My two cent's worth: the 'poor leadership' is a function of a 'missing' electorate. The people in our democracies might as well not exist for all the input they make, all the interest they have, all the interaction and care for them anyone who once 'gets away' (into elected office) has for them.
My two cent's worth: the 'poor leadership' is a function of a 'missing' electorate. The people in our democracies might as well not exist for all the input they make, all the interest they have, all the interaction and care for them anyone who once 'gets away' (into elected office) has for them.
And I think the future should be and will be universal suffrage via a 'voter app' and similar on our smartphones.
THEN this poor leadership will find it harder to get in and impossible to remain.
The structure of 'democracies' (particularly the two party systems in the USA and the UK) in which propaganda is all-pervasive enables those who control the media to control those democracies. It assumes people can make rational choices based on objective information. That assumption is simply not applicable. A bottom up approach to democracy in which engaged people are elected and who in turn elect a knowledgeable leadership is probably a better democratic model.
People's opinions are like the wind on the grass - whichever way it blows, they bend. All you have to do is easily persuade them. Also, in a complex society many of the decisions that have to be taken and laws considered for passage are complex with most people having no idea except what they are told by "experts" (and lobbyists) - that goes both for direct and representative democracies.
if that were true... which isn't proven... it would mean what? that the people should be ignored, silenced, marginalised, kept like mushrooms 'in the dark and fed on manure' ? while others - yourself perhaps ? - get on with running the world?
I am saying that the truth is we will always rely on people of greater talent, intellect and political will to run things, rather than the masses, the "mob", if you will. Whether those people are good people of righteous intent is another question.
As for being "ignored, silenced, marginalised, kept like mushrooms 'in the dark and fed on manure', is that not what has always happened in the history of humanity? The truth is that unless you are in that club, you don't really "know" much at all, you are being ignored for the most part, and you are being silenced (censored). However, having said that, it is a fact that the best of us sometimes rise to the top and enter the great club from the outside - such as Putin and Xi - good leaders, smart, wiley and most importantly committed to the real wellbeing of their people - it is not the economic or social system that is exceptional - it is these people.
I don't have a disdain for people in general. I just see the reality - people have daily lives committed to keeping food on the table for their families, working hard during the day and coming home to spend the evening caring for their families - they don't normally have the time or the interest in keeping up with the many faces of technology, economics, or politics. Most can only find time and energy to read the brief glimpses of the news, much less plan to be leaders of the world. It is beyond naivety to think that people such as these have the talent to make decisions for society.
As for that last question, not me by any means - I am one of those who just hope to put food on the table and keep us in a home in these uncertain times - if I can accomplish that, I consider my mission accomplished (as does my family).
Good point. The elites will always be with us, and largely run things. However there is a role for ordinary people. How this comes about is a good question and there will always be some who can’t or won’t participate. In the current arrangement, people are charged with choosing which elites have power. There is certainly room for more direct democracy. But what to do when the interests of the elites diverge with those in power? In our case, the American public was against bailing out the financiers in 2008. Ignored. But instead of just throwing up your hands, why not try to make better arrangements?
the fundamental principle of democracy is that we all have a voice and we all get to use it and decisions are made accordingly.
not by consensus but by majority.
currently we are disenfranchised. we have no voice save once every few years when we get to 'elect' a representative who stands in our stead.
i.e., right there, we have 'no voice'. Instead my voice gets subsumed with yours into that rep.
So no voice. Gone.
But gets worse for that rep then goes to the legislature and does not even carry his autonomy to put forward the voices subsumed in him. Instead he is constrained to echo the voice of his Party.
So no voice, in spades.
Why?
Practical necessity. Physical constraints. Pragmatism. How else could it be done?
It couldn't.
Until now.
Now it can. It just needs eyes and minds to pop open.
You make 8 postulates. You offer no evidences nor reasonings and ask no questions bar one which is essentially rhetorical.
Hence it seems your post invites either blind acceptance or demands the effort on the part of others to weigh the validity of your postulates.
Which we are free to do or not do. And we have no obligation to inform you of the result of our deliberations.
We could, as so many people so frequently do in columns such as this simply reply with a word, pro or con, 'right' or 'rubbish'.
I'll go a little bit further just this once because I just got out of the cot and it'll perhaps serve as a warm up for the day but I don't intend to make it a practice.
1.
I am saying that the truth is we will always rely on people of greater talent, intellect and political will to run things, rather than the masses, the "mob", if you will.
--------------
You cannot know this 'truth' but we can know that turning away from efforts in the other direction is a step towards making it so.
As for being "ignored, silenced, marginalised, kept like mushrooms 'in the dark and fed on manure', is that not what has always happened in the history of humanity?
--------------------
Of course. That is the point, did you not see that?
And do you not see this feeds into postulate (1) ? If postulate (1) were to be true at all, or even merely appear to be true which is more probably the case, then it could well be an affect of this postulate.
The truth is that unless you are in that club, you don't really "know" much at all, you are being ignored for the most part, and you are being silenced (censored).
----------------
Again, we know. That is the point, did you not see that? The suggestion that gave rise to this exchange is a step towards, a large step towards, removing some of this 'triple' problem.
The 'triple' : (i) ignorance - not knowing
(ii) exclusion - ignored
(iii) silenced.
It quite clearly and most obviously works on (iii) for that's precisely what it does: give a voice.
But it also works on (ii) inasmuch as 'the powers' are sensitive to a considerable extent to the current will and attitudes of the people to which end they employ polls and surveys and propaganda. Digital app voting will be tremendously more powerful than any uncertain poll or limited survey inasmuch as it would be incontrovertible and ubiquitous they would know that. For the first time ever looking unequivocally at a truth about the mass of the people.
And it works on (i), too, because the people can immediately and continually be aware of their own collective state: the progress of the voting minute by minute. AND the same can apply to any question of the day for instant referenda on anything can equally easily be employed. AND the people can be informed with similar ease.
However, having said that, it is a fact that the best of us sometimes rise to the top and enter the great club from the outside - such as Putin and Xi - good leaders, smart, wiley and most importantly committed to the real wellbeing of their people - it is not the economic or social system that is exceptional - it is these people.
-----------------------------
Two 'points' here: (i) people rise
(ii) the social system/economic systems are not exceptional.
(i) is a truism not worth comment.
(ii) the point is that social systems/economic systems are always exceptional in the same that progress makes every step along the way 'exceptional'. And the point is to make the next step exceptional in a good way.
I don't have a disdain for people in general. I just see the reality - people have daily lives committed to keeping food on the table for their families, working hard during the day and coming home to spend the evening caring for their families - they don't normally have the time or the interest in keeping up with the many faces of technology, economics, or politics. Most can only find time and energy to read the brief glimpses of the news, much less plan to be leaders of the world.
------------------------
This makes three assertions: (i) you do not disdain people.
(ii) people cannot keep up with blah, blah
(iii) people don't plan to be leaders of the world.
(i) what you actually do is exactly that: disdain the people with respect to their ability re conduct of their own society. It is the elitist point of view. Disdain is the essence of it.
(ii) People ARE 'the many faces of tech.. etc'. They ARE. They invent and use and maintain all these things. The elites create and understand NO technology, NO economics, No politics.
They simply buy what they want and employ the economics of immediate greedy gain and their 'politics' are clear reflections of that.
All the scientists, engineers, craftsmen, inventors etc. etc. come from and are embedded in the people.
All the levers and instruments of the whole economic system are manned and controlled and understood best by people.
Your contentions are ludicrous. They imply that technology, economics and politics all arise and are understood and controlled only by some theoretical handful of 'leaders' and only them. While at the same, one supposes, you are fully aware that 'elected representatives' everywhere in the west are generally fairly uneducated (i.e. a degree in law, for instance, which was never practiced, is shallow, local and 'uneducated') and the individuals are usually astonishingly ignorant of virtually anything and everything except their own self interest.
It is beyond naivety to think that people such as these have the talent to make decisions for society.
------------------------
This of course borders on ad hominem abuse and I bridle at it. But putting that to one side for the moment (for there'll be no other moments) we can see that it is the ultimate disdain for the people of the world and an attempt to totally invalidate the fundamentals of democracy AND a total misunderstanding of the effective operation of a digital voting app.
It seeks to ignore and/or refute and deny the collective will of the people. At the same time as presumably being aware that our current limping makeshift system offers nothing else to choose between but two major Parties each pretending to embody the collective will of the people.
As for that last question, not me by any means - I am one of those who just hope to put food on the table and keep us in a home in these uncertain times - if I can accomplish that, I consider my mission accomplished (as does my family).
-----------------------------
This is not so. You here implicitly and explicitly lend your weight to a controlling decision about the organisation of our society: should the people have the right and ability to express their opinion at will? And you say no. And not only that you seek to justify your position by claiming they are not capable/worthy - i.e. you disdain them.
Like the good burghers of Tel Aviv you do your humble bit and vote for the existing structure and then go to the kitchen and adopt the role of innocent bystander. While the bombs fall.
You continue to make assumptions about me and my wording that are simply not true. You appear to be on some sort of crusade. Actually, we violently agree on most points. We could go on with this discussion but I can see it is getting us nowhere and it is likely boring to most others here.
As for your last statement, you might be entirely correct. Just saying.
Well that was far too polite and unassuming to allow me to fade into the night without at least some attempt to match it. So I thank you for your patience and 'sophistication' I think may be the right word. :)
And you believe that a digital voting app will solve this problem? That the voter will have the knowledge to vote on decisions that require expertise? Where will he get this expertise in many fields? Does the normal citizen possess them? Can he call upon others for advice? Certainly. But who? And how does he know he is not being "guided" as our politicians today are guided? In the end he is again at the mercy of clever people who have the knowledge and skills to manipulate and manufacture assent.
Improvement in the governing system will not be improved by electronically democratizing elections in a politically confrontational society. At this point we need top-down but enlightened leadership.
the fundamental problem is this belief in 'leadership'. it's a messiah complex I think is the world for it. 'hold your breath, the lord/superman/audy murphy/jfk/jesus christ/someone anyone is coming to save us.
It is inherent in the concept of democracy, explicit in the concept of democracy that the people do their own leading by consensus or at least majority decision.
when the electorate is disenfranchised it cannot be.
to enfranchise the electorate is no more than to develop, exhibit, manifest democracy.
your postulate is just that: your postulate. I can see no reason why anyone ought to give it any credence.
The poor leadership of US, e.g. Biden/Obama are in cahoots with China. Failing USA is all part of thr plan. They are draining the economy before they leave.
This is brilliant. Excellent. Thank you.
My two cent's worth: the 'poor leadership' is a function of a 'missing' electorate. The people in our democracies might as well not exist for all the input they make, all the interest they have, all the interaction and care for them anyone who once 'gets away' (into elected office) has for them.
And I think the future should be and will be universal suffrage via a 'voter app' and similar on our smartphones.
THEN this poor leadership will find it harder to get in and impossible to remain.
Something like this: DON'T WRITE TO CONGRESS
https://abrogard.com/blog/2023/12/25/dont-write-to-congress/
The structure of 'democracies' (particularly the two party systems in the USA and the UK) in which propaganda is all-pervasive enables those who control the media to control those democracies. It assumes people can make rational choices based on objective information. That assumption is simply not applicable. A bottom up approach to democracy in which engaged people are elected and who in turn elect a knowledgeable leadership is probably a better democratic model.
and that's precisely what 'digital voting app' allows for.
People's opinions are like the wind on the grass - whichever way it blows, they bend. All you have to do is easily persuade them. Also, in a complex society many of the decisions that have to be taken and laws considered for passage are complex with most people having no idea except what they are told by "experts" (and lobbyists) - that goes both for direct and representative democracies.
if that were true... which isn't proven... it would mean what? that the people should be ignored, silenced, marginalised, kept like mushrooms 'in the dark and fed on manure' ? while others - yourself perhaps ? - get on with running the world?
I am saying that the truth is we will always rely on people of greater talent, intellect and political will to run things, rather than the masses, the "mob", if you will. Whether those people are good people of righteous intent is another question.
As for being "ignored, silenced, marginalised, kept like mushrooms 'in the dark and fed on manure', is that not what has always happened in the history of humanity? The truth is that unless you are in that club, you don't really "know" much at all, you are being ignored for the most part, and you are being silenced (censored). However, having said that, it is a fact that the best of us sometimes rise to the top and enter the great club from the outside - such as Putin and Xi - good leaders, smart, wiley and most importantly committed to the real wellbeing of their people - it is not the economic or social system that is exceptional - it is these people.
I don't have a disdain for people in general. I just see the reality - people have daily lives committed to keeping food on the table for their families, working hard during the day and coming home to spend the evening caring for their families - they don't normally have the time or the interest in keeping up with the many faces of technology, economics, or politics. Most can only find time and energy to read the brief glimpses of the news, much less plan to be leaders of the world. It is beyond naivety to think that people such as these have the talent to make decisions for society.
As for that last question, not me by any means - I am one of those who just hope to put food on the table and keep us in a home in these uncertain times - if I can accomplish that, I consider my mission accomplished (as does my family).
Good point. The elites will always be with us, and largely run things. However there is a role for ordinary people. How this comes about is a good question and there will always be some who can’t or won’t participate. In the current arrangement, people are charged with choosing which elites have power. There is certainly room for more direct democracy. But what to do when the interests of the elites diverge with those in power? In our case, the American public was against bailing out the financiers in 2008. Ignored. But instead of just throwing up your hands, why not try to make better arrangements?
the fundamental principle of democracy is that we all have a voice and we all get to use it and decisions are made accordingly.
not by consensus but by majority.
currently we are disenfranchised. we have no voice save once every few years when we get to 'elect' a representative who stands in our stead.
i.e., right there, we have 'no voice'. Instead my voice gets subsumed with yours into that rep.
So no voice. Gone.
But gets worse for that rep then goes to the legislature and does not even carry his autonomy to put forward the voices subsumed in him. Instead he is constrained to echo the voice of his Party.
So no voice, in spades.
Why?
Practical necessity. Physical constraints. Pragmatism. How else could it be done?
It couldn't.
Until now.
Now it can. It just needs eyes and minds to pop open.
You make 8 postulates. You offer no evidences nor reasonings and ask no questions bar one which is essentially rhetorical.
Hence it seems your post invites either blind acceptance or demands the effort on the part of others to weigh the validity of your postulates.
Which we are free to do or not do. And we have no obligation to inform you of the result of our deliberations.
We could, as so many people so frequently do in columns such as this simply reply with a word, pro or con, 'right' or 'rubbish'.
I'll go a little bit further just this once because I just got out of the cot and it'll perhaps serve as a warm up for the day but I don't intend to make it a practice.
1.
I am saying that the truth is we will always rely on people of greater talent, intellect and political will to run things, rather than the masses, the "mob", if you will.
--------------
You cannot know this 'truth' but we can know that turning away from efforts in the other direction is a step towards making it so.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2.
Whether those people are good people of righteous intent is another question.
-----------------
We know. So?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
3.
As for being "ignored, silenced, marginalised, kept like mushrooms 'in the dark and fed on manure', is that not what has always happened in the history of humanity?
--------------------
Of course. That is the point, did you not see that?
And do you not see this feeds into postulate (1) ? If postulate (1) were to be true at all, or even merely appear to be true which is more probably the case, then it could well be an affect of this postulate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4.
The truth is that unless you are in that club, you don't really "know" much at all, you are being ignored for the most part, and you are being silenced (censored).
----------------
Again, we know. That is the point, did you not see that? The suggestion that gave rise to this exchange is a step towards, a large step towards, removing some of this 'triple' problem.
The 'triple' : (i) ignorance - not knowing
(ii) exclusion - ignored
(iii) silenced.
It quite clearly and most obviously works on (iii) for that's precisely what it does: give a voice.
But it also works on (ii) inasmuch as 'the powers' are sensitive to a considerable extent to the current will and attitudes of the people to which end they employ polls and surveys and propaganda. Digital app voting will be tremendously more powerful than any uncertain poll or limited survey inasmuch as it would be incontrovertible and ubiquitous they would know that. For the first time ever looking unequivocally at a truth about the mass of the people.
And it works on (i), too, because the people can immediately and continually be aware of their own collective state: the progress of the voting minute by minute. AND the same can apply to any question of the day for instant referenda on anything can equally easily be employed. AND the people can be informed with similar ease.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5.
However, having said that, it is a fact that the best of us sometimes rise to the top and enter the great club from the outside - such as Putin and Xi - good leaders, smart, wiley and most importantly committed to the real wellbeing of their people - it is not the economic or social system that is exceptional - it is these people.
-----------------------------
Two 'points' here: (i) people rise
(ii) the social system/economic systems are not exceptional.
(i) is a truism not worth comment.
(ii) the point is that social systems/economic systems are always exceptional in the same that progress makes every step along the way 'exceptional'. And the point is to make the next step exceptional in a good way.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
6.
I don't have a disdain for people in general. I just see the reality - people have daily lives committed to keeping food on the table for their families, working hard during the day and coming home to spend the evening caring for their families - they don't normally have the time or the interest in keeping up with the many faces of technology, economics, or politics. Most can only find time and energy to read the brief glimpses of the news, much less plan to be leaders of the world.
------------------------
This makes three assertions: (i) you do not disdain people.
(ii) people cannot keep up with blah, blah
(iii) people don't plan to be leaders of the world.
(i) what you actually do is exactly that: disdain the people with respect to their ability re conduct of their own society. It is the elitist point of view. Disdain is the essence of it.
(ii) People ARE 'the many faces of tech.. etc'. They ARE. They invent and use and maintain all these things. The elites create and understand NO technology, NO economics, No politics.
They simply buy what they want and employ the economics of immediate greedy gain and their 'politics' are clear reflections of that.
All the scientists, engineers, craftsmen, inventors etc. etc. come from and are embedded in the people.
All the levers and instruments of the whole economic system are manned and controlled and understood best by people.
Your contentions are ludicrous. They imply that technology, economics and politics all arise and are understood and controlled only by some theoretical handful of 'leaders' and only them. While at the same, one supposes, you are fully aware that 'elected representatives' everywhere in the west are generally fairly uneducated (i.e. a degree in law, for instance, which was never practiced, is shallow, local and 'uneducated') and the individuals are usually astonishingly ignorant of virtually anything and everything except their own self interest.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
7.
It is beyond naivety to think that people such as these have the talent to make decisions for society.
------------------------
This of course borders on ad hominem abuse and I bridle at it. But putting that to one side for the moment (for there'll be no other moments) we can see that it is the ultimate disdain for the people of the world and an attempt to totally invalidate the fundamentals of democracy AND a total misunderstanding of the effective operation of a digital voting app.
It seeks to ignore and/or refute and deny the collective will of the people. At the same time as presumably being aware that our current limping makeshift system offers nothing else to choose between but two major Parties each pretending to embody the collective will of the people.
---------------------------------------------------------------
8.
As for that last question, not me by any means - I am one of those who just hope to put food on the table and keep us in a home in these uncertain times - if I can accomplish that, I consider my mission accomplished (as does my family).
-----------------------------
This is not so. You here implicitly and explicitly lend your weight to a controlling decision about the organisation of our society: should the people have the right and ability to express their opinion at will? And you say no. And not only that you seek to justify your position by claiming they are not capable/worthy - i.e. you disdain them.
Like the good burghers of Tel Aviv you do your humble bit and vote for the existing structure and then go to the kitchen and adopt the role of innocent bystander. While the bombs fall.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I find you to be illogical, unreasonable, shallow, impertinent and not worth consideration.
Sorry about that. Just saying.
You continue to make assumptions about me and my wording that are simply not true. You appear to be on some sort of crusade. Actually, we violently agree on most points. We could go on with this discussion but I can see it is getting us nowhere and it is likely boring to most others here.
As for your last statement, you might be entirely correct. Just saying.
Well that was far too polite and unassuming to allow me to fade into the night without at least some attempt to match it. So I thank you for your patience and 'sophistication' I think may be the right word. :)
Turns out for the Biden election that was false. The people wanted Trump, the Deep State defied the people, and we all suffer for it.
Isn't that the theory behind most of our democracies, whether they be parliamentary or otherwise? You see how well that turned out.
of course it is the theory. isn't it blindingly obvious, if you happen to be looking, that it has never been practiced? isn't it?
And you believe that a digital voting app will solve this problem? That the voter will have the knowledge to vote on decisions that require expertise? Where will he get this expertise in many fields? Does the normal citizen possess them? Can he call upon others for advice? Certainly. But who? And how does he know he is not being "guided" as our politicians today are guided? In the end he is again at the mercy of clever people who have the knowledge and skills to manipulate and manufacture assent.
Good luck with that app.
Improvement in the governing system will not be improved by electronically democratizing elections in a politically confrontational society. At this point we need top-down but enlightened leadership.
the fundamental problem is this belief in 'leadership'. it's a messiah complex I think is the world for it. 'hold your breath, the lord/superman/audy murphy/jfk/jesus christ/someone anyone is coming to save us.
It is inherent in the concept of democracy, explicit in the concept of democracy that the people do their own leading by consensus or at least majority decision.
when the electorate is disenfranchised it cannot be.
to enfranchise the electorate is no more than to develop, exhibit, manifest democracy.
your postulate is just that: your postulate. I can see no reason why anyone ought to give it any credence.
The poor leadership of US, e.g. Biden/Obama are in cahoots with China. Failing USA is all part of thr plan. They are draining the economy before they leave.