If you don't care then no, i suppose not. I think that democracy is an illusion if we don't know about this stuff.Quote by: Athena
Is one of those books "The Corporation?"
If you don't care then no, i suppose not. I think that democracy is an illusion if we don't know about this stuff.
Is one of those books "The Corporation?"
Look at the corporate structure; if we don't become aware then we will be absorbed
Are any of those books about Truman's observations on the military/industrial complex?
Do you really not care? The Pythia would be pleased.
Athena might I recommend "The Middle Class: A History" by Lawrence James (ISBN-10: 0316861200 or ISBN-13: 978-0316861205)
The first part of the book offers an intersting view of this period. Admittedly it is the UK / English view.
You are correct in the importance of lineage of Kings and their appointed nobles. But it covers the changes wrought about by the Merchants whose money began to buy their privalegies and inclusion in noble society.
It briefly overs a number of revolts which contributed greatly towards "common law". The resounding social implications of the Plague which drove the price of labour up.
And shows the birth of voting rights due to the social and moral ethics of the "middle classes", primarily driven by their "Christian Duty" which viewed both aristocracy and poor as licentious and decadent. The aristocracy beyond redemption, but the working (lower) classes could be changed through education.
The chance of birth and their ability to make money worked well in the middle ages. Not much has changed :)Another subject that could be fun to discuss is, what makes someone noble?
This has been a stronger UK mantra since Thatcher. It has casued distrust of neighbours and greater uncaring of others. Thank fully we as a nation no longer give a damn about anyone but ourselves.What of the ramifications of claiming everyman is a king in his own castle?
Then we would learn to shut up, stop moaning and get on with living our lives to the fullest. It needn't be kings, Russia replaced Tzars with communist leaders and look to be heading back there. Perhaps it is better for humans to be ruled by a fully autocratic and demonic dictator. Iraq was peaceful (OK they had a stupid war with Iran, and got a little stupid over invading Kuwait) until the UK & USA gave them democracy.What if we had no freedom of speech, and kings and his men could to do with us as they pleased, with or without. anyone knowing about it?
See above, Plus our expectation would be more focused, friends would really need to be trusted. Our lives would be filled by trying to surviveWe would have no fudging spin from leftists or rightists,no politicians or lobbiest lying to us with fake smiles. No stupid advertisments to show how much we lacked in our lives. Orgnised crime would either not exist or be fully state controlled. Sadists and pedophiles would be known by the uniforms and position in authority. Sunny days would be so beautiful after we returned from our twelve hours of and early finish day. No foreign goods would polute our homes or pallets.What if we had no say in who rules and who has this power to make and enforce decisions?
Such Bliss
These were in the middle ages very well understood, with ample sources of mud, wattle and daub. Those who could not gain such a place might have a nook or cranny with a bundle of rags, Which would mean they were worthy of nothing.How do we understand property rights and the rights of those who don't own?
Ah Athena you bring this in to test our wonderful providers :)Such as the rights of those own volconvo and those who don't own volconvo?
some rights are based upon skills, even nowadays in the UK some rural jobs come with accomodation provide by the landowner. Though I understnad this is being extended and equal opportunites given to migrant workers who have their wages reduced to cover the cost of a bed for the night.Or say where you work, or if you live a rented home?
Property of course, why should humans have rights? Most good property outlasts any human.Do we put a stronger emphasis on property rights or human rights?
From a "Middle Ages" perspective the nobles and churches were well acquanited with the ways of the "Greeks". The plebs like in the ancient places had nothing, Because that was their place and just deserve by divine right. Consequently unlike "we" modern day plebs truly experienced the fullest extent of the democratic process :)How might this change our experience of democracy?
Athena said:
Such as the rights of those own volconvo and those who don't own volconvo?
Arawn-ap-Hywel said:
Ah Athena you bring this in to test our wonderful providers
No, I had no intention of testing them at all. But there is a chance reponding to you might result in the sincere thinking that is my intention. You spoke of property as real property and said those who had none would be worthless. This very accurately defines a past understanding of worthiness and justification for those who had recognized authority and rights- lording it over those who only had the privileges granted to them by noblement, who could take their rights away at any time. Christian Europe believed God ordained who enjoyed rank and rights and who were to serve them.
Then some radicals came up with ideas of democracy, gleaned from Greek and Roman classics, and adding their own philosophical thought to the thoughts of the past, and we get this crazy idea of equality! :eek: We get this crazy idea of human rights just because we are human, not dependent on owning property! :eek:
Now obviously today we are having a problem grasping this thinking and this strange concept we call democracy. I think largely we have a problem grasping the concepts, because we have nothing to contrast our democracy with. Here we are living in prosporous democracies, complaining about how terrble America is. I don't know any other way of dealing with this, than to use the example of volconvo's autocracy. This is not a critism of volconvo. It is a statement of fact, and a fact that is defended. I am not speaking of the technology of volconvo or how it is designed. I am speaking of the mental quality of ownership that is destroying democracy. Property rights, and autocratic authority, are right in our face, and how do they contrast with the concept of democracy and human worth and rights?
While chewing on these questions, I began to wonder exactly what is the property volconvo owns? This is not a real property, but we are treating a cyber space that exist electronically as real property. Unlike a peice of land with known boundaries, this piece of cyber space is open to people around the world. What we say here can influence the thinking of people around the world. For this, I think I value volconco more than the owners, and I would honestly pay (donate) to promote this. I see it as a vechicle for developing democracy around the world and bringing us all to peace. But volconvo doesn't appear to be used for this purpose. It appears to be used as an entertainment by people who feel responsible for nothing, except may be protecting something they call volconvo from critism. When we owe property, we owe it for a reason. What is the reason for anyone to own volconvo and what is the responsibility of the owners if any?
What of the duty of those who post here? I want the world to understand democracy and I want world peace. It is my duty to take every opportunity to accomplish my purpose. If volconvo wants me to stop using volconvo to serve my purpose, it has the right to stop me, because as I have been told, I have no rights here, only a privilege that can be taken away. It owns this cyber space and has the property right to prevent me from using it. But what of we the people? Do they have rights any where in the world? Every inch of ground in the US is owned. Every building and object is owned. If all we are aware of is autocratic rights of property owners, what of we-the-people?
We should not take our democracy for granted. It is a concept that has guided our live but is no longer understood or protected. It is like our value as human beings and our rights human beings, once again depends on owning. If we don't own we are worthless and have no rights, just privileges that can be taken away by those who own.
I would much rather be valued for what I am saying then penalized for it, and if I do not start to feel valued for what I am saying, I will leave this cyber property in hopes of finding cyber space where I will be valued as someone who promotes and defends democracy.
I speak controversy so we have something to talk about. Don't take me too seriously.
But that is my whole point! Where and when do any of us experience the democracy? Everything is owned, and we are not experiencing the democracy, we are experiencing autocracy. Especially those who must work for others and rent their homes, or contact others through owned cyber space, and experiencing autocracy, not democracy.From a "Middle Ages" perspective the nobles and churches were well acquanited with the ways of the "Greeks". The plebs like in the ancient places had nothing, Because that was their place and just deserve by divine right. Consequently unlike "we" modern day plebs truly experienced the fullest extent of the democratic process
I speak controversy so we have something to talk about. Don't take me too seriously.
Athena for me human rights are a very difficult concept.
Democracy as you vow to....for me is the rite of enabling a persons point of view to be fully expressed. My issue is that in these so called modern times we still take offence for the more abstact literal and verbal expression of these views, as if they should be couched and reworded so the least offence is taken. Yet this taking offence is a barrier it is what drives us apart from accepting freedom of thought.
As long as whatever remains only a verbal or written expression of thought it can only be a form of truth and those who hear it should consider acceping there is a view and then how that effects them, ot place a barrier of litigation or worse still enact violently.
Like many truths the ideals of democracy become more and more distorted by the imposed. Yes the law of intellectual property which avows that idea should be original yet supported by sound foundation which bares relation to a proven and accepted point of view.
The radicals of thought from the past did not have such accomplished constraints. Likewise it has never been so difficult not to offend someone. Volconvo only reflects the source of being reasonable (imo) which I consider a fair constraint of these times. :)
(Ye gods hath I waffled somewhat?)
Offence might be take, justly, if words are intended to offend, to manipulate rather that elucidate.
jeffl true on offending. Yet is debate not manipulation :)
The does it not say something about a person if they are readily offended by words? No ffence meant :)
Not always; though most of the time, these days. Intent is the issue here, i think. It's natural for us to try to uncover the other's intent, if we don't trust them. All of it is judged in the evolution of things.I agree; it could be an issue of maturity, or again it could be alterior motive and manipulation. I once told someone i thought what they did was evil; they took offence.:(The does it not say something about a person if they are readily offended by words? No ffence meant :)
There those who always utilise their judgement. But can they judge a truth?
I have been told that many times, but never felt offended :)
They need only judge honestly; they have to be honest with themselves. Not easy, but not impossible. This is the role of ego, the responsibility of kingship. To step back from judgement, to exercise the responsibility of kingship in the act of naming, is to move toward objective ego sense; as i see it.On one hand, i suppose that's good; but i am compelled to wonder what it is that you do to bring such a comment on yourself many times?I have been told that many times, but never felt offended :)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks