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

02473: [Fwd: [gaiapc] 'Western?-'Democracy']

From: Antonio Rossin <rossin(at)tin.it>
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2009 09:22:14 +0100
Subject: [Fwd: [gaiapc] 'Western?-'Democracy']

Hi,

more about the definition of Democracy: in order to build it up, eh?

regards,

antonio

--- Begin Message ---
From: JohnM <mikesja(at)verizon.net>
Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2009 13:45:56 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [gaiapc] 'Western?-'Democracy'

Helmut wrote:

Steve and all:

I agree we need global taxes, and a strong global government protecting the global commons in order to survive.  Not a big brother government, but one that is organized according to the subsidiarity principle can still prevent the apocalypse.

The present ballot box democracies do not cut the mustard because  it is the dollars, not the informed people that elect governments.  Plutocrats and greedy corporations rule in the western democracies, and that is a bad omen for a global government.  China is not a good example either.  The strong, non-corrupt global government by the people for the people that keeps global and long term issues in mind has yet to be invented.

Regards, Helmut

-----------------------------------------------------

Dear Helmut,

I appreciate your opinion and don't want to 'argue' against it, just as a sideline on your words:

"western democracies":

 

1. My opinion: there is NO democracy in the world, one cannot find in ANY community at least two members with identical ideas, aims, interest and (detailed) opinion. So what those so called 'ballot wins' represent are 'lesser evil choices' and passing on the decision-making to (indeed unknown) liars who 'campaign' (euphemie for "lying what the voters like to hear, to get the vote") even  maybe unconsciously: the 'running' person mostly does not even know what he will be able to do when in power.

 

2. Capitalism and democracy don't mix: the former is a small group with large means ruling over a large group with meager (if any) means - no matter how euphemistically one puts it.

 

(3. - I have to add: the 2 centuries-obsolete "socialism" is also an oxymoron as could be seen in ANY place where it was written on banners of such movements (Marx, etc.) turning the 'leaders' into powermonger despots - hypocrisy or not - most of them with lifestyles matching the super-wealthy in capitalist systems.) 

*

With the ongoing level of average information in the world, a "World Government" would be no different, unless Archangel Michael (0r another) comes down to install it from select and not humanly thinking individuals - without ANY religious prejudice.

Just we should not call anything a  'democracy' and wage wars to install it upon societies that don't want it - preferring some different system(s). 

*

In my analysis:

 capitalism died out from the 1970s giving way to a new econo-global feudalism in which

the 'wealthy' (the lords) own power, government, legislature and the 'votes' they bought to pretend a 'democratic' electedness and - on the other side:

the rest of the populace working for money (the serfs) are dispensable. No matter for how much money they work. (The distinctions have transitional spheres, I refrain from rigid labeling. The US econo-feudalism carries 'two parties' in one system. E.g.: the Iraqi war etc.).

 

Best regards

 

John Mikes

--- End Message ---

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