just replace business-as-usual with new faces in charge. I think the
constructive step in this is to leave law-making with the people in a
substantial way. All socialist experiments failed on this.
On Dec 31, 11:40 am, Allan H <allanh1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I just took a moment to look over the Anna Hazare way and need a lot more
> reading.
>
> No crook whether public or private wants to be held accountable for their
> activities the biggest problem with the occupy movement is the lack of
> focus they are trying to hit a cloud with a shoot gun. It does need a more
> focused point that can be changed a one step at a time thing like full
> open accountability for the government,
> Allan
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sat, Dec 31, 2011 at 7:40 AM, Vam <atewari2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Participatory Democracy is about trying to create Audit and Citizen
> > Care institutions...
>
> > Quite along same lines that modern organisation performance management
> > practice verges... 1) Accts, Policy & Process Audit and 2) Customer
> > Care, which create the 360 degree path around the Executive / Govt -
> > Doing / Performing, How / Targeting and Utilising, and What / WTF is
> > being delivered.
>
> > And, true, to go beyond writing papers and expressing pious
> > thoughts... it has to be fought the Anna Hazare way in India, which
> > incidently I found to be better than Occupy Wall Street, in Anna's was
> > more defined - he wanted a Law, a statute that had been well worked
> > upon and provisioned with anti-graft investigation and govt services
> > delivery audit, systems and processes, and unprecedented prosecution
> > speed and sentence quantas... all laid out in consultation with the
> > public over long.
>
> > The Right To Information and Vigilance Commission were others. And the
> > autonomous Election Commission before that. The Judiciary alone was
> > doing the doing the job. The Comptroller & Audit General used to do an
> > excellent job but invariably ignored.
>
> > Yeah... institutions, that need to be fought for in the streets
> > because the govts, as companies, do not want any meaningful audit,
> > much less prosecution for ill doings.
>
> > On Dec 31, 12:48 am, Allan H <allanh1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Participatory Democracy is the answer but the problem is eliminating the
> > > super citizen or corporate citizens..
>
> > > It will work when corporations have a limited time copyright say 15 years
> > > then it automatically becomes public domain. the problem is not so much
> > > in organizing citizens,, but in controlling the super citizens who use
> > > wealth to control the government.
> > > Allan
>
> > > On Fri, Dec 30, 2011 at 6:31 PM, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > Some way off-beam I've just read that it's men who differ most from
> > > > chimps genetically - to do with the complexity of the Y chromosome and
> > > > its influence on sperm production. I tend to hold to such distinction
> > > > and its irrelevance to public equality.
>
> > > > I believe, like Vam, that answers can come from more participatory
> > > > democracy. I also believe that merely asserting this is no answer at
> > > > all. One can too easily imagine Obama or Palin making the statement.
> > > > Or some half-assed Bolshevik. Just as allowing people to amass wealth
> > > > allows them to amass power, the demos can also be scripted power that
> > > > can be as bad. It's a mistake to make this into a 'faith choice'
> > > > issue. The usual academic turn at this point is to notions of social
> > > > contract.
>
> > > > On Dec 30, 2:54 pm, Vam <atewari2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > I have a feeling that this character, Vam, has usurped all the space
> > > > > that is there... so that no one else may now be allowed entry !
>
> > > > > Well, fkrs, there is no limiot to space if you did not know ! So, get
> > > > > over that excuse.
>
> > > > > Also I might have taken this conversation into an area you might not
> > > > > be as comfortable.
> > > > > Hell, in that case, have the balls to say so !
> > > > > Females may forgive, not because I used the term but because I do not
> > > > > know of the term to draw you all in the same order. I hold absolutely
> > > > > no distinction between genders, if you would believe.
>
> > > > > On Dec 30, 8:36 am, Edward Mason <masonedward...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > Indeed, Vam!
>
> > > > > > On Thu, Dec 29, 2011 at 5:17 PM, Vam <atewari2...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > > > > > Gabby... Hunger everywhere is wrong. There is enough food on this
> > > > > > > planet to feed everyone. But the economics has not made it
> > possible.
> > > > > > > Even when the law declares...
>
> > > > > > > Yes, the Supreme Court here ordered the Govt to distribute excess
> > > > food
> > > > > > > grains in its silos among the hungry ! But the Minister simply
> > said,
> > > > "
> > > > > > > It is not possible."
>
> > > > > > > And no one was booked, can ever be booked, for causing hunger !
>
> > > > > > > Rigs... Neil is speaking of the same thing... we all are.
> > > > > > > ... how to take control of at least the critical aspects of our
> > > > lives.
>
> > > > > > > I wish people here could extend this discussion, in thought and
> > idea,
> > > > > > > and... among other things, become more free, more happy, more
> > self -
> > > > > > > empowered. So that they end up doing things in that light. Often,
> > > > > > > almost always, they do not.
>
> > > > > > > I believe Edward is speaking of the same thing... action in the
> > light
> > > > > > > of knowledge. Not mere emotions, which economics of the day
> > exploits.
> > > > > > > And so is Allan, when he uses his " beliefs " for making
> > decisions.
>
> > > > > > > We are all trying to take more control of our lives.
> > > > > > > And, bringing it on this platform is BEAUTIFUL.
>
> > > > > > > On Dec 30, 1:15 am, gabbydott <gabbyd...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > >> If the law is not the law but an ass, it explains why in truth
> > > > there is no
> > > > > > >> one to blame. If the law is the law than you know it is being
> > set
> > > > up by
> > > > > > >> men. The same is true for economics. And you would eventually
> > find
> > > > someone
> > > > > > >> to blame.
>
> > > > > > >> As for your seeds metaphor, it is no coincidence that the
> > children's
> > > > > > >> interests are not visible in this specific court room or market
> > > > place. They
> > > > > > >> are not to be held accountable for what they cannot oversee yet.
> > > > There are
> > > > > > >> proofs for that, which have been accepted as such.
>
> > > > > > >> As for the limitation of science and objectivity, you are
> > right. If
> > > > one
> > > > > > >> could get all peer reviewers from the past, the present and the
> > > > future
> > > > > > >> together in one room discussing each theory properly, then we'd
> > > > have it! ;)
>
> > > > > > >> On Thu, Dec 29, 2011 at 4:44 PM, Vam <atewari2...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > > > > >> > "... trees don't exist unless someone observes them."
>
> > > > > > >> > That's the limitation of science and objectivity. That's why
> > the
> > > > law
> > > > > > >> > is an ass. That's how predatory economics has clear toehold in
> > > > > > >> > society. They all get away because there is no crime committed
> > > > unless
> > > > > > >> > one is caught or there are effects to show here and now !
>
> > > > > > >> > How is one to establish and measure crimes that are seeded...
> > for
> > > > > > >> > which there are no observers, no complaints... for which there
> > > > are no
> > > > > > >> > laws... or for which laws can be extended or interpreted to
> > > > exclude
> > > > > > >> > them !
>
> > > > > > >> > The truth is : There trees galore that are invisible now...
> > in the
> > > > > > >> > seeds, which will sprout months, years, decades and centuries
> > > > later !
> > > > > > >> > Without admitting this fact, we can never hope to tackle
> > climate
> > > > > > >> > issues, environment and sustainability problems. There is no
> > one
> > > > > > >> > specific to blame. Much ( e.g. emissions ) is approved and
> > > > admissible
> > > > > > >> > as of now, and is not a crime. And, the effects are invariably
> > > > long -
> > > > > > >> > term, so there are no objective proofs here and now.
>
> > > > > > >> > Try presenting theories and results of studies and research
> > in a
> > > > court
> > > > > > >> > of law... and they will either be unconvincing or simply
> > countered
> > > > > > >> > with another of the same !
>
> > > > > > >> > On Dec 28, 11:14 pm, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > >> > > That states the issue more or less as I see it rigsy -
> > though I
> > > > don't
> > > > > > >> > > do the Xtian thing as religion. It's more that much could
> > be
> > > > > > >> > > recovered in religion if we could get away from its
> > > > factionalisms.
> > > > > > >> > > What gets to me in economics or any form of social science
> > is
> > > > we seem
> > > > > > >> > > to forget we are just (or should be) trying to do our best
> > and
> > > > are
> > > > > > >> > > making decisions that affect human beings rather than some
> > > > culture
> > > > > > >> > > under glass or whatever. I don't want to leap into faith in
> > > > theory
> > > > > > >> > > beyond something that retains realistic hope of reasonable
> > > > equality
> > > > > > >> > > and freedom for most people.
> > > > > > >> > > I don't think religion per se can achieve this, but a better
> > > > > > >> > > understanding of it might help. One can throw up thought
> > > > experiments
> > > > > > >> > > - such as whether the unseen tree exists and so on - but
> > people
> > > > are
> > > > > > >> > > inclined to forget these are classroom tricks to get some
> > > > thinking
> > > > > > >> > > done rather than assertions trees don't exist unless
> > someone
> > > > observes
> > > > > > >> > > them. Economists have forgotten their models are thought
> > > > > > >> > > experiments. Some of the models rely on such stupid
> > notions of
> > > > human
> > > > > > >> > > nature as to be risible. Expecting people to behave
> > rationally
> > > > seems
> > > > > > >> > > absurd to me given what we know of ourselves as social
> > animals
> > > > now.
> > > > > > >> > > What I've seen in a great deal of academic modelling is
> > more or
> > > > less
> > > > > > >> > > similar to what Vam (and others) point out as putting
> > something
> > > > on
> > > > > > >> > > paper and arguing as though that is all that should be
> > argued
> > > > when
>
> ...
>
> read more »
0 comments:
Post a Comment