Ron Allen wrote:
> In a democracy, the citizens must be educated
> for life in a democracy. An informed citizenry
> will act differently from how subjects behave in
> so much of what is called "game theory".
Michael Price wrote:
> Why? What will this "education" do that will
> cause them to act against their interests?
Ron Allen wrote:
> Educated people have educated interests;
> ignorant people have ignorant interests.
Michael Price wrote:
> How exactly can an interest be ignorant? A
> person can be ignorant of their own true
> interest but that is the person's ignorance not
> the interest's.
Ron Allen wrote:
> If one is ignorant of their true interests, this
> ignorance does not eliminate from the ignorant
> person some sentiment, some conception, some
> conviction about what is in their real and just
> interests. The sentiment, etc. may be a wrong
> sentiment, a mistaken and incongruous feeling,
> even an immoral and dishonorable belief
> concerning one's real and true interests; but,
> one's view of their true and just interests can
> be either an educated view, or an uneducated
> view.
and
> Interests can be cultivated by moral awareness,
> and interests can be enlightened both by
> compassion and generosity. Where there is
> sympathy for others, and a measure of
> sensitivity to the pain and suffering of each
> and every person, that is where a clarified
> self-interest becomes harmonious and compatible
> with a moral interest in the welfare and
> happiness of others.
Michael Price wrote:
> So in other words they'd do it to be nice to
> other people. That's all very well but you
> can't run a society on that.
Ron Allen wrote:
> I cannot "run" society on any democratic and
> libertarian principle. I do not wish to "run"
> society. Let society "run" itself. Let society
> educate itself. Let society govern itself.
Michael Price wrote:
> The problem is that what you call "society
> running itself" is indistinguishable from "The
> State running society.".
Ron Allen answers:
I am not confused about the distinction between a
self-governed society, and a state-government
society. I am not confused about the differences
between state and society, the differences between
statism and socialism.
Michael Price wrote:
> The only difference you claim is that the
> organisations making the decisions will be more
> democratic, but the problem with the State is
> it's power, not how that power is directed.
Ron Allen answers:
The problem with state power is that it is an
exclusive power; its power is the private
possession of legislators, executives, justices,
judges, and bureaucrats. The state is power
directed at society.
According to Thomas Hobbes, freedom is "political
power divided into small fragments". This is what
democracy means to me. Democracy is political
power broken into individual measures, so that
each and every citizen actively deliberates and
freely participates in society's own collective
self-government.
Democracy is political power equalized and
homogenized; socialism is economic power equalized
and homogenized. There cannot be the one without
the other.
Michael Price wrote:
> Getting people to do something to be nice to
> someone only works in limited situations.
Ron Allen wrote:
> This is dubious speculation, untested and
> uncertain credulity.
Michael Price wrote:
> Then get it to work in any situation that
> conflicts with the restrictions I set out below.
Ron Allen answers:
I cannot make a socialist democracy work; it will
take an entire population to make it work.
Michael Price wrote:
> Firstly the cost of the thing (in time, money or
> labour) must be clearly commensurate with the
> "nice" result. Secondly the cost must be less
> than the resources the person has to give.
> And you think that isn't a restriction on when
> being nice works?
> Thirdly results must be clear, it should be
> known how much good is done so that people can
> judge whether the good is worth it.
> Deal with that.
> Fourthly the recievers of the charity can't be
> able to acquire the good thing by their own
> efforts. If you're missing some or most of
> these (and you are) people won't give.
Ron Allen answers:
These are your opinions, your predictions, and
your projections.
Ron Allen wrote:
> In capitalism, if charity and welfare cannot
> serve to reduce the general poverty, then the
> poor will turn to crime in order to diminish the
> intensity of their poverty.
Michael Price wrote:
> But capitalism reduces poverty far more than
> either of these.
Ron Allen answers:
This is simply not factual, or demonstrated to be
true.
Michael Price wrote:
> And besides you aren't dealing with my point.
Ron Allen answers:
I know. I am making points I wish to make.
Ron Allen wrote:
> Capitalism is organized crime; and, capitalism
> generates crime. Joseph Conrad defined crime as
> "a breach of faith with the community of
> mankind". The ideology of capitalism is this
> breach of faith with the community of humankind.
> The ideology of capitalism is founded upon a
> fundamental absence of faith in human beings, a
> failure of trust in human nature, and in human
> freedom.
> Robert Rice defined crime as "a logical
> extension of the sort of behavior that is often
> considered perfectly respectable in legitimate
> business".
Michael Price wrote:
> Murder is not a logical extension of usury, nor
> is theft a logical extension of hire purchase.
> Robert rice is talking crap.
Ron Allen answers:
Some will agree with Mr. Rice; others will agree
with you.
<><><><><><><>
"That man is free who is protected from injury."
-- Daniel Webster
|
