[EM] language/framing quibble

[Fred Gohlke]

Good Morning, Juho

re: (In response to my comment that: "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.")

      You replied: "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  :-)"

As mentioned last night, after studying responses to my comments on 
political parties, I plan to suggest an electoral method that lets the 
electorate "... insure the people elected to public office are people of 
intellect and integrity".


re: "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."

I've noticed.


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

The first step in "changing the attitudes and targets of citizens and 
politicians" is to understand that morality is a top-down phenomenon. 
When a political system elevates unprincipled people to positions of 
leadership, those people infect the nation with their lack of propriety. 
  Undoing that circumstance is an arduous task.


re: "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."

That is unquestionably true.  However, the attempt to 'build on' must 
examine and correct the failures that caused the breakdown of the 
existing system.  When, as in the United States, the system (democracy) 
broke down because institutions interposed themselves between the people 
and their government, we must recognize the problem ... and address it.


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

I'm trying, Juho.  I'm trying.


re: "Let's fix the system."

Yes, but how?  As mentioned above, I plan to outline one possibility. 
Perhaps that will seed the careful analysis and discussion necessary for 
the delineation of a more democratic electoral method."


re: "It could even be cheaper to finance the campaigns with the
      money of the tax payers rather than with the interest group
      money."

Using taxpayer money to support political campaigns is one of the worst 
ideas I've ever heard.  It allows the parties to use the money they get 
from their sponsors for even greater corruption since they don't have to 
bear the cost of campaigning.

Is it not obvious that campaigning, itself, is the problem?

Campaigning, telling the public why they should vote for some candidate, 
is, without doubt, the most inane (indeed, insane) method of selecting 
public officials possible.  It is, as should be painfully obvious to all 
of us, nothing but the propagation of lies, deceit and obfuscation.  Are 
we so dumb we can't see that spin meisters and political coaches (who 
insure that candidates present an attractive face to the public) are 
abominable proof of the utter stupidity of a political system built 
around the art of deceiving the public?

Eliminate campaigning and you eliminate the cost of campaigning.

Eliminate the cost of campaigning and you eliminate the most fundamental 
cause of corruption in the political system.

Now, that's a worthy goal!


re: "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."

If you don't expect to have good people leading us, it is not so 
surprising you find my comments objectionable.


re: "One has to assume a set of mixed interests among the
      politicians."

Absolutely!  But I see no reason to condone those interests bent on 
exploiting the humans among us.  There is no reason why differing 
interests should exclude principled actions.


re: "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."

First of all, it is society itself ... at least the nature of the humans 
that make up society ... that must be harnessed.  External mechanisms 
will not harness the nature of humans.  That must come from within 
ourselves.

Once we acknowledge that, we are left with the question of how the 
internet can be used.  At the moment it is an enormous sinkhole of 
information.  Looking up "for the benefit of society" produces about 
583,000 hits, seeking "democracy" produces 11,200,000, none of them 
presented in a manner that supports organized investigation and 
analysis.  (Of course, my lack of expertise is an inhibiting factor for me.)

We have, on this site, a smattering of people interested in electoral 
methods, but how many of them can or will influence society ... and how 
will they accomplish it?

Even for those who visit the site, how many of them understand the 
arcane arguments presented in favor of this or that proposition ... I 
don't understand many of them. and I'm comfortable with the written 
word.  The internet provides us a way to meet people of different 
backgrounds and exchange our views with them, but we have a long way to 
go before we can integrate it into our political system.  Meanwhile, we 
would do well to examine ourselves so any implementation we devise 
improves rather than worsens our lot.


re: "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."

These statements show no acceptance of human interaction.  They might be 
nice, but people don't act that way.  Our political system must function 
as we are, not as we could be.


Fred Gohlke