Re: [WDDM] Repeted answer to Antonio

[Antonio Rossin <rossin(at)tin.it>]

Giorgio Menon ha scritto:
> On Sat, 21 Jul 2007 07:14:43 +0200, Antonio Rossin wrote
>
> > > G:
> > > There's a study that i read a while ago saying that
> > > for populations over few thousand units "democracy"
> > > becomes a must, meaning they can't menage to rule
> > > their own lives but need an "external power".
> > A:
> > You should specify more what do you mean for "external
> > power".  I am a bit reluctant to admit the need of such
> > an entity as such.
>
> Our societies are based upon stratification. They need
> trained people carrying out specific tasks. You can't
> solve a legal question alone, you need police officers,
> judges, courts in order to grant "equal" opportunities
> to anyone.
> Unfortunately those same officers and judges must apply
> the existing laws made to keep the stratification not
> only possible or plausable, but necessary. This all has
> never been a necessity before agricolture was adopted,
> and mankind for a very long time has brilliantly survived
> without them. It all changed when people gathered in fixed,
> controllable places and generated a surplus that had to be
> distributed and controlled. Then the external power became
> a necessity.
> It was a general loss for the population but a great idea
> for rulers and their crew.
> You can have an idea about it reading this enlightening
> essay written by Jared Diamond ("Guns, Germs and Steel"
> and the more recent "Collapse", both warmly suggested):
> "The Worst Mistake in the History of the Human Race"
> http://www.awok.org/worst_mistake/
Giorgio,

It seems to me, you're speaking of  the executive power, here.
I would keep it separate from the decisional power, that is IMO
the core point of democracy


> > Anyway, what democracy could it be, if there is an
> > external power ruling over all the others?
>
> Good question. Do you also have a good answer for it?

I think it unnecessary, as the paradox is even too much evident --
for those who are able to think by themselves.


> >  Chinese people's
> > impressive economic development bases on western consumerism.
> > Let's limit our consumerism to the real necessities and that
> > tendency should come to a sustainable balance
>
> Yes, let's limit it. We've been using and abusing it for decades.
> The problem is that Chinese people may want to give it a try too.
> Is it fair to tell them: "we know what is like, and the planet
> can't stand it"?
As fair as like telling the Brazilian: "stop logging the rein forest,
because the
planet can't stand it". Or telling the U.S.: "Stop increasing the CO2
pollution".




> > > > My antithesis is, "Fundamentalism is perfectly compatible
> > > > with the people's democratic renounce of democracy.
>
> You should then explain me how can people live outside a
> stratified society.
> The problem is the stratified society built to keep the
> elites wealthy and powerful. Democracy well serves this goal.


Not exactly, Democracy.  But a political arrangement, deceptively called
"democracy", in which the people Democratically renounced Democracy,
(capital letters) meant as a Political Arrangement where the people hold
the power of control in facts, not in words only.  Where the people are
able to question the authority, and the authority provides the people with
the fit rooms in which the people can question the authority itself  (be it
political, religious or scientific authority, it doesn't matter.  It is
the dialectic
method of discussing everything, learned since babyhood, what matters)
((IMHO))

> > > Please consider that in a world ruled by money, fundamentalisms
> > > have control over the existing processes. I'm not saying that
> > > people accepting it are irresponsible, rather that the fight is
> > > definately unbalanced amd biased.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Ciao
> > >
> > > Giorgio
> > What fight are you speaking of?   Please suggest what fight
> > you thinkit more appropriate, be it a viable one...
> >
> > On this very topic, I have a point:
> >
> > *Power is generated by those who demand (= ourselves)
> > and is managed by those who respond (= those "in power")*
> >
> > which implies, if  we were able to control our own demands,
> > we become actually able to control "the power" as well.
> >
> > What do you think?
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > antonio
>
>
> Supply and demand seem to be concepts easy to understand. But this
> is not so easy after closer scrutiny. Oil price is not (only) fixed
> by demand, but by a plethora of other factors. It's a good speculation.
> There are only 2 oil stock markets. One is placed in London and the
> other in New York. Can we really control oil demand? Are there solar
> powered cars for commuters?
> Antonio, i'm NOT saying you are wrong. Your viewpoint is very true,
> but lacks some contextual elements. We are free, no we aren't. It's
> both true and false.
> I need not to know the "truth", as the thruth is an uniquely
> circumstacial factor and cannot be copied and pasted.
>
> Regards
>
> Giorgio
Dear Giorgio,

I cannot control the offer of oil in the markets of London and New York.
I can only control my demand of oil, and let's make our step as long as
our leg is.   Of course, the problem has two approaching sides; the offer
and the demand, and both sides need control by those who are in control.

But unfortunately, too many people look for the "offer" side only of the
problem, and because they understand that they are not those in (close)
control, they give up everything.  So they miss considering what they
could do at the "demand" side of the problem.

Let's hope, you are not one of these blind people.

This very topic is the subject of one of my first writings, about 1992,
titled "Social problems with hard solution". You can read it, both English
and Italian, as it is the first link in my homepage at
http://www.flexible-learning.org


Bests,

antonio