Re: [Mind's Eye] Re: Complex argument

Title 16; USC

On Sat, Dec 31, 2011 at 10:47 PM, Edward Mason <masonedward058@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 <nwterry@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 »