Multiculturalism/Ethnic Communities vs. National Communities

[Wysiwyg]

In some way it is a learning when comparisons, excuses and apologies are made. Reminds us that our general good intention also has its downfalls. Cruel to be kind, for example the two atomic bombs, doesn't sit well with me but it saved countless other lives. The longer conflict drags on, the more people get hurt.

 

[luutzu]

Well you have just about covered it, all forms of Governments are rubbish, we should just run the Country by facebook then everyone can have a say.

It's not a matter of giving each their 2c. It's a matter of doing what is, honestly, to their interest.

So what we have is a belief by those at the top, with very far and few exception, believing that what benefits the ruling and powerful elite will, somehow, obviously, benefit everybody - even if it doesn't appear to. It will.

It's called "trickle down" this and that.

And those are the nicer, more honest ones.

Most make policies knowing it's not benefiting anyone but the top, and that's how it ought to be. But since there's this democracy thing they set about spinning it. It's what Chomsky and Herman called the manufacturing of consent.

So on the one hand you got a few good men and women who think they're the enlightened states elders, so they obviously ought to rule and make law. And those laws obviously benefit everyone because it certainly benefit everyone they know.

On the other you got those, like Trump and his admin, just loot the place because they got the keys and can blame Muslims, refugees, poor people, socialists hippies leftist you name it.

In short, better get rich or get organised.

 

[luutzu]

In some way it is a learning when comparisons, excuses and apologies are made. Reminds us that our general good intention also has its downfalls. Cruel to be kind, for example the two atomic bombs, doesn't sit well with me but it saved countless other lives. The longer conflict drags on, the more people get hurt.

The two nukes didn't save any lives. It simply set off the nuclear age and humanity's march towards Armageddon.

 

[sptrawler]

It's not a matter of giving each their 2c. It's a matter of doing what is, honestly, to their interest.

So what we have is a belief by those at the top, with very far and few exception, believing that what benefits the ruling and powerful elite will, somehow, obviously, benefit everybody - even if it doesn't appear to. It will.

It's called "trickle down" this and that.

And those are the nicer, more honest ones.

Most make policies knowing it's not benefiting anyone but the top, and that's how it ought to be. But since there's this democracy thing they set about spinning it. It's what Chomsky and Herman called the manufacturing of consent.

So on the one hand you got a few good men and women who think they're the enlightened states elders, so they obviously ought to rule and make law. And those laws obviously benefit everyone because it certainly benefit everyone they know.

On the other you got those, like Trump and his admin, just loot the place because they got the keys and can blame Muslims, refugees, poor people, socialists hippies leftist you name it.

In short, better get rich or get organised.

So if we let you run the place, with a few of your mates, we have nothing to fear because you're a great bloke?
Or we go around the streets, randomly picking up people to have a go at running the place?
Or we take a random cross section of intellectuals, and give them a go, after a police check?

I'm just trying to work out a way to replace what we have.

 

[Wysiwyg]

So if we let you run the place, with a few of your mates, we have nothing to fear because you're a great bloke?

We all criticise without a solution. Luu takes the opposite side to show us what most of us already know (imperfect system) or have conveniently forgotten (good guys being bad).

 

[luutzu]

So if we let you run the place, with a few of your mates, we have nothing to fear because you're a great bloke?
Or we go around the streets, randomly picking up people to have a go at running the place?
Or we take a random cross section of intellectuals, and give them a go, after a police check?

I'm just trying to work out a way to replace what we have.

Not trusting anybody, any party, checks and balance is already a good start. That and not making critics and peaceful dissidents disappear are pretty incredible achievements.

So just randomly pick a parliamentarian like you would jury duty. Once picked, the plebs give them a list of priorities to follow.

No more these policies being handed down from on high.

Until that, or something like it, happen, it's just enlightened masters making laws for the plebs.

 

[sptrawler]

Not trusting anybody, any party, checks and balance is already a good start. That and not making critics and peaceful dissidents disappear are pretty incredible achievements.

So just randomly pick a parliamentarian like you would jury duty. Once picked, the plebs give them a list of priorities to follow.

No more these policies being handed down from on high.

Until that, or something like it, happen, it's just enlightened masters making laws for the plebs.

Yes, but then you have the plebs being the masters, they decide I like this I will do it my way and the circle starts again.
Who decides what's on the list? The plebs will have their own self interests, as everyone does, the list will be self serving of those who make the list, as it is now.
So they decide, we will use monks to rule as they are not self serving. Yet history will show, that the group will become more powerful, then they use the plebs to build monuments to their gods.
No matter how much things change, humans don't change that much. lol

 

[luutzu]

We all criticise without a solution. Luu takes the opposite side to show us what most of us already know (imperfect system) or have conveniently forgotten (good guys being bad).

It's a good system, just got hijacked.

If enough people organised and demand their rights, it's gonna change in a real hurry.

But we're too busy, too broke, too trusting in our own civilisation and its awesomeness that we think it's as perfect as can be so let's a few decide and rule because they know what's good for all of us.

I mean, weren't long ago that there's no such thing as a social safety net for the poor. Healthcare for all; education... They didn't came about because the pollies figured it's about time.

 

[sptrawler]

I mean, weren't long ago that there's no such thing as a social safety net for the poor. Healthcare for all; education... They didn't came about because the pollies figured it's about time.

It also hasn't taken long, for it to be abused and become unaffordable. Plebs don't change that much either.

 

[luutzu]

Yes, but then you have the plebs being the masters, they decide I like this I will do it my way and the circle starts again.
Who decides what's on the list? The plebs will have their own self interests, as everyone does, the list will be self serving of those who make the list, as it is now.

You want a democracy right? The will of the masses being served sounds about right.

But there are safety checks. Like not harming the minorities or take away anyone else's civil rights without due process etc. etc.

Anyway, the average folks are generally a sane. They don't get kicks out slaughtering people "over there" for some name recognition in the history books. That fact alone will have saved millions of lives and hundreds of billions of dollars.

 

[luutzu]

It also hasn't taken long, for it to be abused and become unaffordable. Plebs don't change that much either.

It is affordable, still.

We're told it's not so we don't mind it being cut to prevent "others" from abusing it.

Just look at the healthcare system. It's being quietly privatised like a mate's running the place. Everything in it is, or on the drawing board to be, privatised.

Then prices are raised, buying power becomes zero, costs of everything rises... then it become "un-affordable" so let's sell everything or cut most of it away, or both.

Or education. Why spend money on local students when overseas one are so much more profitable? Why spend money training locals when you can just import qualified migrants? Why have so many schools "nearby" when you can reduced it in half, sell one to developers or private education operators and ka-chings.

There are benefits that cannot be measured by financial accounting. But that's the only measure that's being used.

Just read that China just greenlight a series of infrastructure projects 4 times the previous month's. They just also greenlight a massive high speed rail network in ChangChung - a far flung province near North Korea.

In the same article, the genius financial reporter complain about high level of debt from such projects.

 

[Wysiwyg]

I mean, weren't long ago that there's no such thing as a social safety net for the poor. Healthcare for all; education... They didn't came about because the pollies figured it's about time.

Well Medicare did. Labor Party introduced it against a defiant Liberal party opposition. Political policy isn't always beneficial either. The people vote that Party out if their policies are not working. It is a constant work in progress and the weaker society members are much better off nowadays than ever before. People should be grateful for the gains that have been made.

 

[sptrawler]

You want a democracy right? The will of the masses being served sounds about right.

But there are safety checks. Like not harming the minorities or take away anyone else's civil rights without due process etc. etc.

Anyway, the average folks are generally a sane. They don't get kicks out slaughtering people "over there" for some name recognition in the history books. That fact alone will have saved millions of lives and hundreds of billions of dollars.

The "average folks" aren't in a position to be anything else, you think if you gave them power and means, they would stay "average folks".
It all sounds nice, but I think you're dreaming.
People are people, some are sane, some not so it isn't dependent on their station in life, it is determined by their personal moral compass.

In today's paper, here is an example of people in a position that can be abused, they didn't have to abuse it but people being people they did.
They aren't politicians, just plebs, just "average folk",
Do you think "average Folk" will have a badge on their foreheads, telling you the good ones from the bad ones so you can pick them.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-08-...d-thousands-in-cash-gifts-corruption/10127008

 

[luutzu]

Well Medicare did. Labor Party introduced it against a defiant Liberal party opposition. Political policy isn't always beneficial either. The people vote that Party out if their policies are not working. It is a constant work in progress and the weaker society members are much better off nowadays than ever before.

Voting them out is like choosing Coke or Pepsi. Or Coke or Fanta... the money goes to the same people.

And that's the beauty of the system - if you're the guys they're working for. It's Labor I win, Liberals I also win. Maybe Labor the plebs get a few more crumbs, but we can't win them all.

The weaker and more disadvantaged member of society are no doubt better than before. But that's not because the ruling class wanted it that way. The people organised, forced it upon the politicians. That's how and why it happened.

And within a few generations, it's well on its way to be taken away.

Can't afford it, they don't deserve; there are cheats, they're all cheats. Let's cut it and give them dignity and freedom.

Like that Reuters article about Trump threatening to veto the upcoming budget if it doesn't reduce spending on social programmes, education and other useless stuff.

It's not about the money - there's budget for some stupid wall and military parade. It's just for kicks.

 

[luutzu]

The "average folks" aren't in a position to be anything else, you think if you gave them power and means, they would stay "average folks".
It all sounds nice, but I think you're dreaming.
People are people, some are sane, some not so it isn't dependent on their station in life, it is determined by their personal moral compass.

In today's paper, here is an example of a people in a position that can be abused, they didn't have to abuse it but people being people they did.
They aren't politicians, just plebs, just "average folk",
Do you think "average Folk" will have a badge on their foreheads, telling you the good ones from the bad ones so you can pick them.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-08-...d-thousands-in-cash-gifts-corruption/10127008

Well, if you randomly pick them... chances are they're sane. For one thing, they're saner than most power hungry politician.

But the point was not just to select them at random, it's to select them and give them a to-do list.

Our democracy have neither of that.

One, we tick boxes of selected candidates.

Two, they do whatever it is they're told by someone else... we get spun into thinking it's either good or bad, depends on the media proprieters of the day... then turn up again next round to tick more boxes.

Like I said elsewhere... Communist China and Vietnam have similar "elections". The head politburo pick their favoured candidates, the people can then decide who they like better.

But there's more hope in our system because it doesn't allow the disappearance of activists and hippies. That and people are free to march the street making demands that if persisted enough, might force some slight change.

but that's where debt, more debt and surveillance on terrorists comes in handy. That and guilt-tripping those who aren't happy with their lot in life.

 

[sptrawler]

I don't think there are many in Australia, who are happy with their lot in life.

 

[Wysiwyg]

I don't think there are many in Australia, who are happy with their lot in life.

It's official.

Love is Dead​

 

[luutzu]

I don't think there are many in Australia, who are happy with their lot in life.

Yea, true that no one is ever satisfied. But we're all taught to not complain about our lot in life... good or bad it's all us, no one else is responsible.

There need to be a balance I think. We're not living on some deserted island ... For society to not take some responsibility/credit for people's failure/achievements is over-doing the not my problem business.

It's like a community taking all the credit if "one of theirs" is a great success - good genes, good culture, good civilisation; but then shun those "bad apples" when they screwed up.

 

[Tisme]

Yea, you wish.

How are parliamentary democracy a British invention anyway? Didn't it started with the Greeks, then the Romans took it, then a thousand year or so later the pom's king lost it to a wart wielding minister or something?

All the good and great things coming out of Western parliamentary "democracy" weren't the result of the parliamentarians and ruling elite. They came about despite those rules; came about because the plebs forces it upon "their" representatives to better adopt it or else go the way of other lords and barons.

Take slavery. Take universal suffrage. Take gay rights. Take environmental protection; workers rights; safety standards; civil rights; financial regulation; social safety net etc. etc.

None of those came about because of the wisdom and greatness the parliament and its leadership figured it's the right thing to do.

So taking credit for it is like taking credit for the sun rising and setting.

You suggesting parliamentary democracy is not a British invention? Don't your remember your social studies and Simon de Munford ?

 

[luutzu]

You suggesting parliamentary democracy is not a British invention? Don't your remember your social studies and Simon de Munford ?

The first rule to gaining wisdom is to forget everything you've ever learnt in school, particularly those related to history, social studies.

To remember how awesome the Poms were from its classrooms... that's like a Chinese student asking what don't China invent first; or the Yank asking what countries they haven't liberated lately, why not.

Didn't Claudius drag a king or rebel queen from Brittania to Rome not too long ago? Both?

Weren't the Roman Republic a... Republic with the Senate and the "commons"? Didn't they steal it from the Greeks?

So how could a colony in the far flung corner of the empire invented anything?

They might have refined it. But that's not exactly along the line of the Chinese inventing gun powder, printing, paper, paper currency, the compass, propaganda.... now is it?