Politics, a failure by design

[Michi]

Politics is by it's very design a consruct that prevents peace on earth.
One of the best definitions for "politics" I found written by Machiavelli:

"Politics is the sum of the resources needed to come to power and stay in power and to make the most useful use of power."

(Back-translated from German Wikipedia definition of "Politik")

So for the lack of any better, politics has developed into a machinery to "sell" democracy to the people.

But who really needs lying puppets who serve murky interests?
Many constitutions set out so great goals full of human virtue and now to be circumvented by countless promises and rules and clauses.

What is needed are type of leaders who serve the people - thus not actual rulers who go to war - but such type who live and breath the constitution and support it's people.

So, in writing this thread I am asking for possible democratic scenarios to get mankind on it's road to a true group - if you know what I mean.

What are the sucessful incredients?

[amor]

The solution is still THE GOLDEN RULE.

[happyuk]

I am against political parties for the simple reason that they divide people.

Political parties encourage the classical division between Capital and Labour seeking to stir up hostilities between workers and management when in fact both are necessary. Workers for getting things done and acting as an organisations eyes, ears, hands and feet; management for making important executive decisions, identifying good employees, dealing with problem staff, managing cash, etc.

I would like to see more spirituality, plain living and high thinking and much less political activism. Particularly among younger people, and especially in universities that encourage this kind of shouty, sometime violent activism which I think are irresponsible institutions to a large an extent.

Anyone who is banking on their lives being improved by what a politician says is setting themselves up for lifetime of misery and disappointment in my very humble opinion.

[Kryztian]

You picked a great quote to reference for your question:

"Politics is the sum of the resources needed to come to power and stay in power and to make the most useful use of power."

When I read this quote I have to ask: who is it that is coming into power? staying in power and making use of the power? Is it an evil despotic leader? And how will (s)he make use of that power? To suppress the people? to extort the natural resources for his own gain? to keep them ignorant and unaware of their own power?

Of course, the power could just as well belong to the people, to all the people, in their manifestly different forms, skin colors, bloodlines, gender, ages, abilities, creeds, etc. In this case, this quote is a offers good advice for a just democracy. But it is not an easy task to take power of behalf of all the people. But it is what we must strive power, otherwise we have entities taking power on behalf of certain corporations, or for certain bloodlines, religious and ideological groups, and finally for individuals who only want to horde wealth and elevate themselves above others. That is always a threat to a functioning democracy.

[shaberon]

Democracy is a political approach I would never accept, a situation where a minority can be easily oppressed by a majority.

It might be ok at the community level. Bigger governments of provincial and national levels seem to be more of a problem. Those should be on their knees begging for survival, not grabbing power. The problem I see is that there remain a lot of populations that are unfit for anything other than harsh, draconic situations, because they are too violent and criminal to be let loose. Others don't need much other than maybe a tribal elder, because they are better quality people without much need of guidance. Until humanity can produce more quality, there remains some need for the use of force. We suffered a fairly vicious, animalistic attack a couple weeks ago from a wealthy business-owning family, which we even happen to be customers of. Well, I wasn't there, but if I was or if I find this person, the result will be...unprintable.

It takes money to do what this person is doing, but I think the most common murder weapon remains a hammer.

In the U. S., since we run a massive prison system for profit, I'm pretty sure we'll keep these dilapidated social institutions going, in order to have as many inmates as possible. I kind of hope Germans and people in other developed countries never fully understand what this is like. It's not even interesting. Just prevent it from happening.

[Valerie Villars]

Shaberon, your remarks on the prison system are timely, as I live in Louisiana which has more people incarcerated than any where IN THE WORLD. I just got finished reading two long, heartbreaking stories in the Baton Rouge Advocate about people who were convicted to life in prison under the repeat offender law, and convicted by less than unanimous juries; 10-2 will convict.



www.theadvocate.com/new_orleans/news/article_48a11022-43e8-11e8-a984-df8200880997.html

[shaberon]

Interesting. That's a pretty unique place. I can't think of any other French Catholic Voodoo Bayou state right off hand. Some of the "repeat offender" things are absurdly unfair, but, can you come up with any explanation for it to be the "really big prison"? I know that our country's percentage is usually the highest...Louisiana might be the most dangerous and most repressive at the same time?

[Cardillac]

"Politics may not be the oldest profession in the world but the results are the same"- Ronald Reagan

:-)))

Larry

[wnlight]

I do not know the source of this definition of politics:

Politics = poly + tics where 'poly' means many and we all know what blood-sucking 'tics' are.

[A Voice from the Mountains]

Posted by devplan (here)
Politics is by it's very design a consruct that prevents peace on earth.
One of the best definitions for "politics" I found written by Machiavelli:

"Politics is the sum of the resources needed to come to power and stay in power and to make the most useful use of power."

(Back-translated from German Wikipedia definition of "Politik")

So then what word should we use when people have legitimate differences about what governments should be doing, and how they should do it, and they have to debate it and run for election based on these differences?

What I mean is, public debate in itself is healthy no matter what we call it, though no one would dispute that halls of power have always been vulnerable to severe corruption.

What is needed are type of leaders who serve the people - thus not actual rulers who go to war - but such type who live and breath the constitution and support it's people.

So, in writing this thread I am asking for possible democratic scenarios to get mankind on it's road to a true group - if you know what I mean.

What are the sucessful incredients?

As far as the US goes, and other constitutional republics, I think you already said it: just follow the Constitution. If the people want to change it, they'll elect people to change it. The US Constitution was intentionally created to be very difficult to change, so we have to be very certain about it.

[yelik]

Good question. To find a solution I thought it might help if we understand the development of human nature and society.

Politics and power or capitalism and communism are mere words we are talking about people that often use these terms to hind the truth.

http://www.ru.org/index.php/society/...unite-humanity


Governments and Corporations understand and capitalise on human weakness.

Human Weakness - Greed (materialism), jealousy, ego, anger, hatred, ignorance and complacency

In traditional small communities, people got involved in each other's problems to try to find a solution.

People used to take interest in each other's lives – Now we tend to look after number one.

Decline of small local business to larger centrally located ones

Relationships between customers and shop owners has been lost

Traditionally a man’s wages was sufficient to look after the household.

Now both man and women work full time in order to survive, buy a nice house and cars (by design)

Corrupt MSM, TV and Movies promotes greed, materialism and division by race, religion, gender and class

Wealth is concentrated more and more in the hands of the few due to Globalisation

Technology further hinders family communication

Materialism has taught us how to get, but our cultures have taught us how to give.

Government and Big business benefit from a divided society with poor health – easier to control.

[Valerie Villars]

Posted by shaberon (here)
Interesting. That's a pretty unique place. I can't think of any other French Catholic Voodoo Bayou state right off hand. Some of the "repeat offender" things are absurdly unfair, but, can you come up with any explanation for it to be the "really big prison"? I know that our country's percentage is usually the highest...Louisiana might be the most dangerous and most repressive at the same time?

I don't think we are the most dangerous. If you read the article above, you would see the prisons are full of people sentenced to life, based on three minor strikes they made and some overzealous prosecuter who wanted to score brownie points.

The real explanation is money. Work release generates a lot of income, for one.

French Catholic Bayou Voodoo state pretty much nailed it. I've never heard us described like that, but it's true and it made me laugh.

[shaberon]

Posted by Valerie Villars (here)

I don't think we are the most dangerous. If you read the article above, you would see the prisons are full of people sentenced to life, based on three minor strikes they made and some overzealous prosecuter who wanted to score brownie points.

The real explanation is money. Work release generates a lot of income, for one.

French Catholic Bayou Voodoo state pretty much nailed it. I've never heard us described like that, but it's true and it made me laugh.

What a heavy, modernized institution. No, I don't know if a whole state could really be called "dangerous"; I believe it varies by neighborhood. For instance, parts of Chicago are really dangerous, but the rest of the city, and/or Illinois, maybe not so bad.

New Orleans particularly has a "pre-U. S." history and very different culture which included one of the largest slave markets in the world. And if you look at the Louisiana Purchase, it's pretty informative towards what "sovereignty" means in a legal sense. That was an outcome from the French Revolution, which mutated several times before Napoleon got the upper hand, then got slammed in Mexico and pretty much abandoned the "New World". But it mostly comes down to "property rights".

With Constitutions, we can't possibly follow them; it is a compact on the government and does not apply to the people. The one for the U. S. clearly defines what "lawful money" is. We don't use it. We have no money. We use a "legal tender" issued as a bond upon future labor. The legal tender and the s. s. # usually associated with it, are merely the property of their respective private institutions.

The 1776 era was quite "politically divisive" and there was certainly a bloc of France--Austria--Russia--American States which was against the type of central banking that had gained traction in Britain. But those were all thrown under the bus by the "international money power" which was behind the Encyclopedists and the Bolsheviks, Federal Reserve, etc.

I don't know about democracy, but it seems to me that some of the most successful documents were the original U. S. Constitution, which was influenced by the Iroquois Confederation--the first thing that brought lasting peace to the warring tribes. Perhaps in part by making women the land owners. Also the Treaty of Westphalia, a European peace treaty by which nations retained individuality and sovereignty. Comparatively, treaties like Versailles and the map-making in Palestine, Pakistan, etc., were ostensibly set up to bring nothing but failure and ruin.

A nation is a culture, it is not a country, state, or political unit. I strongly believe all people should have something like Westphalia that protects and preserves their cultures. They should not be dissolved by missionaries, NGO's, and all the whitewashing of "outside help". Whether this means Welsh, Swahili, or Korean, those are the things worth protecting at any cost.

[Valerie Villars]

Shaberon, my ancestors both founded the City of New Orleans and settled it in 1718. I know quite a bit about Louisiana history and culture.

Slavery is a terrible, terrible thing and we still have that system going strong in the world. As you are well aware, it masquerades under the illusion of freedom and free choice, which is a load of horse crap. Some of my ancestors not only had some slaves, but they had many. Bienville, my uncle became chummy with the Indians here and even had tattoos, as a show of solidarity. But, you're right, it all comes down to property rights, which is a fallacy. What happened to the property rights of the original inhabitants? And then we got sold repeatedly. First the area was just America. Then somebody stuck a flag in the ground and it was French. Then it was Spanish. Then French again and finally it got sold to "America". Basically it all just came down to the same old thing. Whoever was in charge, decided what was in their best interest and we all got sold down the line.

It seems it always comes down to privileged elites chummily making decisions about the rest of us, behind closed doors and then sending a bunch of goons to enforce their will.

I absolutely agree that a nation is a culture. I see our culture down here, since Katrina, has changed irreparably. New Orleans has become nothing but a tourist attraction. Rents have skyrocketed, as people with money came in, scooped up the properties and jacked the prices up. Normal people can't afford housing there anymore.

I was born in 1961 and we all, black and white, really did pretty much peacefully co-exist. It was dangerous in some areas, but it's gotten much, much worse. I miss the culture and tradition I grew up with. Hell, you could even get a good spot at a Mardi Gras parade and you could actually walk through the French Quarter on Mardi Gras day. You really can't do that now.

There seems to be so much more animosity in the world in general, these days. No sane person could look at it and call this progress.

Politics, a failure by design. It's working by failing us.

[Mark]

I appreciate the sentiment but wonder what the alternatives are. Going back to Hunter/Gatherer societies? Breaking larger nations and civilizations into smaller, more manageable groupings where politics are more localized and the populations more homogenous? If politics have been around forever, it is because might has always made right. Because some hominid with a rock was able to seize power and himself be deposed by another who found a brute to take him out and then take charge of the physically stronger, with greater mental agility.

It is not a question of how or if politics can be made "better" as "better" is relative to where and who we each are, using the term. It is effectiveness that is important and meeting the needs of the polity, be it homogeneous or heterogeneous. As long as this world is divided between empaths and psychopaths there will always be a scale of meaning and interpretation, of needs versus desire, of the wealthy and the poor. There will always be those who seek power and those who run from it. If that scale is modified by a dynamic system of checks and balances upon power, we have forms of government that serve the needs of the people to greater or lesser degrees and that is being realistic, being grounded in the present with all of history as an exemplar.

The only other option besides going back to some other model, is going forward and becoming a planetary society. But, as I've stated many times here, such a path would make most denizens of the alternative community's heads' explode upon serious contempation of such and what it would take to create a "Star Trek Federation" type world.

[shaberon]

Posted by Valerie Villars (here)
Shaberon, my ancestors both founded the City of New Orleans and settled it in 1718. I know quite a bit about Louisiana history and culture.

Slavery is a terrible, terrible thing and we still have that system going strong in the world.

Yes yes...no I can't pretend to tell anyone a whole lot about the environment where their heritage lies--it's all about letting us know what it's like from within and if we are wrong about something. I would maintain the prison work force is modern slavery, which is the confiscation of the fruits of one's labor. "Debt-wage slavery" is oppressive, but you still get to keep something. The sugar industry in Florida uses a fair amount of slavery, managing to make it cost three times as much in the U. S. than in Canada.

I am not sure that humanity's "original leadership" was the guy who could pick up the biggest rock. It was probably the most wise. And to an extent, I would have to say that leadership and rules are somewhat of a necessity.

For instance, the Good Shepherd. He carries a staff. What's that, a walking stick? No. He uses it to hobble the sheep. This means that when they stray too far, putting themselves and others in danger, he uses it to break their legs so they can't walk at all. He then carries the sheep until it heals, so hopefully it learns to stay close.

When that staff is held by someone wiser than me, please, shatter my legs. But what we *usually* get is someone simply putting on the costume and *appearing* to do the same thing. Total opposite. This becomes a ruling class, and this is what anarchy is against, mostly bloodlines and oligarchy.

Whenever I find authority based in real wisdom and experience, I submit to it. But those factors do not apply to the "ruling class". The people with big rocks and deep pockets mostly lack talent of any sort. As people, they're next to nothing. For a while, they were advanced at propaganda, but most of us have outpaced that by now.