| View previous topic :: View next topic |
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
 |
|
You've got it completely the wrong way round. There is nothing particularly wonderful about democracy -- it's just a form of government like any other, and it may or may not be appropriate in any given time and place.
Now, as it happens, the given time and place that favours democracy is when it is essential that decision-making should be most decentralised. Which basically is in sophisticated and peaceful countries where industrial capitalism is roaring away.
Since in our experience thus far these countries are the most prosperous it follows that everybody equates democracy with prosperity. Thus people are always insisting that democracy be imposed on countries like China, Russia, Iraq, Pakistan where it would be inimical to progress (though you may be sure these countries will adopt democracy as soon as their internal development justifies it).
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, so you need a lack of corruption in order to prosper. But does democracy follow from a lack of corruption or does a lack of corruption follow from democracy? Or could it be said, that in practice, a lack of corruption and democracy are the same thing?
Has there ever been an uncorrupt fascist, or communist, or feudalist, or tribalistic government? I learned, in school at least, that the answer was no. (We also learned that Sweden was the best country in the world and that all countries should try to be like Sweden. Well, try to be like Sweden economically and like Canada ethnically with its mosaic instead of melting pot.)
On wikipedia, there is a global corruption map http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_Perceptions_Index
So are the people in the red countries uninterested in getting rid of corruption, or are they unable to?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Hatty
Site Admin
In: Berkshire
|
|
|
|
| Yes, so you need a lack of corruption in order to prosper. But does democracy follow from a lack of corruption or does a lack of corruption follow from democracy? |
I'm not sure if it's correct to equate prosperity with lack of corruption, or with democracy either come to think of it; it's just that the wealth is spread, or is seen to be spread, more widely (equitably?) in a democratic society. But prosperity exists in those countries labelled as corrupt, where you often find extremes of rich and poor, just as much as in democratic countries.
What is meant by corruption? Systems of patronage? If you look closely you'll find all kinds of patronage going on around you.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ishmael
In: Toronto
|
|
|
|
| Mick Harper wrote: | | You've got it completely the wrong way round. There is nothing particularly wonderful about democracy -- it's just a form of government like any other, and it may or may not be appropriate in any given time and place. |
How about giving us specific circumstances under which it is inappropriate?
I'm trying to imagine the above paragraph written in reference to another proven utilitarian system.
"There is nothing particularly wonderful about industrialization -- it's just a form of production like any other, and it may or may not be appropriate in any given time and place."
If the goal is greater production and more complex products, then industrial forms of manufacturing are superior to all the others that have been tried thus far.
So it is with Deomcracy and the goods it yields. If you want the goods, you have to adopt the appropriate means of production.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
DPCrisp
In: Bedfordshire
|
|
|
|
Transparency International... defines corruption as "the abuse of entrusted power for private gain".
The very engine of democracy.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
| How about giving us specific circumstances under which it is inappropriate? |
Take Zimbabwe. There's a majority tribe (Shona) and a minority tribe (Ndebele). As per usual they hate one another and also as per usual the minority tribe survive because they are the traditional overlords of the majority (cf Ancient Britain). So not surprisingly when democracy is introduced (nay, forced on them at the point of the sword by the 'international community') the majority tribe win the first election and set up a government. And win again...and win again...and before you know it we have a one party state and that one-party is appalling since there is no opposition to keep it honest.
Only when several million people have fled, inflation is a zillion per cent and everybody's either starving or in the secret police, does the minority tribe get to win an election. And then things will really get bad.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
Corruption is neither good nor bad. It's just a way of paying for communal services like any other. Whenever the official government lacks the technical power to control society at the detailed level (by far most of the time in human history) then you have to rely on corruption to pay for things.
It's fairly efficient because individuals have to pay for offices that are the most profitable and it is self-policing because there is always somebody higher up the line to complain to if individuals start demanding more than is customary.
But of course it is not as efficient as formal government control. On the other hand formal government control brings dangers of its own so 'reform' movements, anti-corruption drives etc should always be viewed with great suspicion.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ishmael
In: Toronto
|
|
|
|
| Mick Harper wrote: | | Only when several million people have fled, inflation is a zillion per cent and everybody's either starving or in the secret police, does the minority tribe get to win an election. And then things will really get bad. |
Aren't these all just additonal natural stages of development?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
Yes, quite possibly. My biggest gripe against western policy towards Africa is that Africans are never allowed to "naturally develop". Every time something fairly brutish (ie 'developmental') occurs, we all rush in to make everything better. And we wonder why in the half a century since the end of colonialism, Africa has declined decade-on-decade. And orthodoxy always comes up with the same answer: "We must do even more of the same."
For instance, it is clear that Zimbabwe ought to break up into its two tribal regions but this won't be permitted because no African country is ever allowed/has ever been allowed to alter its colonial borders. But of course in order to change Zimbabwe's borders the Shona and Ndebele will have to fight a war which will involve lots of pix of babies on the end of bayonets turning up on our televsions. As soon as a million babies have ended up on a million bayonets, the UN will be obliged by world public opinion to come in with a peace-keeping force and guarantee the old borders. Whereupon the cycle will start up once again.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
|
In my opinion Oxfam has done more harm to more people than any other organisation in the twentieth century. Maybe more, maybe less than the SS or the CPSU.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
So it turns out some Jesus Freaks do vote Democrat. I was wondering around Portland a few days ago, and by chance came across a festival by the water.
There were lots of young people and their parents around so I thought maybe it had something to do with Hannah Montana or High School Musical or something. (Though in retrospect, the "Jesus Rox" and "Jesus does not suck" t-shirts should have clued me in.)
I asked some guy what it was about and he said it was a Luis Palau festival. It turns out, Luis Palau is a very popular Christian preacher. There were thousands of people there, and Luis Palau just happened to take the stage as I was walking by. The people were enraptured by him. All races, ages, and classes. I'd never seen such a thing. Then I noticed there was a group of Palau-ites chanting "Obama for President". They didn't seem to be bothering the other Palau-ites.
It makes me wonder how many people lie about whether they are Democrat or Conservative. Apparently, Portland is the most atheist-leaning major city in the US. A few days before I happened upon the festival, the news had been on in the background and the mayor of Portland had been commenting that Portland is more or less proudly atheist but that Christians are good for Portland too, and that Christian events are very welcome. I hadn't been paying much attention to the news at the time, but I realized when I wandered upon Luis Palau that this is the event the mayor was commenting on.
I listened to Luis Palau for a little bit. At one point he would partially quote a Bible verse and then the people would finish it, just like when Bono holds out the microphone for the people at a U2 concert. Palau is very charismatic. It makes me wonder why so very few people have this quality.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Hatty
Site Admin
In: Berkshire
|
|
|
|
| Palau is very charismatic. It makes me wonder why so very few people have this quality. |
Charisma is so often associated with religious preachers, especially in the US, also people with a grand political vision, that it's taken on a rather suspect secondary meaning of megalomania; it's a combination of utter self-belief coupled with charm. The reason so few people have the quality of charisma is probably because leadership is a rare personality type compared to servers/followers, which includes warriors and priests. (Most people want to be loved and admired which involves at times pleasing rather than commanding others; leaders on the other hand must have at least some AEist traits).
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Hatty
Site Admin
In: Berkshire
|
|
|
|
| In my opinion Oxfam has done more harm to more people than any other organisation in the twentieth century. Maybe more, maybe less than the SS or the CPSU. |
Charities in effect promote continued reliance on outside help, you mean? Not just the number of charities but the willingness to donate to them is astonishing, in England at least; the illusion that one is doing one's bit to help those less fortunate by giving money could be seen as almost as harmful to the donor as the medieval indulgences dished out by the church, a way of appeasing one's conscience without examining one's motives too closely.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
DPCrisp
In: Bedfordshire
|
|
|
|
| At one point he would partially quote a Bible verse and then the people would finish it, just like when Bono holds out the microphone for the people at a U2 concert. |
Was that a random example, or a knowing reference to the U2charist movement?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| DPCrisp wrote: | | At one point he would partially quote a Bible verse and then the people would finish it, just like when Bono holds out the microphone for the people at a U2 concert. |
Was that a random example, or a knowing reference to the U2charist movement? |
Weird. Rock music at church. I'd never heard of U2charist. Apparently, the Catholic church has recently decided to send a letter out to all the dioceses indicating what kind of music is acceptable. I have a friend who used to be a choral director at a Catholic parish for a youth choir, but the priest nixed all choice of songs because they were American Christian songs designed to induce emotion, not worship. So she quit. I wonder if the Church is worried that it may be a slippery slope and then all of a sudden U2 is being played during the mass.
Also, I think that the Church is very soon going to ban the use of the word Yahweh in the service and songs, because traditionally YHWH was never spoken.
The Church seems to be getting more uptight.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
The Library Index 
FAQ 
Search
Register
Profile 
Log in to check your private messages 
Log in 
