Compromise

[Fala]

So....

"Democracy traces back to the Greek words demos, meaning "people," and kratia, meaning "power." "People power" remains central to democracy, whether you're describing a country or a much smaller organization. If your glee club is run as a democracy, then everybody gets to vote on questions like what you're going to sing and what kind of outfits you’re going to wear. Because democracy assumes some idea of equality, it's often used to mean a just society, one in which everyone is treated equally."


"it's often used to mean a just society, one in which everyone is treated equally."

So....why can't this work here? because nobody is willing to compromise and even give an inch.

So...the wars continue...

 

[Bert Notorius]

the main thing being
"this"
isn't a democracy.

 

[Fala]

the main thing being
"this"
isn't a democracy.

Ok....let's insert the word, "compromise".

 

[Noor]

Greeks had wars, lots of wars.
Some Greek city states thrived on war, Sparta for instance.
Yes, I know the actual city state was named Lacedaemon, but everyone calls it Sparta.

 

[neci]

So....

"Democracy traces back to the Greek words demos, meaning "people," and kratia, meaning "power." "People power" remains central to democracy, whether you're describing a country or a much smaller organization. If your glee club is run as a democracy, then everybody gets to vote on questions like what you're going to sing and what kind of outfits you’re going to wear. Because democracy assumes some idea of equality, it's often used to mean a just society, one in which everyone is treated equally."


"it's often used to mean a just society, one in which everyone is treated equally."

So....why can't this work here? because nobody is willing to compromise and even give an inch.

So...the wars continue...

how can you have people power, when over half of the population gives their power away? the other half is told they are not true people, because they disagree with the power. the remaining quarter takes all they can in a mad rush, in fear they will lose the power in four years, so horde while you can.

the pendulum swings.

again and again.

heads roll.

it may or may not make the news.

by then it's already old.

moving on to the next thread.

 

[Libsam]

Read Plato, Socrates is dead.


http://s2.quickmeme.com/img/ef/efc0fa004550273d4fc6bcf4c55a353635d022da273a8959d294b9d65a4e4ba5.jpg

 

[oggbashan]

Greek democracy ignored the slaves.

Only free MEN could participate in democracy. No slaves; no women.

 

[BB4evah]

Hello, Oggy POON. ....didya welcome more Muslims today

 

[KimGordon67]

So....

"Democracy traces back to the Greek words demos, meaning "people," and kratia, meaning "power." "People power" remains central to democracy, whether you're describing a country or a much smaller organization. If your glee club is run as a democracy, then everybody gets to vote on questions like what you're going to sing and what kind of outfits you’re going to wear. Because democracy assumes some idea of equality, it's often used to mean a just society, one in which everyone is treated equally."


"it's often used to mean a just society, one in which everyone is treated equally."

So....why can't this work here? because nobody is willing to compromise and even give an inch.

So...the wars continue...

I think the basic problem is when some people get more stuff than some other people, so if you wanted to restore equality, you have to get some of that stuff back off them. And people seem to like their stuff quite a bit. More than they like equality.

 

[oggbashan]

Hello, Oggy. ....didya welcome more Muslims today

No. Did you?

Brexit means we can say no more.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

~*~ sigh ~*~

* Again *


The Constitutional Founders created a Republic. They observed, in their historical and philosophical studies that Democracy was a pernicious evil; in Federalist, it is mentioned four times and always in a negative light.

The problem with our ability to compromise came with the Progressive Movement. It was a power grab by the Federal government, an attempt to move closer to a Democracy with a strong centralized government that would take care of people and eliminate grievances. It gave us several Amendments to the Constitution that were the first death knells of the Republic.

Now the problem with Socialism (and that is what movements like the Progressives and the Fabians are, they just won't say it because of the negative connotations outside of Germany, where it was fully embraced) is that to give anything to some people means that you have to take it away from some other people. The desire is then through elections to always give more and thus always take more (or eliminate the Gold standard and turn to inflation, borrowing and other tricks which debase spending power and never ends up well, we'll see that here sooner or later) and this sets up the political power (and contention) between the politicians whom rely on the supplicant class and the politicians who purportedly represent everyone else. The obvious problem then being that you can use appeals to emotion in the name of the former, the unassailable victims and denigrate those whom try to slow the growth (and theft) that is government largess.

 

[KimGordon67]

~*~ sigh ~*~

* Again *


The Constitutional Founders created a Republic. They observed, in their historical and philosophical studies that Democracy was a pernicious evil; in Federalist, it is mentioned four times and always in a negative light.

The problem with our ability to compromise came with the Progressive Movement. It was a power grab by the Federal government, an attempt to move closer to a Democracy with a strong centralized government that would take care of people and eliminate grievances. It gave us several Amendments to the Constitution that were the first death knells of the Republic.

Now the problem with Socialism (and that is what movements like the Progressives and the Fabians are, they just won't say it because of the negative connotations outside of Germany, where it was fully embraced) is that to give anything to some people means that you have to take it away from some other people. The desire is then through elections to always give more and thus always take more (or eliminate the Gold standard and turn to inflation, borrowing and other tricks which debase spending power and never ends up well, we'll see that here sooner or later) and this sets up the political power (and contention) between the politicians whom rely on the supplicant class and the politicians who purportedly represent everyone else. The obvious problem then being that you can use appeals to emotion in the name of the former, the unassailable victims and denigrate those whom try to slow the growth (and theft) that is government largess.

(I think that's sort of what I said, but without the first bits.)

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Yes, you framed in it terms of class warfare which I eschew and do not point to as a root cause, but as a result of a historical process.

 

[KimGordon67]

So....

"Democracy traces back to the Greek words demos, meaning "people," and kratia, meaning "power." "People power" remains central to democracy, whether you're describing a country or a much smaller organization. If your glee club is run as a democracy, then everybody gets to vote on questions like what you're going to sing and what kind of outfits you’re going to wear. Because democracy assumes some idea of equality, it's often used to mean a just society, one in which everyone is treated equally."


"it's often used to mean a just society, one in which everyone is treated equally."

So....why can't this work here? because nobody is willing to compromise and even give an inch.

So...the wars continue...

I also wonder if size of a society makes a difference. In a true democracy, everyone would have a say about most things of significance - I think it works like this in Switzerland (although I could be wrong and can't be arsed fact-checking right now). But that relies on a well educated and engaged population. These days, poor people largely don't vote (and American seems fond of taking votes away from chunks of the population who are largely poor), because they lack engagement, and are often too busy doing the boring stuff that poor people have to do. I think that didn't used to be the case ... I watched a documentary about the British miners strike a while back and was surprised to learn that the unions (which was pretty much all the miners) were not only hugely political, but actually read Marx. So they were obviously engaged in the political process ... hence something more like a democracy. If great swathes of the population don't vote, and those who do vote are motivated almost solely by protecting their own interests ... well, here we are.

 

[KimGordon67]

Yes, you framed in it terms of class warfare which I eschew and do not point to as a root cause, but as a result of a historical process.

I don't really see how the cause or historical process makes any difference ... we are where we are now, and need to work out a way out of the mess, not go 'Oh, it's fine that we're here because history'.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Yes, it can work with a small homogeneous nation/tribe with a strong sense of history and an unshakeable shared historic culture.

It cannot work in a giant polyglot nation that sheds its shared culture in favor of the accommodation (and assumed equality) of all cultures. I for one would not want to trade the culture of life, property and the pursuit of both with North Korean Juche based on the idea that they are both equally valid...

 

[KimGordon67]

Yes, it can work with a small homogeneous nation/tribe with a strong sense of history and an unshakeable shared historic culture.

It cannot work in a giant polyglot nation that sheds its shared culture in favor of the accommodation (and assumed equality) of all cultures. I for one would not want to trade the culture of life, property and the pursuit of both with North Korean Juche based on the idea that they are both equally valid...

The people the country belongs to probably didn't want to trade their culture with yours either. Maybe you should give it back to them and go home, if you feel that strongly about it.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

I don't really see how the cause or historical process makes any difference ... we are where we are now, and need to work out a way out of the mess, not go 'Oh, it's fine that we're here because history'.

Those whom forget history...


It is very important to understand the history because if you don't, then you think that there is some pie-in-the-sky solution if only one group of people will listen to the people who feel they are right. It is important to know which road you are on and where it is leading and how helpless we are to prevent it because of the now hardened concept that some people have to be helped because their plight is not their failings, but the heartless selfishness that exists in those who have too many things, so if we are to correct this, we must establish a selfless, sacrificial society.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

The people the country belongs to probably didn't want to trade their culture with yours either. Maybe you should give it back to them and go home, if you feel that strongly about it.

We are at war.


Until they wish to honestly broker a treaty, we remain at war. But that is not the issue, just an example of where moral relativism leads.

 

[KimGordon67]

Those whom forget history...


It is very important to understand the history because if you don't, then you think that there is some pie-in-the-sky solution if only one group of people will listen to the people who feel they are right. It is important to know which road you are on and where it is leading and how helpless we are to prevent it because of the now hardened concept that some people have to be helped because their plight is not their failings, but the heartless selfishness that exists in those who have too many things, so if we are to correct this, we must establish a selfless, sacrificial society.

I which that concept was as hardened as you think it is. Unfortunately it isn't.

 

[KimGordon67]

We are at war.


Until they wish to honestly broker a treaty, we remain at war. But that is not the issue, just an example of where moral relativism leads.

Actually, it is the issue. You can't really complain about people 'invading' your home when that's precisely how you got the place to begin with.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Okay.


I'm done with this conversation now. You have a great day.

 

[oggbashan]

... I watched a documentary about the British miners strike a while back and was surprised to learn that the unions (which was pretty much all the miners) were not only hugely political, but actually read Marx. ...

Reading Marx (and Adam Smith, Herzberg, Maslow et al) is part of most studies for business management in the UK. Those taking those courses are expected to understand the theories and also how relevant, or not, the theories are to business practices. Personally I think Parkinson's Laws are more relevant.

The miners' union wanted justice for the miners AND to destroy the UK's elected government. Many large union in the 1960s and 1970s were run by militant socialists exploiting genuine grievances for larger political ends. UK trade unions still have significant power in the Labour Party and are major funders of Labour electoral campaigns.

However there are also many other things that UK trade unions (and professional associations) do for the welfare, education and general improvement of their members' lives that are not political. Before the National Health Service trade unions had a history of funding health care for their members and families and that tradition went back to medieval trades guilds.

 

[KimGordon67]

Reading Marx (and Adam Smith, Herzberg, Maslow et al) is part of most studies for business management in the UK. Those taking those courses are expected to understand the theories and also how relevant, or not, the theories are to business practices. Personally I think Parkinson's Laws are more relevant.

The miners' union wanted justice for the miners AND to destroy the UK's elected government. Many large union in the 1960s and 1970s were run by militant socialists exploiting genuine grievances for larger political ends. UK trade unions still have significant power in the Labour Party and are major funders of Labour electoral campaigns.

However there are also many other things that UK trade unions (and professional associations) do for the welfare, education and general improvement of their members' lives that are not political. Before the National Health Service trade unions had a history of funding health care for their members and families and that tradition went back to medieval trades guilds.

I'll admit the doco was pretty partial politically (although I don't really see a desire to destroy Thatcher's government as a bad thing) ... it was really interesting how much work the women in the movement did.
It was actually about an almost unlistenable industrial band who, somehow, ended up working with the unions and fundraising for them. In fact, one of the original unionists was at the screening with one of the original banners. It was a really interesting event ... I learnt more than I expected.

 

[KimGordon67]

Yes, it can work with a small homogeneous nation/tribe with a strong sense of history and an unshakeable shared historic culture.

It cannot work in a giant polyglot nation that sheds its shared culture in favor of the accommodation (and assumed equality) of all cultures. I for one would not want to trade the culture of life, property and the pursuit of both with North Korean Juche based on the idea that they are both equally valid...

That's also a pretty silly example to use. You might as well of said 'Nazi's' and properly Godwinned the thread.