All the senate based minor parties tend to have insane policies hidden away in there agenda. Mostly because they know it won't matter, as they won't form government and actually have to enact them. And because nobody expects them to form government they get a lower level of scrutiny than the majors get.
Yeah, there are issues with representitive democracy, but frankly it's better than the alternatives. And no I don't believe in that there will be any moment where we all transform into higher beings of enlightened ability any more than I believe in the rapture, sorry.
What I am more conceren about at the moment is just how shit the forth estate is. As much as I support a free press some news editors really do need a swift fucking kick in the genitals.
Crap, crap, crap. More of the memetic effluent of the dominant paradigm. (I mean, you realise you're paraphrasing Churchill when you mouth that nonsensensical platitude, yeah?) It's a kind of blinkered, strawman argument, like saying "leeches might not be great medicine, but they're a lot better than that bark and twigs stuff". Surely you can see that there just might be a better way-if we could only dispose of this self-defeating notion that every possible mechanism has already been tried so we should shut up and be grateful for whatever shit's left?
just how shit the forth estate is.
Yet more of the dominant paradigm! As if we should construct our society on the premise that the best way to keep our administration system honest is to set up a modified entertainment system to protect our interests-presumably so two wrongs make a right. The whole idea of basing our civilisation on a series of staged perpetual battles sickens me to the core. It's insane and it needs to be swept aside. (Ahem
Crap, crap, crap. No it's not. I actively look at other alternatives, and most are extremely naive. And again you haven't provided any concrete examples of a decent alternative. Frankly if I'm going to burn down the house I'd like to know where I'm living afterwards.
Yet more of the dominant paradigm! As if we should construct our society on the premise that the best way to keep our administration system honest is to set up a modified entertainment system to protect our interests-presumably so two wrongs make a right.
The fact that it's become a entertainment system is probably part of the problem. Another part is the lack of divergent voices. I saw a Documentary about CY O'Conner a while back, in which they were talking about how he was copping a hammering in the press. One of the FORTY daily papers in PERTH, was really giving him a complete spanking, often unreasonably.
Basically if you want to critise the status quo, who say their a crap band, I mean you provide an explanation of the alternative paradigm.
Maybe you've missed my anti-democracy rants in the past, but I've made my position pretty clear. I am in favour of professional governance: the administration of society by people who are employed, not elected. Essentially, government by a kind of executive bureaucracy, whose rules and reasoning are public and thus open to community debate and feedback, whose success in achieving the ends we set collectively for them is enforced by regular reportage, and whose failure is punished by pressure for resignation-oddly enough a formulation nobody seems to have a problem with when applied to the management of corporations. I see the Chinese Communist Party eventually emerging as exemplars of this model, once they're able to bring their entrenched corruption under control
( ... )
oddly enough a formulation nobody seems to have a problem with when applied to the management of corporations. Actually people do have a problem with it. A lot of corporate goverenance and administration is largley short term and crap *points in the vauge direction of telstra*.
There was a canadian intellectual who has written stuff on the failure of the technocrat John Ralston Saul is his name.
I forgot to add that my criteria for a good system of goverence is not so much how it responds when everyone is behaving themselves but rather how it stands up to people trying to rort the system.
Yeah, there are issues with representitive democracy, but frankly it's better than the alternatives. And no I don't believe in that there will be any moment where we all transform into higher beings of enlightened ability any more than I believe in the rapture, sorry.
What I am more conceren about at the moment is just how shit the forth estate is. As much as I support a free press some news editors really do need a swift fucking kick in the genitals.
Reply
Crap, crap, crap. More of the memetic effluent of the dominant paradigm. (I mean, you realise you're paraphrasing Churchill when you mouth that nonsensensical platitude, yeah?) It's a kind of blinkered, strawman argument, like saying "leeches might not be great medicine, but they're a lot better than that bark and twigs stuff". Surely you can see that there just might be a better way-if we could only dispose of this self-defeating notion that every possible mechanism has already been tried so we should shut up and be grateful for whatever shit's left?
just how shit the forth estate is.
Yet more of the dominant paradigm! As if we should construct our society on the premise that the best way to keep our administration system honest is to set up a modified entertainment system to protect our interests-presumably so two wrongs make a right. The whole idea of basing our civilisation on a series of staged perpetual battles sickens me to the core. It's insane and it needs to be swept aside. (Ahem
Reply
No it's not. I actively look at other alternatives, and most are extremely naive. And again you haven't provided any concrete examples of a decent alternative. Frankly if I'm going to burn down the house I'd like to know where I'm living afterwards.
Yet more of the dominant paradigm! As if we should construct our society on the premise that the best way to keep our administration system honest is to set up a modified entertainment system to protect our interests-presumably so two wrongs make a right.
The fact that it's become a entertainment system is probably part of the problem. Another part is the lack of divergent voices. I saw a Documentary about CY O'Conner a while back, in which they were talking about how he was copping a hammering in the press. One of the FORTY daily papers in PERTH, was really giving him a complete spanking, often unreasonably.
Basically if you want to critise the status quo, who say their a crap band, I mean you provide an explanation of the alternative paradigm.
Reply
Reply
Actually people do have a problem with it. A lot of corporate goverenance and administration is largley short term and crap *points in the vauge direction of telstra*.
There was a canadian intellectual who has written stuff on the failure of the technocrat John Ralston Saul is his name.
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment