[EM] language/framing quibble

[Juho Laatu]

--- On Mon, 9/2/09, Fred Gohlke <fredgohlke at verizon.net> wrote:

> 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.

Unfortunately often they don't even notice,
being too busy promoting their basically
good ideas (and maybe sometimes also their
ego and thirst of power :-).

> 
> 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.

I agree that 'we' (all the citizens
capable of doing so) are responsible
for monitoring. When it comes to
planning the trick one needs is some
leaders or theorists that first build
the model and that people then find
agreeable and promote and finally
monitor the progress. This is usually
a slow process.

(Material growth is quite trivial
when compared to changing the
attitudes and targets of citizens
and politicians and at the same
time maintaining trust.)

> 
> 
> 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.

I meant that it is typically easier to
build on what one has than to tear down
the existing system and replace it with
some new system that is meant to be
ideal. Some typical "places and topics"
are e.g. corruption, hidden agendas
(lack of sincere discussion), tired
citizens, media not plaing its role
right, old fears and ill feelings, bad
habits like discrimination and wars and
need to rule others, even bad practices
like EMs.

The point is to think and see how the
society could be a better place to live
(and then agree and gradually implement).

> 
> 
> 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.

Let's fix the system. Someone has
said that people will get the kind
of government that they deserve :-).

> 
> 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."

I don't think large direct donations from
interest groups to politicians is a healthy
phenomenon. I'd consider setting some limits
to that. It could even be cheaper to finance
the campaigns with the money of the tax
payers rather than with the interest group
money. You can see that the system has passed
a limit that makes it sick. Is the system
healthy enough to fix the problem one way or
another?

> 
> 
> 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"'.

It was meant to be "approximately".

> 
> 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'.

Maybe you have let it slip a bit too far.
On the other hand I don't expect political
systems to work as if there were some good
people leading us. One has to assume a set
of mixed interests among the politicians.
The rules of the system have to be robust
enough to be able to live also under such
circumstances and still allow the positive
ideas to rule.

> 
> 
> 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?

Small adjustments. New major ideas are rare.
Also ability to imagine, trust, model and
agree a nice picture of the future is
important. That helps making the right
decisions on the small details that we must
get right.

One interesting modern thing is Internet.
That sure offers new tools that can be
harnessed right to work for the benefit of
the society. That could mean also new
"major ideas" or at least new well working
tools for the democratic system.

> 
> 
> 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.

Tolerance. One could also sometimes turn
the other cheek. Less fear means usually
less violence. Maybe one could say that
for the strongest there is often no need
to fight.

> 
> 
> 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.

My reading habits and email systems
can tolerate any style of addressing.
No need to always cc me.

Juho


> 
> Fred Gohlke