RE: [WDDM] Lata's Recent Comments

[Hamid Mohseni <esi1mohseni2(at)hotmail.com>]

Hi all
Most people make important decisions everyday. They choose education, job, partner, friend, food and drink, childrens uppbringing, etc...
Nobody tells them that they are not competent enough to make these kingd of important decisions which affect their and others life directly. Why is it so
difficult for authorities to accept that people are also competent to make political and social decisions, even though because of the big number of voters, each
individuals vote affect the result of voting much less than decisions they make in their private life? Are people less competent than ants and bees which live
in direct democratic societies?
Is it because authorities care about people or their own winning?

All decisions have consequences but there are no good or bad decisions. It is only peoples desire and objectivity which makes them good or bad. The worse
decision for one person can be rcognized as the best for another.
The consequences of each decision is not dependent only on knowledge and competence but how the world and environment changes by time. Our knowledge
about the past and present time generally and future specially is very limited. Therefore even competent people can make very bad decisions specially if we
accept the fact that they don´t have knowledge about all individuals desires and limitations now and in future. We should not neither forget that authorities
and all living creatures are more or less egoists and prefer their own benefits against others conciously or unconciously.

Why should we let authorities to threat people as under age individuals and make decisions for them against their will?

Wounder
Hamid



> From: tstmastr(at)rio.com
> To: wddm@world-wide-democracy.net
> CC: Bill(at)politicalpsychologyresearch.com; BorisMlacic(at)pilar.hr; spildem(at)lanecc.edu
> Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2009 13:58:50 -0700
> Subject: Re: [WDDM] Lata's Recent Comments
>
> Hi All:
> This discussion touches on an interesting question in psychological
> research: to what extent is human behavior a function of individual person
> traits, e.g. personality, knowledge, political worldview, religious
> orientation and intelligence, and to what extent is it a function of the
> environment in which the individual is behaving?
> Many writers from many disciplines are of the opinion re: U.S. politics
> that what drives legislative decisions is largely, and perhaps primarily, a
> function of the "environment", which dictates that accepting lobbyist
> contributions from special interest groups is necessary to raise sufficient
> funds to get reelected.
> To the extent that this is the case, there would seem to be room for a
> new type of political party whose candidates are funded exclusively by party
> member dues, with corresponding loyalty only to the party platform. This
> platform could be periodically redefined by sophisticated polls of the
> public and party members to find out what the citizens what from their
> government, "the common good".
> From my research studies, the common good thus defined is likely to be
> very reasonable, pro-social, sensitive to the environment, reducing
> militarism, etc. 90% of many groups I've studied want government that
> serves them as members of the community overall, versus as members of
> special interest groups.
> For additional details see Publications,
> Politicalpsychologyresearch.com.
> Consider also opinions of experts in many other disciplines that
> dovetail closely with these psychological research findings in Global
> Survival; The Challenge and its Implications for Thinking and Acting,
> Laszlo and Seidel, Eds, SelectBooks, 2006.
> I'm always doing studies over the Internet to explore these issues
> further, currently on these topics: Humiliation; Social Activism; Liberal
> and Conservative psychological traits; and a new topic, coming up, Executive
> Ethics. If interested, contact me. Your students can get credit for
> filling out questionnaires online, confidentially. You receive their names
> as participants and research project findings for educational purposes.
> Best regards, Bill McConochie, Political Psychology Research, Inc.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Fred Gohlke" <fredgohlke(at)verizon.net>
> To: <wddm@world-wide-democracy.net>
> Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2009 10:06 AM
> Subject: Re: [WDDM] Lata's Recent Comments
>
>
> > Good Morning, Lata
> >
> > You are doing an excellent job of helping me demonstrate the way I
> > adjust my opinions as I gain additional information. When you denigrate
> > the idea of living our ordinary lives in peace and security you put my
> > original impression that you are 'uncommonly thoughtful' to a severe test.
> >
> >
> > re: "When I talk about "democratic deficit" I talk about the fact
> > that citizens have no meaningful ways of impacting
> > governmental decisions, every four years they get to chose
> > the puppet on the left or the puppet on the right."
> >
> > That is a well-stated description. I like the idea of calling our
> > present-day politicians puppets. We'll do well to devise a method that
> > replaces them with our best people.
> >
> >
> > re: "... to say that representative politicians possess some
> > higher gift of decision making as a form of expertise...
> > does not seem plausible."
> >
> > Your conclusion is pre-ordained by your phrasing. There is a huge
> > difference between 'representative politicians' and political
> > representatives.
> >
> > Who could deny that 'representative politicians' elected, as you say, as
> > puppets of vested interests, have no 'gift of decision making'?
> > Certainly not me. But that is not the same thing as selecting political
> > representatives who demonstrate their ability to make decisions in the
> > people's interest.
> >
> >
> > re: "There is one thing I don't understand in your line of
> > argument and I might as well ask you out right. I can
> > understand you saying that it's wrong for you to impose your
> > will on others because you lack the knowledge. But you can
> > be briefed and you have just as much ability to understand
> > what the experts tell you as a politician does. So to just
> > say they are somehow superior to yourself in terms of their
> > capacity to assimilate expert advice just seems like a cop
> > out."
> >
> > The issue is not whether I have as much ability to understand what the
> > experts say as a politician, it is whether I have as much ability to do
> > so as some other citizen. I probably have greater ability than most
> > politicians, but I don't even come close to having the ability of some
> > of my peers.
> >
> >
> > re: "However, what really surprises me is the inconsistency. You
> > don't apply that principle evenly. You say it's wrong for us
> > to make binding decisions over others but we should find
> > good people to make them for us! So, to me it sounds like
> > you wouldn't mind living in a dictatorship where you don't
> > have a say, as long as the dictator does a good job of
> > deciding everything on our behalf and allows us to 'live our
> > ordinary lives in peace and security'."
> >
> > Like your opening paragraph, this assertion is nothing short of absurd.
> >
> >
> > re: "Let me ask you, what makes you think we have the expertise
> > to pick good people of competence and integrity... and that
> > we have the right to impose our chosen candidate on others?
> > Is that not making a binding decision over others?"
> >
> > Your phrasing distorts your question:
> >
> > * if we select good people because of their competence and integrity, we
> > are not imposing them.
> >
> > * We are not 'imposing our chosen candidate on others', 'others' chose
> > the candidate.
> >
> > * We are not 'making a binding decision over others', 'others' are
> > making the binding decision for themselves.
> >
> >
> > re: "What makes you think you have adequate knowledge to be able
> > to make that decision?"
> >
> > Nowhere have I said or implied that I "have adequate knowledge to be
> > able to make that decision?". Quite the contrary! Everything I've
> > suggested is predicated on finding, among ourselves, the people who have
> > the requisite ability.
> >
> >
> >
> > Society is dynamic. The needs of the people vary, in nature and in
> > intensity. The only ones who know what those needs are, and how best to
> > meet them, are the people, themselves.
> >
> > Not everyone wants to participate in the political process, and even
> > fewer have a sensible grasp of the circumstances that face us. On top
> > of that, our interest in political matters waxes and wanes throughout
> > our lives. Even so, at all times, there are many people distributed
> > among us with the ability and energy to represent our interests. We
> > don't know who they are, or where they are, so we need a means of
> > finding them and raising them to positions of leadership.
> >
> > Fred Gohlke