Thomas:
This is a good little essay and touch's on some very important observations.
Victor wrote:
>As I recall, this thread got started with a comment about many of the
voters
>seeming to be neither intelligent nor well-informed.I'm sure from many of
>his postings that Ed Weick did not mean this in an elitist sense.
>
>I don't think lack of intelligence is really the problem. I also do not
>think that intelligence in any easily definable sense is really relevant.
>The core of the issue is really personal values.
Thomas:
If we are going to continue to exist in a political system in which we have
voters, then what is the important criteria we should hold voters to -
intelligence? - well informed? - personal values? - political viewpoints? -
age? - mental competency? - the list can be endless. What is the purpose of
a political system? It is to provide governance to all citizens. What our
current structure has done is remove the main goal of a government - to
provide governace to all citizens - and we have turned it into a
gladiatorial
contest in which the audience is given the right a certain moments to give a
thumbs up or a thumbs down. How stupid.
Victor wrote:
I work in a factory and my
>best friend there is a spot-welder named Harold. I don't think Harold could
>have pursued all the academic education I obtained before my foot slipped
>off the career ladder. However, Harold's heart is in the right place and he
>has a great deal of common sense (in the original meaning of that phrase,
>not in the debased meaning popularized by the right-wing government of
>Ontario).
>
>When you promote the notion of governance based on intelligence, you have
no
>guiding values to select those people. Although I have successfully
>completed 10 years of post-secondary education (English and later
theology),
>I doubt that I or anyone else could prove that I am more intelligent than,
>say, a University of Chicago neoconservative economist. It just happens
that
>I am right about most things and he is dead wrong!!! I would much rather
see
>my friend Harold in charge of vital policy decisions than a neoconservative
>economist. That is why I would never support a meritocracy scheme like Jay
>Hanson's.
Thomas:
And what does Harold want? He is a citizen and he expects those who govern
to be accessible and to act in the best interests of all citizens. Is this
the current situation? I would say "no!". I do not think there is a
government in the world that acts in the best interests of it's citizens and
my diagnosis is that the structure of democracy is distorted by the concept
of voting.
Victor wrote:
>
>I think that most people have their values right, say about 70 per cent of
>them. (I base this figure on poll results in Canada about specific issues
>such as health care or welfare.) However, the voters often elect parties
>that are all too likely to bring about results contrary to what they really
>want. They get taken in by phoney promises, "We have to cut the deficit, we
>have to give tax breaks to big business, so that we can afford to give you
>better health care ... sometime in the sweet bye-and-bye."
>
>The problem is one of misinformation for at 70 per cent of the voters. I do
>not see any easy way to change the situation. Media outlets are very
>expensive to own and operate, so by definition they will continue to be
>owned by the wealthy and to promote the interests of the wealthy. Most
>people are not going to search the Internet looking for fresh information
>and alternative viewpoints; they don't have the time and the specific
>interest. Stephen Best, Director of Environment Voters, believes that
>activists can influence the direction of the government only by working at
>the grassroots level, doing personal canvassing during elections.
>http://environmentvoters.org
>
Thomas:
These are arguments that are common to most who think of these matters, but
the solution is not within the box, you have to get outside of the box
before you can truly see an alternative other than "technical changes"
within the box.
Victor wrote:
>I intimated that for perhaps 30 per cent of the voters, the problem is more
>than lack of information; they don't have their hearts in the right place.
>I've been doing some informal analysis of why some people enthusiastically
>support the regressive Mike Harris regime in Ontario although a
>well-informed person would see clearly that it is against their own
economic
>self-interest.
>
>My observations convince me that for many people there is an emotional
>component to their allegiance that is quite impervious to logic and
>information. Some evince a masochistic guilt: "We were living too high off
>the hog; someone had to make those cuts." A larger number like to blame
>problems on the weak and helpless: "It's those lazy welfare bums that like
>to sit at home and drink beer while I'm out working my ass off to pay for
>them." Or it's the immigrants, people of colour, aboriginal, etc.
>
>I do not think there is much hope of changing people like that. As the
>French say, tout comprendre, c'est tout pardonner. These people probably
had
>a lousy childhood with parents knocking them around for nothing, and
they've
>grown up to believe in knocking around the weak and helpless.
>
>The only hope I see is to work one at a time on the 70 per cent who are
>reasonably well-balanced to elect governments that promote the real
>long-term interests of citizens, and as we gradually get a better society,
>it will produce fewer people who are emotionally screwed up.
Thomas:
I gently beg to differ Victor. For reasons you have cited, the electorate
cannot change the house rules of the governance gambling casino - it is
always going to be weighted in favour of the house. To really make change
we have to eliminate the vote. It is the concept of the vote that allows
the populace to have some hope but the reality is different. The concept of
the "vote" is the same as the concept of "winning" in a casino. With a vote
you may get a local win, a small change but the political system will always
revert back to power and the continuance of power. The only way to avoid
that is to make a governance system in which power is automatically
terminated and those in power cannot retain power passed certain arbitrary
limits.
Respectfully,
Thomas Lunde
>
>Live long and prosper
>
>Victor Milne & Pat Gottlieb
>
>FIGHT THE BASTARDS! An anti-neoconservative website
>at http://www3.sympatico.ca/pat-vic/pat-vic/
>
>LONESOME ACRES RIDING STABLE
>at http://www3.sympatico.ca/pat-vic/
>
>
>
>
>
