Monday, January 2, 2012

[Mind's Eye] Re: Complex argument

A more critical perspective on Anna can be found at
http://www.opendemocracy.net/aditya-sakorkar/on-corruption-ombudsmen-and-theatrics.
Shifting societies awat from fakilaki, wasta and corruption generally
is very difficult. It is possible that our private school and old boy
systems are as bad - certainly our meritocracies are false.

On Jan 1, 8:10 am, Edward Mason <masonedward...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Title 16; USC
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sat, Dec 31, 2011 at 10:47 PM, Edward Mason <masonedward...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > " I think theconstructive step in this is to leave law-making with the
> > people in asubstantial way.  All socialist experiments failed on this.
> > "
>
> > There's a way to challenge this through the legal system-
> > Constitutional Law; Ts for the greedy gainers, Aitle 16, Criminal Code
> > - Life Sentence/ RICO Act: Federal Prison.
> > On Sat, Dec 31, 2011 at 4:06 PM, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> The question for Hazare and all rebellion is about doing more than
> >> 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