[top-politics] Re: What do we all agree about in this very time?

illegale — 2006-06-01 03:09:41+0200

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.

Read more… / Lire plus…

> > 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

[top-politics] Re: What do we all agree about in this very time?

echarp — 2006-05-31 14:51:30+0200

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

[top-politics] Re: What do we all agree about in this very time?

illegale — 2006-05-29 22:53:52+0200

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

[top-politics] Re: What do we all agree about in this very time?

echarp — 2006-05-29 22:40:41+0200

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?