[Prev] [Next]   [Index]   [Thread Index]

01815: Re: [WDDM] Regarding the social network site

From: ROY DAINE <rdaine(at)btinternet.com>
Date: Thu, 15 May 2008 12:12:36 +0100 (BST)
Subject: Re: [WDDM] Regarding the social network site

Athenian democracy - Apart from being  mildy interesting to those wishing to understand the evolution of democracy, in it's many forms, I can't really see it's relevance to today's world. Mention of it tends to glaze the eye.

I think most people would accept that universal suffrage is required for all democracies.

I believe that the basis for democracy is the acceptance that the will of the majority decides the law.

I accept that majorities can be wrong, oppressive, etc but the alternative is that the strong decide the law by force.

In a stable democracy then, a minority must be willing to accept the majority decision, or that democracy breaks down.

In a 'just' democracy, protection from abuse by the majority, must be part of any constitution.

I don't like using quotes to try and give authority to my opinions. Just because someone famous once said something, does not make it so.

I came upon a webpage yesterday, of quotes by Thomas Jefferson, concerning majorities. Not being American, I was unfamiliar with them.

I would encourage all to take a look at them, as they make some of our points for us with far more eloquence than I am able to achieve.
http://etext.virginia.edu/jefferson/quotations/jeff0500.htm

I think that Georges' bit about sincerity, if I properly take its meaning, equates to minorities accepting the will of the majority.

Kibbutzes - I think it's impractical, expecting everybody interested in DD to partake of kibbutz life.

I also fundamentally disagree with the decision of a kibbutz to stop eating meat, based on a majority decision.

Deciding what people should eat, other than in an extreme situation , where the survival of the society is in jeopardy, is and should not be the province of government. That really is an example of 'tyranny of the majority'.

If said society wishes it to be the province of government however, I accept their right to do so.

This and a few other examples Georges has given of kibbutz life, would make it impossible for me to live in such a society.
I'm unsure of this, it may be anecdotal but didn't Socrates, given a chance to suggest analternative punishment, say that he should be cared for by the state for the rest of his life, which it did, until he drank the hemlock.

Roy

Georges Metanomski <zgmet(at)yahoo.com> wrote:

--- ROY DAINE <RDAINE(at)BTINTERNET.COM> wrote:

> Thanks Georges,
>
> That seems to answer the most often stated
> argument aginst DD.
>
> We can assume I think, if this holds true for
> decades of kibbutzism, it would hold true for
> peoples anywhere.
================
G:
True, but most unlikely to happen in our jungle-world
of dog-eats-dog.
Have a look at the quote from my "Shadow Parliament"

http://findgeorges.com/ROOT/WRITINGS/POLITICS/shadow_eng.html

and the comments below.

QUOTE
SINCERITY.
It is the critical condition: members must be
capable to conceive and accept local, i.e.
personal sacrifices involved by the global
improvement. This short phrase implies a
fundamental change of mentality, replacement of
present egoism with something similar to the
attitude of Israeli Kibbutzim.
BTW I should think that each sincere protagonist
of DD should start by a stage in a Kibbutz, as
it's the only truly DD social group in the
history. (The celebrated Athenian Democracy was
in reality an Oligarchy eliminating from power
the majority: metecs and slaves.)
If Logistics requires at least a generation,
Sincerity will come still later, if ever,
UNQUOTE

DD is not a clever prattle, proving that one is smart
and good, while others are stupid and bad; and
having done that switching back to watch the TV.

DD starts by readiness of sacrifices, by applying
group's decisions in one's life, even if one disagrees
with them and had voted against.

Mentality of Socrates, who obeying governance's
decision committed suicide, in spite of considering
the decision wrong. Without going to such extremes,
an example.

In my ocean shore village I was asked to help some
youngsters in their sisyphean struggle with official
schools. It developed to a discussion group, sort of
a DD forum embrion. We discussed the problem of eating
meat and arrived at the conclusion that it is the
worst source of pollution and global starvation. Now,
these youngsters were sincere and once the majority
decided, all stopped eating meat.

That's easy. Anybody may give up watching porno
or violent shows, eating meat or screwing prostitutes.

But you cannot expect a farmer driven by market
politics to survive by installing a chicken battery,
to give it up and starve with his family, because
some WDDM or other voted that it's very wicked.

He knows that his gesture would have no practical
effect, that his abandoned battery would be at once
replaced by somebody else and that the society would
drop him like a hot ember and let him starve.

That sort of decision may only take place in some
kibbutz-like community where it may mean a reduction
of global benefit and thus a common sacrifice, but
never a sacrifice of an individual on the communal
altar.

Georges.
==============






Enhance democracy. Make your views known on every issue that concerns you.
[Prev] [Next]   [Index]   [Thread Index]