Company, pay dearly and accomplish nothing. Only other idealists, who are smart enough to avoid confrontations with the government, will glorify such misguided approach to happiness. Idealistic fools usually become unsung martyrs. We should only speak the truth, but we should not speak of everything that is true.

Aside from the practical consideration of not irritating the government, we need to remember that governments have always been an integral and necessary part of human society. Indeed, without governments, human society and civilization could not prevail. Governments are a curse and a blessing. They will continue to help and to plague us, until the very nature of man changes.

Governments exist because, similar to religions, they meet certain innate, irrational needs of man: People mistakenly believe that governments, or religions, can provide them with benefits that would not otherwise be available. People tend to overlook the fact that the government has no money and no resources, except those that it can claim from its citizens.

Taxes are the lifeblood of any government. Governments cannot exist without taxation. Any government can and will obtain compliance with its demands by the use of force or the threat of force.

The government can bankrupt us just by hauling us into its courts on spurious charges. We may win our case, eventually, but it will be a Pyrrhic victory because we will be much poorer. This process is also known as Winning the Battle but Losing the War. This outcome is inevitable if we play philosophical games with the government.

We must also remember that the Judicial System, from the local Justice Court to the Supreme Court, is an integral part of the government. Politicians set the salaries of all judges, even Supreme Court Justices, and pay for them out of tax revenues. There are the limits to the impartiality of judges. They know precisely who pays their salaries. Every human being always does what he considers to be in his best self-interest.

So, do not believe a single word a politician utters and pay no attention to statistics or news releases by the government. In order to keep their constituents ignorant of the realities of life, and in order to renege on previous promises or contracts such as social security schemes, all releases of information by the government are highly suspect. From crime statistics to economic statistics, all such information is essentially self-serving and useless; it may even be dangerous.

For example, if we wish to inform ourselves of the actual level of inflation, we merely need to observe the price level of common goods over a period of several decades: From books, to cars, to stocks, to houses. We will then know, factually, that most governments routinely inflate their currency at the inconspicuous rate of 6-7%. This inflation goes on year after year, doubling all prices approximately every 10-12 years, decade after decade after decade.

However, government statistics consistently show that, due to the vigilance of our government, inflation runs only 2 or 3 % per year. In 2002, inflation in the housing sector was 25%, but government statistics showed an inflation rate of 1.4%. Such misrepresentations severely distort the economic projections and financial decisions of ordinary persons.

Reliance on such governmentally induced distortions can be extremely destructive to our financial health. Only governments can create inflation by counterfeiting their own money. However, governments assert simultaneously that they are struggling heroically against inflation. Unless we perceive inflation correctly, we may become the tragic victims of the economic policies of a government.
It would be ludicrous to pay any attention to the campaign promises of politicians. It is foolish to believe what any politician says: His sole objective in life is to be elected or re-elected. He is an expert in the elusive manipulation of data and he will camouflage in ambiguity any false statement or promise that will help him accomplish this objective.

If we really feel the wasteful need to participate in electing a particular politician, we need to look to his previous actions, not to his gilded promises. Do not pay attention to what a person says; pay only attention to what a person does.
Thus, do not waste your time participating in elections. It requires time, effort and thoughtful analysis to vote in political elections. Unless you are casting your vote on a small Board of Directors, or a similar small institution, your vote represents a meaningless illusion of power.

Voting in the political arena is like voting for tomorrow's weather. Your single vote will never make the slightest difference to the outcome of any election, no more than it would affect tomorrow's weather. In national elections, your vote is completely irrelevant because it is one of 100,000,000 votes. A person would have to be a raving megalomaniac to believe that his lone vote matters to the outcome of political elections.

Of course, some self-anointed patriots may admonish you by saying: \"If everyone would take this attitude, our democratic form of government would collapse\". However, the fact remains that most people are not motivated by rational thought processes. Most people are governed by the emotion-driven psychology of crowds. Therefore, most people will continue to vote, regardless of whether you vote, or not.

The concept of voting is a lure to the mind because it provides an illusion of power. Regretfully, it also results in a waste of our limited resources, such as our time and effort. Politicians will always exhort people to vote because \"it is the patriotic thing to do\". Their power and their income is dependant on the voting process: The more people vote, the more power accrues to the politician. Alas, the same benefits do not accrue to the voter.

While we navigate our puny vessel through the shoals of life, we realize that human existence is full of rocks, shallows and other disasters, waiting to destroy or damage us. Since our government appears to be all powerful because it commands police forces, armies, nuclear weapons and unlimited resources, we feel justified in assuming that our government can protect us from adverse events such as burglaries, thefts, injuries, terrorism, job loss, etc., etc. Unfortunately, this na?ve assumption is a complete fallacy and illusion, carefully nurtured by our politicians. Instead of protecting us, our government is frequently a major contributing factor to the calamities of our life.

Homes in most Western countries are burglarized around the clock. Can our government protect us? Of course, it cannot. If we want to protect ourselves against burglars, we need to install a burglar alarm, hire a guard or take other protective measures. The police can do nothing except try to catch the perpetrators and punish them.

This governmental approach to security may be interesting to the victim and enhance the prestige of the police, but it does not restore our property. We do not benefit at all from the fact that the burglar has been put behind bars for a limited period so that he cannot burglarize the homes of other persons.

The recovery of goods taken in burglaries is so miniscule as to be practically non-existent. To add insult to injury, we may be required to waste our time by having to attend the court proceedings as a witness, or to identify the culprit. This system is hardly worth having but probably better than no system at all. If we really want to be secure from burglars, we need to install and pay for a good security system in our house. The same situation prevails in all other instances where the government, or its agents, is supposedly protecting us.

All persons, with the exceptions of a person we call a sociopath; develop moral codes of one kind or another. A moral code is a code of conduct, a shortcut, to pre-determine the consequences of potential actions or inactions. When we deal with other persons in an environment of free markets, it is in our best self-interest to conduct our exchanges with other persons above board and without coercion, fraud or threats.

However, our dealings with governments are not based on a mutuality of benefits; they are based on coercion by force or the threat of force: If there were no punishment for the non-payment of income taxes, would anyone pay income taxes? Therefore, it may be advisable to use a modified moral standard when dealing with the government, then when dealing with people in consensual transactions.

Politicians lead their followers because they consider such action to be in their own best self-interest. Politicians find it rewarding to be leaders, because their status as a leader enhances their power, as well as their financial and emotional rewards.
When some persons refer to politicians as arrogant, demagogic or power-hungry, such denigration should not be considered a moral judgment. We are not the moral guardians of other persons in this society.

Therefore, we neither approve of the conduct of politicians nor condemn their conduct. We merely recognize that their conduct represents the way the world really is. If we were intellectually and temperamentally as cunning as politicians are, we might act in precisely the same manner.

Any effort we might expend to modify an undesirable situation in the political arena is a waste of time and imperils our happiness. We must not attack any obstacles that we encounter merely because they were set up by our politicians and our governments in the promotion of their own objectives. It is far simpler, and far more effective, to circumvent such impediments to our happiness while adhering to our lawful and peaceful conduct.

We must optimize our happiness by dealing effectively and realistically with our environment. It is essential to our happiness to clearly understand the nature of reality, including the innate nature of man, of politicians and of governments.
A case in point is the difference in attitudes between Europeans and Americans. In order to accumulate ever-larger houses and automobiles, Americans have to work more hours than Europeans do. Instead of two weeks vacation, practically all Europeans earn four or six weeks vacation each year. Americans traded appearances and the need to impress strangers, for the ability to rest longer and work less intensively. The perceived standard of living and the standard of happiness are obviously on the side of the Europeans. The life expectancy of Europeans, as an indicator of the standard of living and health care, is identical to the life expectancy found in Americans. Happiness does not rest in the quantity of money that we control; it rests in our quality of life.

If we have more money than we need for preserving the necessities of life, we will worry about losing it. The Ancient Greek philosopher Diogenes lived a very simple life and considered himself a much more fortunate and happy man than the most powerful man of his time, Alexander the Great. The story goes that, when the almighty Alexander asked Diogenes if he could do anything to alleviate his apparent poverty, Diogenes merely asked Alexander to step aside because he was blocking the sun.

As human beings it is our responsibility to determine what it is that we seek from our lives and how we set about achieving these objectives. If our current system of Government does not help us in achieving our shared life goals, we assume that we can change it and in this we are wrong.

Democracy is a carefully crafted tool of Government, one which requires participation of its individual subjects to thrive. The Democratic process is deeply embedded in our Psyche and we believe that we can only change a Democratic Government by subscribing to the processes of Democracy. In this we are wrong as the very act of engaging with the Democratic process simply perpetuates it. Democracy thrives on debate, factional arguments, individual choices and ultimately the ballot box.

This process changes nothing and simply serves to gift Politicians with more opportunity, more options for the accumulation of personal power and wealth and a greater capacity to interpret the Will of the People to their own ends.

The American Constitution was drafted by people far wiser than their time, visionaries who saw the inherent evil of the Democratic process and the contradictory simplicity of its ease in interpreting the Will of the People and in implementing it. Yet it has ultimately failed because the simplicity of Democracy is its greatest downfall. Its Achilles Heel. Whilst we participate in responding to the lies of Politicians at the Ballot Box, we will not change anything of benefit in our present system of Government.

But, if we stop participating, what happens then?

What if?


EDIT: Reconstructed an illogical paragraph.


I started to respond to your long ass post Grayson, but it was turning into a damned encyclopedia. We're still having a debate here, right? My next paragraph is my reaction to having read your post for the third time this morning. I respect you and consider you a friend, but this is one time where we're going to have to agree to strongly disagree. I don't know if your post was your personal view or was intended to spark a more lively debate. I guess it doesn't really matter. Here's what got sparked in me.

Let me just say that I disagreed with almost every sentence in your post. Your fixation with individual "happy" sounded delusional or self-absorbed. The defeatist attitude expressed throughout your post in pursuit of "happy" was disgusting to me. The "happy at all costs" and tolerance of all sorts of govt. misconduct sounded selfish at best. Maybe we have different definitions of "happy" here. I hope so. I could give a rat's ass about "happy". It's a fleeting emotion that comes and goes all day long whether we want it to or not. "Happy" is a very over-rated emotion. Most people haven't a clue what "happy" is all about, except that they're constantly blaming others for its absence. There are other things far more important that "happy" in this world, IMO. Dignity, integrity and commitment to one's principles are three that come to mind.

I'm not saying we have the perfect govt. here, far from it. Our govt. has been corrupted over most of the last century, and we as a country, and the world along with us, are getting ready to pay a huge price for that corruption. So hang on to "happy" all you can. That one's coming to an end. Check back with me on this in mid 2006 (if there's still an internet that's usable) and let me know how "happy" is going in your corner of the sandbox. Hopefully, the pain of paying the piper will be a sufficient wake up call for the overly complacent masses here. The lumps have been mesmerized with the self-absorbed "pursuit of happiness" that's been translated into driving to shopping sprees in their "no money down, no interest for 5yrs. and no payments til next year" SUV's. What an illusion, what a fraud. But then again, there will be some self satisfaction in watching all of that get taken away from the spoiled children we've become.

The govt. here has provided the last great "jungle juice" party here for the last 22 years. The punch has been heavily spiked for the last 2 yrs. to keep the party going. But at some point, you pass out, go to sleep, or die of alcohol poisoning. If you survive you wake up with one hell of a hangover. The world's getting ready to have one serious damned migrane, and govt. will be at fault. Let's hope the world doesn't take the complacent, self-defeating, self-absorbed, and delusional attitude expressed in your post about changing govt. We're really screwed if that happens.

No disrespect or offense to you personally Grayson. Just my response to what you wrote, not who you are.

Cary
 

Grayson

Conspiracy Cafe
Messages
1,117
Misrule and Criminal Rule of America

Then you have missed the point Cary.

The majority of this quoted post was, in my view and mine alone at this point, the view that I have garnered from all those persons that I have met in my life. It is a montage of opinions and thoughts that I have curried from innumerable coversations, not my own. If you read this first section again, you will see this view held and echoed by dozens of people that you casually meet, reporters of dubious sagacity in the press and those that wish to hold on to their power.

This is the valid opinion of the sheep.

This, however is my point of view here.

If we have more money than we need for preserving the necessities of life, we will worry about losing it. The Ancient Greek philosopher Diogenes lived a very simple life and considered himself a much more fortunate and happy man than the most powerful man of his time, Alexander the Great. The story goes that, when the almighty Alexander asked Diogenes if he could do anything to alleviate his apparent poverty, Diogenes merely asked Alexander to step aside because he was blocking the sun.

As human beings it is our responsibility to determine what it is that we seek from our lives and how we set about achieving these objectives. If our current system of Government does not help us in achieving our shared life goals, we assume that we can change it and in this we are wrong.

Democracy is a carefully crafted tool of Government, one which requires participation of its individual subjects to thrive. The Democratic process is deeply embedded in our Psyche and we believe that we can only change a Democratic Government by subscribing to the processes of Democracy. In this we are wrong as the very act of engaging with the Democratic process simply perpetuates it. Democracy thrives on debate, factional arguments, individual choices and ultimately the ballot box.

This process changes nothing and simply serves to gift Politicians with more opportunity, more options for the accumulation of personal power and wealth and a greater capacity to interpret the Will of the People to their own ends.

The American Constitution was drafted by people far wiser than their time, visionaries who saw the inherent evil of the Democratic process and the contradictory simplicity of its ease in interpreting the Will of the People and in implementing it. Yet it has ultimately failed because the simplicity of Democracy is its greatest downfall. Its Achilles Heel. Whilst we participate in responding to the lies of Politicians at the Ballot Box, we will not change anything of benefit in our present system of Government.

But, if we stop participating, what happens then?

What if?

I find your analysis of my post slightly at odds with my stated position here and fear that you may have become engaged in the contentious nature of the first half, missing the point of the second.

That's probably my fault as I suffer from an acute case of lexical density and oftimes bury the point under a ton of verbose bollox. I am often reminded of this in people's sometimes surprising response to my cerebral, elitist and sometime Ivory Tower views. ;)

As I have the greatest respect for you wit and wisdom, I must respect this view that you have expressed and apologise from not being more human and consice in my debate points and am deeply upset that you feel this way:

Let me just say that I disagreed with almost every sentence in your post. Your fixation with individual \"happy\" sounded delusional or self-absorbed. The defeatist attitude expressed throughout your post in pursuit of \"happy\" was disgusting to me. The \"happy at all costs\" and tolerance of all sorts of govt. misconduct sounded selfish at best. Maybe we have different definitions of \"happy\" here. I hope so. I could give a rat's ass about \"happy\". It's a fleeting emotion that comes and goes all day long whether we want it to or not. \"Happy\" is a very over-rated emotion. Most people haven't a clue what \"happy\" is all about, except that they're constantly blaming others for its absence. There are other things far more important that \"happy\" in this world, IMO. Dignity, integrity and commitment to one's principles are three that come to mind.

I would proffer that I am neither delusion, nor self absorbed and resent such an attack of character when it was my understanding that this was an impersonal debate. Both Paul and you have responded personally to my comments, when it was never my intention to personalise the nature of these posts, nor the resulting debate. I would ask that you never make reference to my, nor any other persons state of mind on this Board, as it is both deeply offensive and in contravention of the rules, as stated here:

Level Two worthy of a warning.
4. Do not flood the board with the exact same post on several topics.
5. Do not insult the Admins and Mods on the board.
6. Do not be uncooperative with the Admins and Mods.
7. Do not insult the entire board and all of the members of the board.

A. Be careful when writing about intelligence, mental health, and moral integrity. Often the person talked about will become offended. Such remarks make them less willing to listen to what you have to say. Also it also shows that you are unwilling to consider what they have to say.

I would consider it a great personal favour if you did not misinterpret my intent here either. It is sometimes difficult to be both involved in the Community and to be a Moderator. In this reply I am endeavouring to be a Community Member, rather than a Moderator. My language may appear stiff and this is due to the outrage that I currently feel after reading your trite analysis of my post and slur regarding my mental health.

Unfortunately this is a subject that I am particularly sensitive about at present given my recent outburst at Phoenix due to the stresses that my life has presented me with over these last months. I foolishly thought that you may have been more understanding in dealing with an issue of such sensitive history for me, especially given that you are more aware than most as to how difficult my life has been recently.

EDIT: Removed a repeat sentence ending of -recently-.

EDIT 2: Added the following.

My stated views on Democracy for those who choose to read it, is this and it is at odds with the system of Democracy that we currently enjoy. This exists as an unanswered thread in this Forum.

Originally posted by Grayson@Jul 31 2004, 11:19 PM
As a way of making a strong connectivity between our real life and participation in this Board I am opening up this debate focused upon the fundamental issue of constructive participation. Arising out of the constructivist approach, the notion of participation is one which underlines the freedoms of individuals to create their own ways of being constructively constitutive of their own living environment.

Many intellectuals have pointed out that the minimum unit for survival and evolution is an organism + its environment in which both evolve together in a coherent drift of reciprocal facilitation. Looking at either the individual or their environment (as if separable one from the other) is an erroneous way of understanding our human experiencing with all its possible complications, dilemmas and paradoxical contradictions.

We must hold firmly to the perception of the jointness of the person-in-the-medium. The issue of jointness is central to the democratisation of human relationships both in the workplace and in our spaces of interpersonal intimacies. To begin looking at the issues involved let us read this quote which is focused on a definition of democracy -



The Meaning of Democracy

First of all it might be worth considering what democracy means, or can mean, in its orthodox sense. ... If the various approaches to political democracy be compared, as David Held has shown, most have certain elements in common. They are concerned to secure 'free and equal relations' between individuals in such a way as to promote certain outcomes.

1. The creation of circumstances in which people can develop their potentialities and express their diverse qualities. A key objective here is that each individual should respect others' capabilities as well as their ability to learn and enhance their aptitudes.

2. Protection from the arbitrary use of political authority and coercive power. This presumes that decisions can in some sense be negotiated by those they affect, even if they are taken on behalf of a majority by a minority.

3. The involvement of individuals in determining the conditions of their association. The presumption in this case is that individuals accept the authentic and reasoned character of others' judgements.

4. Expansion of the economic opportunity to develop available resources - including here the assumption that when individuals are relieved of the burdens of physical need they are best able to achieve their aims.


The idea of autonomy links these various aspirations. Autonomy means the capacity of individuals to be self-reflective and self-determining: 'to deliberate, judge, choose and act upon different possible courses of action'. Clearly, autonomy in this sense could not be developed while political rights and obligations were closely tied to tradition and fixed prerogatives of property. Once these were dissolved, however, a movement towards autonomy became both possible and seen to be necessary. An overwhelming concern with how individuals might best determine and regulate the conditions of their association is characteristic of virtually all interpretations of modern democracy. The aspirations that compose the tendency towards autonomy can be summarised as a general principle, the 'principle of autonomy'.

Individuals should be free and equal in the determination of the conditions of their own lives; that is, they should enjoy equal rights (and, accordingly, equal obligations) in the specification of the framework which generates and limits the opportunities available to them, so long as they do not deploy this framework to negate the rights of others.

Democracy hence implies not just the right to free and equal self-development, but also the constitutional limitation of (distributive) power. The 'liberty of the strong' must be restrained, but this is not a denial of all authority - or it only becomes so in the case of anarchism. Authority is justifiable to the degree that it recognises the principle of autonomy; in other words, to the extent to which defensible reasons can be given as to why compliance enhances autonomy, either now or in the future. Constitutional authority can be understood as an implicit contract which has the same form as conditions of association explicitly negotiated between equals.

It is no good proposing a principle of autonomy without saying something about the conditions of its realisation. What are those conditions? One is that there must be equality in influencing the outcomes in decision-making - in the political sphere this is usually sought after by the 'one person one vote' rule. The expressed preferences of each individual must have equal ranking, subject in certain instances to qualifications made necessary by the existence of justified authority. There must also be effective participation; the means must be provided for individuals to make their voices heard.

A forum for open debate has to be provided. Democracy means discussion, the chance for the 'force of the better argument' to count as against other means of determining decisions [of which the most important are policy decisions]. A democratic order provides institutional arrangements for mediation, negotiation and the reaching of compromises where necessary.

The conduct of open discussion is itself a means of democratic education: participation in debate with others can lead to the emergence of a more enlightened citizenry. In some part such a consequence stems from a broadening of the individual's cognitive horizons. But it also derives from an acknowledgement of legitimate diversity - that is, pluralism - and from emotional education. A politically educated contributor to dialogue is able to channel her or his emotions in a positive way: to reason from conviction rather than engage in ill thought through polemics or emotional diatribes.

Public accountability is a further basic characteristic of a democratic policy. In any political system decisions must often be taken on behalf of others. Public debate is normally only possible in relation to certain issues or at particular junctures. Decisions taken, or policies forged, however, must be open to public scrutiny should the need arise. Accountability can never be continuous and therefore stands in tandem with trust. Trust, which comes from accountability and openness, and also protects them, is a thread running through the whole of the democratic political order. It is a crucial component of political legitimacy.


Institutionalising the principle of autonomy means specifying rights and obligations, which have to be substantive, not just formal. Rights specify the privileges which come with membership of the polity but they also indicate the duties which individuals have vis a vis each other and the political order itself. Rights are essentially forms of empowerment; they are enabling devices. Duties specify the price that has to be paid for the rights accorded.

In a democratic polity, rights and duties are negotiated, and can never be simply assumed - in this respect they differ decisively from, for example, the medieval droit de seigneur or other rights established simply by virtue of an individual's social position. Rights and duties thus have to be made a focus of continual reflexive attention.

Democracy, it should be emphasised, does not necessitate sameness, as its critics have often asserted. It is not the enemy of pluralism. Rather, as suggested above, the principle of autonomy encourages difference - although it insists that difference should not be penalised. Democracy is an enemy of privilege, where privilege is defined as the holding of rights or possessions to which access is not fair and equal for all members of the community. A democratic order does not imply a generic process of 'levelling down', but instead provides for the elaboration of individuality.

Ideals are not reality. How far any concrete political order could develop such a framework is problematic. In this sense there are utopian elements in these ideas. On the other hand, it could also be argued that the characteristic trend of development of modern societies is towards their realisation. The quality of utopianism, in other words, is balanced by a clear component of realism.

Work in progress--------------------------------------
Grayson------------------------------------------------

This may be a naive point of view, which I am sure Paul will redress for me. ;)
 

Judge Bean

Senior Member
Messages
1,257
Misrule and Criminal Rule of America

Originally posted by Paul J. Lyon+Aug 29 2004, 06:05 PM--><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteBegin-Grayson@Aug 28 2004, 01:52 AM
A brief history of government

Smart persons can adjust to living happily within the framework of their government, of any government. Only fools try to attack or change their governments, or their politicians and their political agendas. Mischievous politicians are the price we have to pay for civic order.
....
The concept of freedom is very broad. It has many faces and nuances. It is very important to appreciate the fact that a reference to freedom does not imply that we must feel free to stand on a soapbox. When we talk about freedom, we are referring primarily to our economic freedom: The ability to engage in economic transactions without coercive interference by our government.


I am not a fool. I refuse to "pay the price" of corrupt government for freedom, which, to me, is not a simple matter of the unhampered ability "to engage in economic transactions."

Some governments are not worthy of the adjustment mentioned in the first sentence.
[snapback]7958[/snapback]​
[/b][/quote]

Grayson, this is the sticking point for me. It is possible to take this personally when you say that only a fool would hold the position I have taken throughout this and the old forum.

I think that you are missing the strong emotional reaction you are causing among American members when you speak coolly about this material. What you don't want is a situation in which somebody like Cary keeps his mouth shut when he has a sharp opinion about your written material, which I find for the most part to be interesting and welcome. But I agree with him on the basics of his argument, and that you do seem to view the social order in a way I cannot.

Cary, I think that Grayson is particularly sensitive about his reputation. We don't care that much about ours, because we spend time blowing Jabber's brains out and so on, the equivalent of shooting cans. Time and again, he has responded defensively to statements you and I might shrug off. I have been called (on the other board) a mental case, a liar, and a few other names and things, and learned that you need a kind of thick skin.

We are starting to get some conflicts among members here, and I would like for that to stop. For my part, I am not calling anyone's character into question when I disagree with the tone or content of their posts, and I love garlic and I love the Italians, even though I don't apparently know any real ones except Cornelia.
 

CaryP

Senior Member
Messages
1,432
Misrule and Criminal Rule of America

Grayson,

If you feel I have attacked your character or your current mental state, I humbly apologize. I was responding to what you wrote, and said so. I intimated that I didn't know if this was just something you were writing to spark debate or was how you truly felt. Apparently some of both were present. I hold you in high regard and meant no insult to it. My American sensibilites were "triggered" by most of what your post contained. I did not mean for my post to come across as an attack on you personally, your character or your mental state. Again, my humble apologies.

I am aware of some of the things you've been going through, and certainly didn't want to add to your burden. I was throwing my 2 cents in to the "debate", and yes, I can be an opinionated asshole. What's new about that? Re-reading my post, I can see how it could be taken as an attack, and my boorish style lends to that. As to my missing the point, this ain't the first that's ever happened. But my interpretation is just that, my interpretation. If I missed something, chalk it up to the thick head my father cautioned me about.

I don't want to fight with anyone here either. Maybe it's just a sign of the times of the turning of the global social mood back to negative from positive, as evidenced by the tension that has risen here lately. So if we disagree strongly or mildly, we can do that and still remain friends and maintain codiality between us. The post I responded to had me disturbed for a few days. I read it three times and came up with the same reaction to it. I'll leave it at that and look for opportunities of agreement rather than contention.

We cool my brother?

Cary
 

StarLord

Senior Member
Messages
3,187
Misrule and Criminal Rule of America

I think that this would be the perfect time to address a most grevious judicial travesty that has taken place right under our noses.

Now, I have to admit that there are times when the judical process is in theory a good thing for mankind and necessary evil. Without it, civilization is want to wander about willy nilly like a headless chicken in search for a meal it cannot possibly consume nor enjoy.

Be that as it may, I have to stress the dire greviousness of the afront to all mankind that went unchallenged and needs to be fixed post haste. To dally a single moment means unfortold loss of peace of mind and terpitudelessness.

I am speaking about the apalling ruling regarding Hooters and the afront that has perpitrated on and thusly been suffered by All REAL Mankind. It seems that the natural way of things has been suckered into accepting the ruling that anyone can have that position of waiting on tables. Bobby Riggs himself would be turning in his grave right now were he in one. We Must Stand Together & Protest This Outrageous Afront To Real Mankind At Once!!!
 

KiraSjon

Member
Messages
172
Misrule and Criminal Rule of America

DISCLAIMER: If I offend anyone with these statements please accept my heartfelt apology as none of this is intended in that fashion. They are my views on previous statements made and only that and I have been known on many instances to be ?wrong?. Please also note that the ?you?s? in this entry are speaking in a general fashion. No animals or humans were harmed in the writing of this post. :D

Okay: here?s my 2 cents. *throws it in the jar*

I think you all have many very good points, and I must say that I agree with Grayson that most individuals are just seeking lifelong happiness. However, happiness is relative per each individual. Happiness stems from what we are brought up to be content with. Unfortunately, when you are negatively judged based on the actions of your government, you become conflicted with one of two things: guilt for being part of the responsible party and electing them into office, or helplessness/frustration for it happening without your consent.

Most people I know read more news from other countries than from our own and attempt to understand those views in addition to the American ones. I believe that we, as Americans, are very aware of how we are viewed throughout the world and I would be lying if I said I liked it. For example, way before any of these current messes (at least way before the big giant focus was on them) I went to France with my friends. This was about 10 years ago. We were actually kicked out of a restaurant for speaking English (to each other, we spoke French to the staff.) This was my introduction to a European view of Americans. It was not the only place we were kicked out of for being American, nor the only country. (We went to 6.) As an American, I take that worldly negative criticism of my government somewhat personally. Although I do know it is technically not my fault, I am still affected should I choose to leave my country.

These situations spark way too many feelings to even broach. I think the reactions stimulated have to do with lessons learned early on ? some beat straight into our heads. We are constantly encouraged to think freely and as an individual. We are taught to achieve ?The American Dream.? (Personally, I?ll take Eddie Izzard?s Italian Dream any day of the week.) We are taught that with hard work and perseverance we can achieve anything. They attempt to illustrate this to us with examples of our government. I learn more about what my government is up to reading a non-American newspaper than one of my own. That?s very sad to me (Yes, I?m young LoL) as my eyes are now thoroughly being opened to the true actions of my government. My America is being destroyed by the very principles it was built on. The offices I was raised to respect and hold in the highest regard are turning out to be nothing more than smoke and mirrors and a giant puppet show. This breaks my heart as I?m sure it would any patriot.

I believe it is a direct result of this early conditioning that has sparked such havoc in our country today and also sparks defensive reactions to those who do not live under the same laws that I do yet choose to comment about them. (Note: Grayson ? this is not a direct shot at you, many of my European friends discuss American politics frequently.) Too many people thinking too many different thoughts with the same force does not make for a happy country. In this sense, I again agree with Grayson that sometimes it is best to bow out and bite your tongue. However, I believe that also comes with the level of fear provoked by whomever topped with how sore your tongue is. When you?ve reached your limit, you shout. So what happens when thousands of people reach their limit and, as they have been conditioned to, choose another path? No one wants to feel they must actually leave their country. Most people I know, at least, love their countries and want to see them build and become a fantastic environment to live in.

To me, this is patriotism, not the idea that my country is better than your country. I think patriotism is the idea that you are simply proud to be where you are from. I think the American people feel their patriotism is under attack because we are not necessarily proud of where we?re from anymore due to the people representing us. We would like to be ? the desire is there. I don?t know any Americans who think we should take over another country for whatever reason. However, we don?t get that choice. We barely get the choice of who is to make those decisions. We?re supposed to be able to, they say anyway. This seems to be only one limitation of our freedom. There are so many others.

It is within this reasoning that I can see all of your points. We siblings will always fight amongst ourselves until a kid down the street starts beating one of us up. Then we fight them and band together. We always have. >:D<
 

Grayson

Conspiracy Cafe
Messages
1,117
Misrule and Criminal Rule of America

Cary, Paul, everyone else: Forgive me, life is biting me on the arse at the moment and I am adrift in the wreckage of the life that I had, this has caused me to think erratically and defensively. I am railing at the world at the moment and everyone in it.

After the recent difficulties, I had thought that I was adjusted to my new state of being, only to discover that I am not. Let me explain.

You know the whole cancer thing, so I won't bore you with the detail of it all, save to add this. I find myself walking around with 2 tumours buried in the meat around my spine, benign tumours, but tumours none the less. I know that they are there, I know that the Dr's are loathe to touch them at present and I know that treatment is available. But, I know that they are there, so once again I am a man with cancer. It is difficult to adjust to this state and the consequences of it.

Furthermore, I was subject to a medical evaluation this week and an interview with a Psychiatrist to assess my fitness to return to work. The cancer ain't doing anything much at present, so why not. Gotta be better than sitting on my arse at home.

I am unfit for duty according to the medical Doctor and the Psychiatrist has diagnosed Post-Traumatic-Stress-disorder, which manifests itself as inexplicable feelings of anger and guilt primarily. I cannot be treated for this until my cancer has been successfully treated and my cancer may not be treated, ever, as it may never actually kick off. So, I am to be retired on mental health grounds.

Scrapped for being human.

So, there you have it. Cary, you touched a raw nerve on the wrong day, with a Northerly wind and HedgeHogs pointing South.

On any other day, I would be more readily able to see your point of view here. Although, I do feel that your response was a bit strong.

I can't view this as passionately as you do because it is just an interesting mental exercise to me. I don't believe that you can change any of the current Democratic Systems of Government from within, they are Water Empires and can only be influenced by an external source, this is the simple fact that I believe. But, that is just my point of view. If we were to revert to the purest form of Democracy, as I have posted in quotes above, then I believe that we would be happier people. Again that is just my view of the world.

I agree that my use of language was inflammatory and can only say that I was using fool in the human sheep sense, not in a personal sense to Paul or anyone else. I find it difficult to see the wood from the trees sometimes.

I think that I am better off sitting back and playing Moderator, in that I feel more suited. I am not Elitist, but can see that I come across as such. Any lad who had to work his socks off as I did, can't afford to be Elitist, but I am too single minded in my arguments and maybe a bit narrow visioned sometimes.

I have again caused a storm in a teacup, sorry.
 

StarLord

Senior Member
Messages
3,187
Misrule and Criminal Rule of America

Grayson,

Man that sux big time. I can only imagine how you must feel about this. Here's an Idea, any chance of being able to teach what you know?? Like a advisor or something???


PS Any chance I can have those socks you worked off??, I was thinking that if you saw this as a mental excersise where as I see it more like a mental feat, your socks may help me.
 

Judge Bean

Senior Member
Messages
1,257
Misrule and Criminal Rule of America

Originally posted by Grayson@Sep 2 2004, 09:45 PM
Cary, Paul, everyone else: Forgive me, life is biting me on the arse at the moment and I am adrift in the wreckage of the life that I had, this has caused me to think erratically and defensively. I am railing at the world at the moment and everyone in it.

After the recent difficulties, I had thought that I was adjusted to my new state of being, only to discover that I am not. Let me explain.

You know the whole cancer thing, so I won't bore you with the detail of it all, save to add this. I find myself walking around with 2 tumours buried in the meat around my spine, benign tumours, but tumours none the less. I know that they are there, I know that the Dr's are loathe to touch them at present and I know that treatment is available. But, I know that they are there, so once again I am a man with cancer. It is difficult to adjust to this state and the consequences of it.

Furthermore, I was subject to a medical evaluation this week and an interview with a Psychiatrist to assess my fitness to return to work. The cancer ain't doing anything much at present, so why not. Gotta be better than sitting on my arse at home.

I am unfit for duty according to the medical Doctor and the Psychiatrist has diagnosed Post-Traumatic-Stress-disorder, which manifests itself as inexplicable feelings of anger and guilt primarily. I cannot be treated for this until my cancer has been successfully treated and my cancer may not be treated, ever, as it may never actually kick off. So, I am to be retired on mental health grounds.

Scrapped for being human.

So, there you have it. Cary, you touched a raw nerve on the wrong day, with a Northerly wind and HedgeHogs pointing South.

On any other day, I would be more readily able to see your point of view here. Although, I do feel that your response was a bit strong.

I can't view this as passionately as you do because it is just an interesting mental exercise to me. I don't believe that you can change any of the current Democratic Systems of Government from within, they are Water Empires and can only be influenced by an external source, this is the simple fact that I believe. But, that is just my point of view. If we were to revert to the purest form of Democracy, as I have posted in quotes above, then I believe that we would be happier people. Again that is just my view of the world.

I agree that my use of language was inflammatory and can only say that I was using fool in the human sheep sense, not in a personal sense to Paul or anyone else. I find it difficult to see the wood from the trees sometimes.

I think that I am better off sitting back and playing Moderator, in that I feel more suited. I am not Elitist, but can see that I come across as such. Any lad who had to work his socks off as I did, can't afford to be Elitist, but I am too single minded in my arguments and maybe a bit narrow visioned sometimes.

I have again caused a storm in a teacup, sorry.


There are a couple of things that I think are important here, and in relation to Kira's post.

First of all, you can't judge your own worth to us by our reactions to this sensitive issue-- the issue, as I see it, is whether individuals have any real power over the ruling class.

We have all been usurped by a ruling class of corporate and criminal gasbags. Some of us would prefer to continue to pretend that this isn't true. Others will say that it's just the way things are, and you can't change it. Still others will get fired up and try to change it.

The mass of "sheep" are in the first class; you are in the second class; I find myself with Cary in the third class, or coach. The tiniest number are in the ruling class. In Europe, most of them are "old money," as we say. Here, they are just a pack of pirates.

At any rate, I wouldn't want you to curtail your writing and posting here, because we are in the process of laying out the issues at stake and we need all sides.

Along with Cary's annoyance at "happy," I have a grim reaction to the overuse of "fun" as a life goal. Grim because I see the young men decked out in pathetic Sports garb and unemployed, with no other object in life except petty gratification, and I see the darker side of what some women used to say to me, that I wasn't having enough fun.

Of course the government wants us all to be superficially content and having fun so we won't pay attention to their rather efficient gutting of our civilization. Barbarians at the gates? They have always been well within the walls.

My other thought was that I wish for you a future unclouded by any more medical difficulties.
 

StarLord

Senior Member
Messages
3,187
Misrule and Criminal Rule of America

I am with Paul on that. Who cares if we have differences in opinions? Thats normal. Your post here are more than necessary.

I also wish you no more medical situations.
 

Top