"Better alternative establishments" and the Left.

"Better alternative establishments" and the Left. (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

FirmhandKY -> "Better alternative establishments" and the Left. (4/10/2007 1:47:23 PM)
From the Majority of Euro's Support Preemptive Iran Strike ... just not by them ... thread: quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent Firmhand, based on your post, you're massively wide of the mark on where I'm coming from. I'm a left-winger - we believe that all establishments are up to their eyeballs in corruption and lies, while the majority of people are more or less the same the world over - just want to get their heads down and get on with life. I understand you are a left-winger. I understand you believe that all establishments are up to their eyeballs in corruption and lies. Now, the 64 billion dollar question (32 billion pound question? ): IF ALL establishments are "up to their eyeballs in corruption and lies", then what form of "establishment" do you expect to replace the capitalistic, liberal democratic "establishments" with, exactly? Not in idealistic terms (a world of peace, where lions lay down with lambs and serenity closes over the land ...), but what institutions do you honestly desire to build or accept that will achieve whatever it is that you consider "just"? What is the shape and form of this replacement establishment, and what makes you think it won't become up to its eyeballs in "corruption and lies"? Given: 1. ALL current establishments (political systems, governments, economic systems?) are "up to their eyeballs in corruption and lies". 2. "Leftists" believe that a "better alternative system" of governance and distribution of resources system ("establishment") either exists, or can be instituted. Questions: 3. What is this "better alternative system" in direct, concrete and descriptive terms, with examples or near examples of other current or historical systems? 4. Why has this "better alternative system" not become the world standard in "establishments"? 5. If such a system exists, or reasonable can be made to exist, what are the methods and means to bring it into existence? FirmKY

Sinergy -> RE: "Better alternative establishments" and the Left. (4/10/2007 2:18:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY From the Majority of Euro's Support Preemptive Iran Strike ... just not by them ... thread: quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent Firmhand, based on your post, you're massively wide of the mark on where I'm coming from. I'm a left-winger - we believe that all establishments are up to their eyeballs in corruption and lies, while the majority of people are more or less the same the world over - just want to get their heads down and get on with life. I understand you are a left-winger. I understand you believe that all establishments are up to their eyeballs in corruption and lies. Now, the 64 billion dollar question (32 billion pound question? ): IF ALL establishments are "up to their eyeballs in corruption and lies", then what form of "establishment" do you expect to replace the capitalistic, liberal democratic "establishments" with, exactly? Not in idealistic terms (a world of peace, where lions lay down with lambs and serenity closes over the land ...), but what institutions do you honestly desire to build or accept that will achieve whatever it is that you consider "just"? What is the shape and form of this replacement establishment, and what makes you think it won't become up to its eyeballs in "corruption and lies"? Given: Not necessarily given in my book. But I will play along. quote: 1. ALL current establishments (political systems, governments, economic systems?) are "up to their eyeballs in corruption and lies". I would suggest that it is because there is a certain type of personality that desires to be in control and to amass personal power. I would further suggest that politics by its very nature forces people to sacrifice their ideals in order to further their goals. A sort of robbing Peter to pay Paul. Eventually, those without much of a moral compass lose their way home, so to speak. The most difficult lie to tell. The most difficult compromising of one's inner character. The most difficult bullet to shoot. The most difficult compromise of one's higher nature. The most difficult military to send to invade. Whatever, is always the first one. quote: 2. "Leftists" believe that a "better alternative system" of governance and distribution of resources system ("establishment") either exists, or can be instituted. I am not sure all Leftists believe this. It is painfully obvious that the current approach falls well short of the mark, however. quote: Questions: 3. What is this "better alternative system" in direct, concrete and descriptive terms, with examples or near examples of other current or historical systems? Here is where it gets weird. There really isnt one. What is required to bring about this change is a fundamental paradigm shift on the part of all people. A willingness to work together. A willingness to tolerate other beliefs. An unwillingness to allow oneself to be drawn into strife with others. A turning the other cheek for the greater good. When I studied Utopian Thought and Reality in college, a commonality tended to emerge no matter how lofty the ideals of their beliefs were. People, by their very nature, struggle to arrive at this perfect system and almost invariably branch off into divisive groups with different approaches to arriving at this reality. Eventually, what defines the differing branches is the maintenance of their differences, as opposed to their deciding to seek out common cause. quote: 4. Why has this "better alternative system" not become the world standard in "establishments"? People are people. A lot has been written applying Games Theory to this question. quote: 5. If such a system exists, or reasonable can be made to exist, what are the methods and means to bring it into existence? If you are truly interested in answering this, I suggest you study the works and actions of Gandhi. Because while he was alive he was able to get the second largest population on the planet to stop fighting each other and come together to find common agreement on how to live in peace. The sad thing is that what he created in life fractured shortly after he was killed, as the people who were part of his movement turned away from his message and his lessons so they could have their little sandbox squabbles. Agent Smith in the Matrix said it best, and I am paraphrasing as well as I can recall it. "Our first Matrix was a perfect world, and it failed. Whole crops were lost. I believe it is because humans define themselves by misery and suffering." When I am feeling down and cynical, I think he may have been right. However, I believe I have to do what I can to prove him wrong. Sinergy

seeksfemslave -> RE: "Better alternative establishments" and the Left. (4/10/2007 2:34:29 PM)
Any one who believes it is possible to construct a political system that will result in social tranquility and harmony and justice for all, which is consistant theme of the lefties, is doomed to be disappointed. "Pseudo free enterprise" capitalism at least has the virtue of having evolved and has produced spectacular results for many. Left wing "isms" are intellectual constructs and suffer from the law of unintended consequences. not least authoritarianism for the good of the masses and of course the current administrative elite. When NG says that business interests " are not mine " he needs to reflect as to how the revenue is generated to pay for the legions of non productive functionaries that arise as if by magik (sic) under left wing regimes. LadyE gave some figures as a consequence of the loss of Rover car manufacturing in the UK midlands. Peugot has since gone as well. Dont worry ...lets spend more on Welfare and Education.

FirmhandKY -> RE: "Better alternative establishments" and the Left. (4/10/2007 2:34:39 PM)
Excellent post Sinergy. Very succintly and directly answered, and not much (if any) waffling on the issues. Very well done. Thank you. I'll reserve comments until others have had a chance (especially NG). FirmKY

seeksfemslave -> RE: "Better alternative establishments" and the Left. (4/10/2007 2:45:35 PM)
NG's views are unreconstructedd pre Blair old Labour. ie bordering on if not Socialist. Those views gave rise to a minor problem. They couldn't get elected lol.

LadyEllen -> RE: "Better alternative establishments" and the Left. (4/10/2007 2:55:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave Any one who believes it is possible to construct a political system that will result in social tranquility and harmony and justice for all, which is consistant theme of the lefties, is doomed to be disappointed. Absolutely, because in the end people are selfish, acquisitive and confrontational about it when they need to be. No reason not to temper that tendency though, with a push towards a system that values social tranquility, harmony and justice, I'd say. Its about all there is keeping us from a free for all; a free for all in which the old and the sick would come off worst. (Thats you and me Seeks, in case you didnt realise). E

ferryman777 -> RE: "Better alternative establishments" and the Left. (4/10/2007 2:55:52 PM)
General response: the alternative to what we have is this; Anyone who disagrees with you, kill them. If you want a peaceful, tranquil society, then you be the one to own, OWN EVERYTHING; then control the dispersement of the goods, if anyone disagrees, kill them. You dictate the jobs, to who, the pay, the meds, Everything needed to live and survive...if anyone challenges you..kill them. If some complain of unfairness, imprison them, strip them naked and put them to work. A days work, hrs. a slice of bread, and a glass of water; If they complain...kill them. Setting this example will prevent the rest from offering a challenge. To keep the control, employ mega police forces, pay them exceptional rates, give them unbridled powers to enforce the laws, which you decide are the laws. Build more and bigger prisons. This will ensure the peace of the world.

meatcleaver -> RE: "Better alternative establishments" and the Left. (4/10/2007 3:02:36 PM)
How about some real democracy to start? To quote Rosa Luxembourg... “Without general elections, without unrestricted freedom of press and assembly, without a free struggle of opinion, life dies out in every public institution, becomes a mere semblance of life, in which only the bureaucracy remains as the active element. Public life gradually falls asleep, a few dozen party leaders of inexhaustible energy and boundless experience direct and rule. Such conditions must inevitably cause a brutalization of public life: attempted assassinations, shootings of hostages, etc.” We like to think we live in democracies in the west but without vigorous opposition which is lacking in all western countries at the moment, we end up being governed by bureaucracies that react to their own agenda. In the west, those bureaucracies respond to the markets and not to the people they purport to governs on behalf.

Padriag -> RE: "Better alternative establishments" and the Left. (4/10/2007 3:03:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY Questions: 3. What is this "better alternative system" in direct, concrete and descriptive terms, with examples or near examples of other current or historical systems? Just a thought on a specific point. In any representational form of government, you have elected officials. This much I have no particular problem with. What I do think has always been a bad idea is allowing career politicians. The reason why is fairly simple. The purpose of a elected representative is to act as a civil servant. It is the job of this civil servant to represent the interests of a larger group of individuals (whom presumably elected said civil servant). However, the moment this civil servant makes a career of it, you have a conflict of interests. In order to further and maintain that career, the politician must eventually engage in behavior that serves their own interest, even where that conflicts with the interests of the people they represent. This is not what was intended. However, if you limit the terms any individual my hold in any office, you limit the opportunity for it to become a career and thus reduce the likelihood of corruption (still doesn't eliminate it). Unfortunately, in most countries that have representative governments such "civil servants" have made careers of it and are treated as some new form of aristocracy entitled to various special privileges the people they supposedly "serve" do not share. This all assumes you intend some form of democratic representative government.

seeksfemslave -> RE: "Better alternative establishments" and the Left. (4/10/2007 3:10:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyEllen quote: ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave Any one who believes it is possible to construct a political system that will result in social tranquility and harmony and justice for all, which is consistant theme of the lefties, is doomed to be disappointed. Absolutely, because in the end people are selfish, acquisitive and confrontational about it when they need to be. No reason not to temper that tendency though, with a push towards a system that values social tranquility, harmony and justice, I'd say. Its about all there is keeping us from a free for all; a free for all in which the old and the sick would come off worst. (Thats you and me Seeks, in case you didnt realise). E Funnily enough LadyE for all the undoubted whinging that I do I actually believe that many many people are of a charitable disposition with honorable intentions. eg for average types free blood donation in the UK. In the US you are paid. People who give up time for various charitable activities, animals, children, old people etc For business Cadburys chocolates at Bournville runs with Quaker principles in mind. I seem to remember that the William Morris car empire in the 30's was run not on hard line practices, Cant remember the details. Such people just dont get the publicity.

meatcleaver -> RE: "Better alternative establishments" and the Left. (4/10/2007 3:13:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave For business Cadburys chocolates at Bournville runs with Quaker principles in mind. I seem to remember that the William Morris car empire in the 30's was run not on hard line practices, Cant remember the details. Such people just dont get the publicity. Sadly these companies were run by principled men, nowadays public companies are all about maximising profit for the share holders and the workers don't come into the equation other than as assets to be acquired or disposed of.

LadyEllen -> RE: "Better alternative establishments" and the Left. (4/10/2007 3:24:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver quote: ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave For business Cadburys chocolates at Bournville runs with Quaker principles in mind. I seem to remember that the William Morris car empire in the 30's was run not on hard line practices, Cant remember the details. Such people just dont get the publicity. Sadly these companies were run by principled men, nowadays public companies are all about maximising profit for the share holders and the workers don't come into the equation other than as assets to be acquired or disposed of. And thats where we really hit the point on every occasion we discuss the enactment of some utopian society - that it can only happen, even on the smallest scale - when there is a culture in place which carries hearts and minds and focusses effort on the common good as well as the individual. Sadly though, all the contenders for such a culture have become in some way tainted and so unfit for purpose by way of the poor publicity (due or not) that has been attracted to them. I believe the people are now so cynical about any vision for the future that unless someone comes forward who is personally inspirational, there is little that can unite in order to reach such a culture. Reminds one of 1930s Germany in a lot of ways. Maybe we need a charismatic Austrian to put us all right? Anyone think of any contenders? Maybe someone living in California? E

seeksfemslave -> RE: "Better alternative establishments" and the Left. (4/10/2007 3:32:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Padriag quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY Questions: 3. What is this "better alternative system" in direct, concrete and descriptive terms, with examples or near examples of other current or historical systems? Just a thought on a specific point. In any representational form of government, you have elected officials. This much I have no particular problem with. What I do think has always been a bad idea is allowing career politicians. edited from here Spot on Padriag...Go to university and then straight into a political career resulting in becoming a party political candidate and then representative should not be permitted. Not for reasons of corruption, nepotism excepted, but because of the limited World view such people have. I would even go further : if it were practicable I would limit direct entry into the officer class in any organisation. Working up thru' the ranks or better still start something youself would produce much more positive outcomes. IMO.

FirmhandKY -> RE: "Better alternative establishments" and the Left. (4/10/2007 3:36:26 PM)
FR: Excellent commentary so far. Very interesting, and no personal attacks and animosity. Still waiting for NorthernGent, though. [:D] FirmKY

LadyEllen -> RE: "Better alternative establishments" and the Left. (4/10/2007 3:37:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave I would even go further : if it were practicable I would limit direct entry into the officer class in any organisation. Working up thru' the ranks or better still start something youself would produce much more positive outcomes. IMO. Agreed. As one who though destined for the officer class (I guess I'd be about a Brigadier about now!) started off at the very bottom, I come across scores of direct entrants who frankly dont have a clue about how the job they are directing actually gets done nor how to deal with the "troops" to get the job done, nor the difference between "cannon fodder" and real, if more humble people doing the job. E

Zensee -> RE: "Better alternative establishments" and the Left. (4/10/2007 3:52:25 PM)
Any system is subject to manipulation. Humans, as individuals and societies, engage in a moral cost / benefit analysis when it comes to our dealings with each other. It’s an artifact of our genetics, a battle between self interest and cooperation. We don’t want to be drones but we can’t be truly solitary either. As a social animal we all rely on our networks and are programmed to contribute, even sacrifice, to the common good BUT as individuals we have an interest in getting more for less. On average as a species, our choices strike a balance. Of course, there are those who exist at the extreme edges of selflessness (saints) and selfishness (criminals). Some systems are more prone to certain forms of criminality than others but criminals will find any weakness immediately – usually it has to do with exploiting public trust. The only difference between the Robber Barons of capitalism and the Party Bosses of communism is one uses industry to control the government and the other uses the government to control industry. In either case they want control of both. Feudalism is our natural political tendency – a few Alphas with direct control of the bulk of the population. In times of chaos we revert to this structure and any close examination of modern systems, even the most enlightened democracy, will find an aristocracy lurking in the wings, if not strutting about the stage. Our adversarial method of choosing leaders and creating legislation assures this will continue. The very personality types that make great, inspirational leaders also make effective and ruthless criminals. Reason tells me there must be a rational system that can balance self-interest with social necessity, legislative control with liberty, but I could not describe it myself. I can suggest some conditions necessary to achieve it though: - It would have to be created in an atmosphere of moral and intellectual honesty and clarity, not couloured by dangerous self-interest, partisanship or even ego. - It would have to be dynamic and responsive to changes over time and distance. The rules of today might not apply tomorrow. - It would require constant vigilance against criminality, abuse and neglect. - It would require an informed, engaged and empowered populace to provide that oversight. - It would need to recognise the dangers of overabundance as much as those of scarcity. Call it idealistic but I think it is not only possible but it is crucial to evolve beyond our feudal nature and develop rational systems of managing human affairs. Striking a realistic balance may be impossible but it is worth trying for. Z.

FirmhandKY -> RE: "Better alternative establishments" and the Left. (4/10/2007 4:12:58 PM)
Excellent post, Zensee. I have some comments. But ... as always, am withholding them for now. Thank you for your input. FirmKY

farglebargle -> RE: "Better alternative establishments" and the Left. (4/10/2007 4:17:46 PM)
To just jump in. The problem isn't Governments, necessarily, it's Government that are too big for their britches. The SOLUTION? Send every Federal Employee home to go find some honest work. Ask yourself, what value is the FDA if they cannot even keep DOGS alive, and can't observe that Cannabis relieves nausea. Substitute any Federal Agency for the FDA in that example, and it still holds. HHS? DHS? Education? And think of all the money we'd save! How to pull it off, with the purpose of Government to hire Government Employees? I dunno.

meatcleaver -> RE: "Better alternative establishments" and the Left. (4/10/2007 4:22:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Zensee Reason tells me there must be a rational system that can balance self-interest with social necessity, legislative control with liberty, but I could not describe it myself. I can suggest some conditions necessary to achieve it though: - It would have to be created in an atmosphere of moral and intellectual honesty and clarity, not couloured by dangerous self-interest, partisanship or even ego. - It would have to be dynamic and responsive to changes over time and distance. The rules of today might not apply tomorrow. - It would require constant vigilance against criminality, abuse and neglect. - It would require an informed, engaged and empowered populace to provide that oversight. - It would need to recognise the dangers of overabundance as much as those of scarcity. Wealth is power, without some sort of control of concentrated wealth, whether through consensus or an economic system, all will come to nought because you will end up with a pseudo-democracy that western countries have now where corporations buy the government. We have a system in the west where people are reduced to abstract assets that have to fit the market, rather than the market operating to the needs of the people. It is why we are over consuming and treating the earth as a free asset to be asset stripped by the strongest, all the while ssquandering the future of our children and grandchildren on trivia to keep us amused and distracted from those in power who are exploiting the world's poor. Somehow the rich and powerful have to be controled.

caitlyn -> RE: "Better alternative establishments" and the Left. (4/10/2007 5:18:29 PM)
My comments may seem simplistic, but in the interest of not writing a book, and not pretending I'm some sort of expert ... what would fix many of our problems, would be a salary cap. Massive personal greed, is making it fashionable for a very wealthy and select few, to place the rest of us into serfdom. Yet, when it comes to "defending freedom", who is it, that does the dying, so that the rich, can get richer? All income, past a certain point, should be taxed at 100%, with this money being used to care for the poor ... most of which are poor due to accident of birth. The government should become involved in price fixing in a major way. Did anyone else notice that the moment British troops were captured, oil companies used this as an excuse to immediately raise prices (as in the next fucking day), but we are now told that prices will fall slowly, because the market responds slowly. Apparently it responds quickly when there is a chance to make a big profit, and slowly when it comes to giving back. This is business exploitation, and the nation in small. Multiply it by every business interest in the nation, and you have feudalism, American style. Businesses like Microsoft, should have to share revenue with the American taxpayer. Our tax dollars built the system they are making a profit on. Sounds like modified Communism. I'm all for it.

Page: [1] 2 3 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875