Identity
Filter
Visitors
(1) (0) (0) (0) (0) (1) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (61) (0) (0) (0)Subscribers
(0) (0)
Highest posts
- 01/06 03:09 +1 Re: What do we all agree about in this very time?
- 31/05 14:51 +1 Re: What do we all agree about in this very time?
- 30/05 21:04 +1 Re: What do we all agree about in this very time?
- 30/05 20:24 +1 Re: What do we all agree about in this very time?
- 30/05 19:57 +1 Re: What do we all agree about in this very time?
- 29/05 22:53 +1 Re: What do we all agree about in this very time?
- 29/05 22:40 +1 Re: What do we all agree about in this very time?
- 29/05 19:05 +1 Re: What do we all agree about in this very time?
- 29/05 16:35 +1 Re: What do we all agree about in this very time?
Latest posts
- 01/06 03:09 +1 Re: What do we all agree about in this very time?
- 31/05 14:51 +1 Re: What do we all agree about in this very time?
- 30/05 21:04 +1 Re: What do we all agree about in this very time?
- 30/05 20:24 +1 Re: What do we all agree about in this very time?
- 30/05 19:57 +1 Re: What do we all agree about in this very time?
- 29/05 22:53 +1 Re: What do we all agree about in this very time?
- 29/05 22:40 +1 Re: What do we all agree about in this very time?
- 29/05 19:05 +1 Re: What do we all agree about in this very time?
- 29/05 16:35 +1 Re: What do we all agree about in this very time?
Links
Blogs
Democracy
Search
[top-politics] Re: What do we all agree about in this very time?
-
echarp wrote:
> On Sat, May 20, 2006 at 04:10:53AM -0700, illegale wrote: > > echarp wrote: > > > The Athenians were the true revolutionaries, we wasted 2 millenniums, > > > rationalizing why we all couldn’t do what they did. > > > > Athenians collapsed. That is not good characteristic. > > Everything will collapse, even the universe.
OK. Yet, what gets me interested are those systems, those principes strong enough to adopt during history. Autopoietical concepts that last, at least for a little longer.
> A political system which lasted decades, centuries, which is the > inspiration of our modern democracies, I consider highly successful. > > > > > > In a democratic process I desire: > > > > > * liberty > > > > > > > > What does it mean concretly? > > > > > > The freedom to do anything you want, as long as it does not infringe on > > > the freedom of others. > > > > > > “La liberté finit la où commence la liberté d’autrui” > > > (liberty ends where start the liberty of other) > > > > > > This is the liberty I am thinking about. Much more important than > > > efficiency or practicality. The best tool we have, each one of us, to > > > carve our own happiness! > > > > Yet, is there any other system that denies liberty? If there is no such > > system, liberty as a concept is not needed. > > Well, for example I consider that the talk about Direct Democracy versus > Representative Democracy can be a matter of liberty. Because direct is > more potent than indirect, it allows me more liberty. > See, matters of degree yes, but still reasons why liberty is important.
So, is there any one against liberty? Is there any system that is against liberty? If you name one (I do not know what is up wit nazzi stuff) I will acknowledge it. If there is no one, than it seems to me that you are using concepts that buzz the essence which is not good.
> Plus, considering that to me it is the foundation of everything I do > here, I’d rather not put it aside :) > > Liberté Égalité Fraternité
Your right.
AtB;
GAle> echarp – http://leparlement.org
+1
-
On Mon, May 29, 2006 at 04:34:17AM -0700, illegale wrote:
> echarp wrote: > > On Sat, May 20, 2006 at 04:10:53AM -0700, illegale wrote: > > > echarp wrote: > > > > The Athenians were the true revolutionaries, we wasted 2 millenniums, > > > > rationalizing why we all couldn’t do what they did. > > > > > > Athenians collapsed. That is not good characteristic. > > > > Everything will collapse, even the universe. > > OK. Yet, what gets me interested are those systems, those principes > strong enough to adopt during history. Autopoietical concepts that > last, at least for a little longer.
A few centuries for any political system is huge!
The Athenian direct democracy was probably not crushed due to intrinsic reasons, but because the Athenians were imperialistic slave owners who engaged in wars. The Peloponnesian war was reason enough to weaken them.
> > > > “La liberté finit la où commence la liberté d’autrui” > > > > (liberty ends where start the liberty of other) > > > > > > Yet, is there any other system that denies liberty? If there is no such > > > system, liberty as a concept is not needed. > > > > Well, for example I consider that the talk about Direct Democracy versus > > Representative Democracy can be a matter of liberty. Because direct is > > more potent than indirect, it allows me more liberty. > > See, matters of degree yes, but still reasons why liberty is important. > > So, is there any one against liberty? Is there any system that is > against liberty? If you name one (I do not know what is up wit nazzi > stuff) I will acknowledge it. If there is no one, than it seems to me > that you are using concepts that buzz the essence which is not good.
No one will openly go against liberty. Yet, discounting most of humanity for exemple (as Mark does), is a negation of liberty. One man one vote!
> > Plus, considering that to me it is the foundation of everything I do > > here, I’d rather not put it aside :) > > > > Liberté Égalité Fraternité > > Your right.
Liberty: no limitation on one’s actions, unless they actively harm others.
Equality: no discrimination by birth, ethnie, religion, fortune…
Fraternity: requirement to help those in dire need.
(See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_Samaritan_law)
At the very least, those are interesting principles.
echarp – http://leparlement.org
+1
-
echarp wrote:
> On Mon, May 29, 2006 at 04:34:17AM -0700, illegale wrote: > > echarp wrote: > > > On Sat, May 20, 2006 at 04:10:53AM -0700, illegale wrote: > > > > echarp wrote: > > > > > The Athenians were the true revolutionaries, we wasted 2 millenniums, > > > > > rationalizing why we all couldn’t do what they did. > > > > > > > > Athenians collapsed. That is not good characteristic. > > > > > > Everything will collapse, even the universe. > > > > OK. Yet, what gets me interested are those systems, those principes > > strong enough to adopt during history. Autopoietical concepts that > > last, at least for a little longer. > > A few centuries for any political system is huge! > > The Athenian direct democracy was probably not crushed due to intrinsic > reasons, but because the Athenians were imperialistic slave owners who > engaged in wars. The Peloponnesian war was reason enough to weaken them.
OK. Though, I do not find this part of discussion be to productive, so I will pass it to the moment I find it important.
> > > > > “La liberté finit la où commence la liberté d’autrui” > > > > > (liberty ends where start the liberty of other) > > > > > > > > Yet, is there any other system that denies liberty? If there is no such > > > > system, liberty as a concept is not needed. > > > > > > Well, for example I consider that the talk about Direct Democracy versus > > > Representative Democracy can be a matter of liberty. Because direct is > > > more potent than indirect, it allows me more liberty. > > > See, matters of degree yes, but still reasons why liberty is important. > > > > So, is there any one against liberty? Is there any system that is > > against liberty? If you name one (I do not know what is up wit nazzi > > stuff) I will acknowledge it. If there is no one, than it seems to me > > that you are using concepts that buzz the essence which is not good. > > No one will openly go against liberty. Yet, discounting most of > humanity for exemple (as Mark does), is a negation of liberty. One man > one vote!
OK. Though, one man, one vote has not much to the concept of liberty IMO. Nevertheless, as long as I do not find this part of discussion too important in this very time, I will pass it also.
> > > Plus, considering that to me it is the foundation of everything I do > > > here, I’d rather not put it aside :) > > > > > > Liberté Égalité Fraternité > > > > Your right. > > Liberty: no limitation on one’s actions, unless they actively harm others. > > Equality: no discrimination by birth, ethnie, religion, fortune… > > Fraternity: requirement to help those in dire need. > > (See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_Samaritan_law) > > At the very least, those are interesting principles.
I do not doubt about it. What I did doubt is the stenght of the message of the word Liberty to the level if buzz creation. This word is on the level to the word DEMOCRACY. Saddam Husein is a democrat, George Bush is a democrat, HU Jintao is a demorat, meaning Democracy is prostituted word with no true power. What interests me are the worde that have true power, words that can not be missinterpreted.
Everthing else is a meaningless mess, feaders ment for those we want to change.
ATB,
Gale> echarp – http://leparlement.org
+1
-
On Mon, May 29, 2006 at 10:05:29AM -0700, illegale wrote:
> echarp wrote: > > The Athenian direct democracy was probably not crushed due to intrinsic > > reasons, but because the Athenians were imperialistic slave owners who > > engaged in wars. The Peloponnesian war was reason enough to weaken them. > > OK. Though, I do not find this part of discussion be to productive, so > I will pass it to the moment I find it important.
I agree that whether the Athenians democracy was a success or not will not change the fact that a Direct Democracy will or will not be successful.
Success is a very tricky thing to define. Does it need to be eternal? Could it not simply be useful to its users?
> OK. Though, one man, one vote has not much to the concept of liberty > IMO. Nevertheless, as long as I do not find this part of discussion too > important in this very time, I will pass it also.
I’m sure you will agree with the fact that voting in order to carve our future in society is a matter of liberty.
Is it not also true, if only in degree, when considering direct or indirect votes?
> > Liberty: no limitation on one’s actions, unless they actively harm others. > > I do not doubt about it. What I did doubt is the stenght of the message > of the word Liberty to the level if buzz creation. This word is on the > level to the word DEMOCRACY. Saddam Husein is a democrat, George Bush > is a democrat, HU Jintao is a demorat, meaning Democracy is prostituted > word with no true power. What interests me are the worde that have true > power, words that can not be missinterpreted.
Words can always be misinterpreted.
If you stop using words with such history and force as liberty and democracy, because others you disapprove use them, then you are only caving to them. You are abandoning them the very concepts that you could use as foundations.
echarp – http://leparlement.org
+1
-
Transparency is the word that is being used by everybody, yet there are exact things that can say is some organisaiton transparent or not. This stuff makes transparency become pretty powerfull concept as long as it clearly distincts. It is the same with opennes, or public. That is the reason I completelly accept these words not finding them empty wors. Maybe it is he same thinbg with democracy or liberty, yet in all time over discussion over these words, what made me think is that these concepts actually can get disolved in much more articulated concepts that make these abstractions actually not interesting.
ATB,
Gale
+1
-
On Mon, May 29, 2006 at 01:53:52PM -0700, illegale wrote:
> Transparency is the word that is being used by everybody, yet there are > exact things that can say is some organisaiton transparent or not. This > stuff makes transparency become pretty powerfull concept as long as it > clearly distincts. It is the same with opennes, or public. That is > the reason I completelly accept these words not finding them empty > wors.
It is us, cultural beings, who define what a word contains or not :-)
> Maybe it is he same thinbg with democracy or liberty, yet in all time > over discussion over these words, what made me think is that these > concepts actually can get disolved in much more articulated concepts
It is the same with any word. You need to define it before hand. And any body can define it differently and use it in their own context.
Many scholars are trying to define what democracy exactly is. Very often they use some kinds of criteria, like votes, freedom of thought, freedom of association, counting procedures, electoral lists and number of participants, …
Liberty is an older concept with plenty of works to define it, yet it’s still open to many interpretations. Me for example, I consider that philosophical liberty does not exist, that we are all strongly pre determined. But there is political liberty which is a very interesting idea indeed.
Yes, sometimes usage of a word will shift, it’s a constant fight, yet it’s sometimes worth debating over.
echarp – http://leparlement.org/top-politics
+1
-
echarp wrote:
> On Mon, May 29, 2006 at 01:53:52PM
0700, illegale wrote: > > Transparency is the word that is being used by everybody, yet there are > > exact things that can say is some organisaiton transparent or not. This > > stuff makes transparency become pretty powerfull concept as long as it > > clearly distincts. It is the same with opennes, or public. That is > > the reason I completelly accept these words not finding them empty > > wors. > > It is us, cultural beings, who define what a word contains or not :)Of course.
> > Maybe it is he same thinbg with democracy or liberty, yet in all time > > over discussion over these words, what made me think is that these > > concepts actually can get disolved in much more articulated concepts > > It is the same with any word. You need to define it before hand. And any > body can define it differently and use it in their own context.
OK. Yet, I’ll try to look from this site. We aproach to some group of the people pointing out democracy and liberty, justice and stuff. If we can not clearly present difference and its point to other political groups, than we are missing our agitation power. That is all. I have nothing against liberty, nor freedom, yet I am looking for the clear distinctions that empower us. That is all.
> Many scholars are trying to define what democracy exactly is. Very often > they use some kinds of criteria, like votes, freedom of thought, freedom > of association, counting procedures, electoral lists and number of > participants, … > > Liberty is an older concept with plenty of works to define it, yet it’s > still open to many interpretations. Me for example, I consider that > philosophical liberty does not exist, that we are all strongly pre > determined. But there is political liberty which is a very interesting > idea indeed.
And there is a problem, actually. Liberty can be interpreted in many ways, it can be also denied by determinists, at least, liberty as commonly acknowledged term. Of course, I already mentioned. I have no problem with this term, though, we need to articulate it in proper fluent manner and see is this what differs us, is this what make us powerfull on the base of idea.
> > Yes, sometimes usage of a word will shift, it’s a constant fight, yet > it’s sometimes worth debating over.
OK. We can do it and probably will do it.
ATB,
Gale> echarp – http://leparlement.org/top-politics
+1
-
-
-
-
-
>G: So, is there any one against liberty? Is there any system that is against liberty? If you name one (I do not know what is up wit nazzi stuff) I will acknowledge it. If there is no one, than it seems to me that you are using concepts that buzz the essence which is not good.
>ec: No one will openly go against liberty. Yet, discounting most of humanity for exemple (as Mark does),…
-M: Doink! Your EC-D has accumulative voting just like SD2 does, where everyone is started at the same voting power.
You just seem to think that happy-feel-good marketing magicly makes a difference.
You seem to be DISHONEST with yourself and others.>ec:…is a negation of liberty. One man one vote!
-M: “Oh wow! Emmanuel is so advanced, and Mark is so evil.” we are supposed to say, with a lemming-like glaze in our eyes.
shanti
Mark, Seattle WA USA
+1
-
It’s simple mark:
PROVE THAT HUMAN BEINGS CAN NOT BE ENTRUSTED WITH THEIR OWN LIFE
Philosophically, politically, psychologically…
You can only repeat and repeat, you never demonstrate. You consider yourself a democrat yet you can only envision a few directors who would direct everybody else.
You discount the world, you insult most of humanity, this is not democratic. It’s elitist and inconsistent, complex and vain.
echarp – http://leparlement.org
On Tue, May 30, 2006 at 10:57:18AM -0700, Mark wrote:
> You seem to be DISHONEST with yourself and others. > > >ec:…is a negation of liberty. One man one vote! > > -M: “Oh wow! Emmanuel is so advanced, and Mark is so evil.” > we are supposed to say, with a lemming-like glaze in our eyes.
+1
-
>ec: It’s simple mark: PROVE THAT HUMAN BEINGS CAN NOT BE ENTRUSTED WITH THEIR OWN LIFE Philosophically, politically, psychologically…
-M: Strawman. You are not comparing SD2 with EC-D, and you are being painfully PRESUMPTUOUS AGAIN!
>ec: You can only repeat and repeat, you never demonstrate.
-M: I debate SD2 better than you debate EC-D – the evidence is your DODGING!(“meet me in an EU Constitution group” you say like a dodge-wussy.)
>ec: You consider yourself a democrat yet you can only envision a few directors who would direct everybody else.
-M: Doink! The directors are only the generative initial condition. They would create decentralized structures under them. (SD2 is autopoietic – maybe you should study systems theory.)
>ec: You discount the world, you insult most of humanity,…
-M: I describe the world truthfully. Your judgements of my correct descriptions are your own.
>ec:…this is not democratic. It’s elitist and inconsistent, complex and vain.
-M: Your elite anti-elitism is inconsistent. And your failure to realize that EC-D is more elitist and complex than SD2 shows your vanity.
shanti
Mark, Seattle WA USA
+1
-
-
-
-
