Democratic Choice

[RWStanding]

At last Ukraine is making our government rethink Globalisation. We must trade and have social intercourse with democratic nations, and minimise dependency on other regimes.
There has been a tendency to imagine Democracy provides people with a choice for the government and society they have.
In reality the basic choice has already been made and the ethical 'rules' of democracy must apply as opposed to tyranny and even mere authoritarianism.
But what may loosely be called democracy has two ethical wings and anyone who listens to Moral Maze on radio will realise this country is dangerously muddled.
The purely individualistic wing and what may be termed Victorian capitalist free trade is on one wing.
On the other wing is what may loosely be termed Altruist Democracy or socially cohesive democracy.
A business company is not a separate entity in the world, it is part and parcel of a country or state and a society.
Ethical mores must be accepted by the company or be imposed on it.
That includes environmental concerns.
Altruist democracy is a an holistic entity or it is not what it pretends.
Unfortunately, the UK is in a position today of dependency on a chaotic world, and metre survivalism is almost all we can cope with until we see who our friends are.
Within the country the idea that any project like a new railway, road, or estate, can be seen in isolation is dangerous - if that means a mere populist vote good or bad, can decide it.
We have come to the end of expansionism, for instance, and if a natural world is to survive then we must call a halt.
Democracy is not a halt to freedom it is a way of maximising the holistic potential of a limited world.

[Impenitent]

4 men vote to rape 3 women

democracy

adding "rules," "ethics" and "restrictions" is not democracy

-Imp

[trokanmariel]

At last Ukraine is making our government rethink Globalisation. We must trade and have social intercourse with democratic nations, and minimise dependency on other regimes.
There has been a tendency to imagine Democracy provides people with a choice for the government and society they have.
In reality the basic choice has already been made and the ethical 'rules' of democracy must apply as opposed to tyranny and even mere authoritarianism.
But what may loosely be called democracy has two ethical wings and anyone who listens to Moral Maze on radio will realise this country is dangerously muddled.
The purely individualistic wing and what may be termed Victorian capitalist free trade is on one wing.
On the other wing is what may loosely be termed Altruist Democracy or socially cohesive democracy.
A business company is not a separate entity in the world, it is part and parcel of a country or state and a society.
Ethical mores must be accepted by the company or be imposed on it.
That includes environmental concerns.
Altruist democracy is a an holistic entity or it is not what it pretends.
Unfortunately, the UK is in a position today of dependency on a chaotic world, and metre survivalism is almost all we can cope with until we see who our friends are.
Within the country the idea that any project like a new railway, road, or estate, can be seen in isolation is dangerous - if that means a mere populist vote good or bad, can decide it.
We have come to the end of expansionism, for instance, and if a natural world is to survive then we must call a halt.
Democracy is not a halt to freedom it is a way of maximising the holistic potential of a limited world.

Altruism, can mean the following: only giving data to others which can be used by others. If the data can't be used, don't give it.

Every person knows the name of every other person, because it allows one inevitability to rule all other inevitabilities.

[DPMartin]

At last Ukraine is making our government rethink Globalisation. We must trade and have social intercourse with democratic nations, and minimise dependency on other regimes.
There has been a tendency to imagine Democracy provides people with a choice for the government and society they have.
In reality the basic choice has already been made and the ethical 'rules' of democracy must apply as opposed to tyranny and even mere authoritarianism.
But what may loosely be called democracy has two ethical wings and anyone who listens to Moral Maze on radio will realise this country is dangerously muddled.
The purely individualistic wing and what may be termed Victorian capitalist free trade is on one wing.
On the other wing is what may loosely be termed Altruist Democracy or socially cohesive democracy.
A business company is not a separate entity in the world, it is part and parcel of a country or state and a society.
Ethical mores must be accepted by the company or be imposed on it.
That includes environmental concerns.
Altruist democracy is a an holistic entity or it is not what it pretends.
Unfortunately, the UK is in a position today of dependency on a chaotic world, and metre survivalism is almost all we can cope with until we see who our friends are.
Within the country the idea that any project like a new railway, road, or estate, can be seen in isolation is dangerous - if that means a mere populist vote good or bad, can decide it.
We have come to the end of expansionism, for instance, and if a natural world is to survive then we must call a halt.
Democracy is not a halt to freedom it is a way of maximising the holistic potential of a limited world.

governments are governments no matter what kind they are, and a power until they are not. like any power in the hands of man, its the men the power is in the hands of, not the form of the power.

its not the freedom, it the irresponsible use thereof.

[promethean75]

See now I would say that some particular arrangements or forms of government are inherently predisposed to have to deal with conflicts that are as troublesome as they are unnecessary, therefore creating opportunities for officials of said government, to become deceptive and/or perceived by some as being irresponsible.

Take a couple nationalistic capitalist countries who's governments are having to raise taxes to pay for military weapons development because both countries are suspicious of each other. Okay so why are they suspicious? Could it be because they have conflicting religions, or because they are competing against each other economically for the business of another country, e.g., buy our grain, textiles and magnesium, not theirs, etc.? Could it be because they perceive themselves as having ethical identities that are alien to the identities and cultures of the other countries?

The stuff like this that is taken for granted when we look at a government and wonder why it's having so much trouble... why so many people express anti-government sentiments in country x, is in fact, not taken for granted. Rather they pertain to the nature of the superstructure of the government itself, and these are not necessary features of all possible governments.

So if you have a style of government in which its officials are thought to be irresponsible in one way or another, ax rather what it is that they are doing... what policy, what law, what legislative process, what proceedings they are engaged with, foreign and domestic, that makes them able to be so irresponsible. You might find that the blame is on the model itself, not the human, all too human politician who, even being the most modest and sensible of people at first, ends up having to make decisions about problems and conflicts that are as stupid as they are unnecessary, and becomes a shyster as a result.

No sir. Some kinds of government are asking for irresponsible officials. Especially ones that govern societies that have free markets. Fascisms, too. In the former there will be a tyranny of the party.... in the latter, of the wealthy (that end up steering the government in their favor). If you have to ax why this is so, you gotta read some plato, marx and gramsci.

[mickthinks]

4 men vote to rape 3 women

democracy

I know of no democracy where "we took a vote" could provide a defence against a charge of sexual assault.

You are just indulging your authoritarian erotic fantasies, impy.

[Gary Childress]

4 men vote to rape 3 women

democracy

adding "rules," "ethics" and "restrictions" is not democracy

-Imp

If it were the will of the people, then it would be. Fortunately, most people are pretty sane though.

[DPMartin]

At last Ukraine is making our government rethink Globalisation. We must trade and have social intercourse with democratic nations, and minimise dependency on other regimes.
There has been a tendency to imagine Democracy provides people with a choice for the government and society they have.
In reality the basic choice has already been made and the ethical 'rules' of democracy must apply as opposed to tyranny and even mere authoritarianism.
But what may loosely be called democracy has two ethical wings and anyone who listens to Moral Maze on radio will realise this country is dangerously muddled.
The purely individualistic wing and what may be termed Victorian capitalist free trade is on one wing.
On the other wing is what may loosely be termed Altruist Democracy or socially cohesive democracy.
A business company is not a separate entity in the world, it is part and parcel of a country or state and a society.
Ethical mores must be accepted by the company or be imposed on it.
That includes environmental concerns.
Altruist democracy is a an holistic entity or it is not what it pretends.
Unfortunately, the UK is in a position today of dependency on a chaotic world, and metre survivalism is almost all we can cope with until we see who our friends are.
Within the country the idea that any project like a new railway, road, or estate, can be seen in isolation is dangerous - if that means a mere populist vote good or bad, can decide it.
We have come to the end of expansionism, for instance, and if a natural world is to survive then we must call a halt.
Democracy is not a halt to freedom it is a way of maximising the holistic potential of a limited world.

well there's this white wash horse dump that all the world wants to be like us, and its our duty to make it so.

even when we got in the muslim face in the middle east, they still didn't want to be like us and no one even noticed. and the media preached how terrible they were for not wanting to be like us. they would find one or two females that bought into their BS and show how persecuted women were in the middle east. but the major majority of population wanted nothing to do with western culture or thinking.


but globalization will happen, and it can happen by force when the time comes. which could be within the next ten years or so.