[EM] language/framing quibble

[Fred Gohlke]

Good Morning, Juho

re: "In theory many systems are supposed to support sincere
      discussions and wise decision making (e.g. single-party
      systems). In practice they easily get corrupted, or people
      find ways around the good principles."

Those are generalizations.  They make no attempt to describe the 
environment in which the 'many systems' exist.  If the systems "supposed 
to support sincere discussions and wise decision making" are implemented 
without provision to insure the people elected to public office are 
people of intellect and integrity, we should not be surprised when 
corruption ensues.

It is alright to describe the things you think 'needed', but it is an 
exercise in futility unless you describe the means by which they can be 
accomplished.  When you say, for example, we need to "monitor the 
current system to keep it on the planned track", what, precisely, is the 
planned track and who, exactly, is going to monitor it?  My position is 
that 'we' are the only people who can decide what our planned track 
should be, and that 'we' must select those who will monitor that track 
from among ourselves.  I've outlined a means by which we can do so.


re: "I'd be happier to hear opinions like "the current system
      (Democracy and all the related details) has the correct
      principles but it does not work well enough in some places
      and on some topics".

Where are the places and what are the topics.  Until they are 
identified, they can not be dissected and analyzed to determine why they 
do not work well.


re: "One can not eliminate 'competing interests' but one can
      build systems that can handle them better than today."

Competing interests are an integral part of society.  Partisan politics, 
using a 'divide and conquer' strategy to maintain their chokehold on our 
government, enables the destruction of competition by enacting laws 
preferential to some entities at the expense of others, notably the 
humans among us.

Consider this excerpt from the FUND OF INFORMATION column by Lawrence C. 
Strauss in BARRON'S June 14th, 2004 issue, Page F2, and then think about 
the devastation of our financial institutions and the housing industry 
that flowed from the circumstances he describes ...

   "From January 2003 through April 30 of this year, the
    (Investment Company Institute) ICI's political-action
    committee contributed $514,000 to political candidates or
    groups, according to Political MoneyLine, which tracks this
    type of giving.  Much of the PAC's contribution went to
    members of congressional committees who play key roles in
    shaping legislation affecting the fund industry."

   "For example, the ICI political-action committee gave a total
    of $100,224 to members of the House Financial Services
    Committee, which passed a reform bill late last year, and
    $41,897 to members of the Senate Banking, Housing and Urban
    Affairs Committee, according to Political MoneyLine."

   "In the nation's capital, this isn't considered big campaign
    money.  In comparison, the National Association of Realtors
    contributed nearly $2.2 million over the same time span.
    Nevertheless, the ICI PAC's contribution patterns crystallize
    how special interests ply their trade in Washington."


re: "The project should be a 'shared project' already now
      (democracy ~= 'we decide')."

I'm not sure of your symbology.  Should I translate

      democracy ~= "we decide"

as 'democracy is not equal to "we decide"' or as 'democracy is 
approximately equal to "we decide"'.

In either case, I do not believe the project of building our society is, 
in any way, a shared project at the present time.  When a group of 
self-interested people determine the manner in which the rest of us 
participate in the political process, there is no way that can be 
construed as 'sharing in the project'.


re: "I think it is possible to establish "discussion fora" that
      are relatively conflict free and have open discussions."

I do, too, and have outlined a method of accomplishing that.


re: "The problems tend to come when the system is involved with
      real decision making, when it offers people parts to climb
      the ladders of hierarchy in the society etc."

Every system becomes a target as soon as it is devised.  That does not 
mean we should stop trying to make them better.  Indeed, the attacks 
reveal the weaknesses so they can be corrected.  The failure to 
recognize, acknowledge and seek corrections for the weaknesses in our 
current system allowed it to fall into its present state of disarray.


re: "In that situation we just need to be clever and plan the
      system so that it will work in the intended way despite of
      all the varying altruistic and selfish interests."

Sure ... but what is the clever plan?


re: "I may defend parties when you refer to them as no-good
      entities. That doesn't mean that I would have a black or
      white approach to them."

My antipathy for political parties stems from the havoc they've wrought. 
  I will be posting comments describing why political parties in America 
are anti-democratic, within the next couple of days.  If you can refute 
any of the points I make, I sincerely hope you will do so, not with 
platitudes but with descriptions of my errors.  How else can I learn?


re: "Yes, strong confrontations are dangerous.  We must learn to
      control them."

The knowledge that they are dangerous is not new.  A description of a 
way to control them would be.


re: "From some other mails I got the understanding that you maybe
      prefer to be cc'd in the mails.  I can try to do that to the
      extent I remember to do that every time."

OhwhatadummyIam!  I was under the impression that a copy of each message 
was sent to the addressee, automatically, by the system.  I would, 
indeed, appreciate it if you would direct a copy of your messages to me. 
  And ... now that I've gained another bit of understanding ... I'll do 
the same.

Fred Gohlke