reply to post by Throbber
I think that we are getting into questions of spirituality and maturity of the inner voice. You can't force it, and it will not come unless you
understand that it is there waiting for you to discover it. I believe that there is a correct way of acting, and it has to do with being in touch with
that voice. If everyone were in tune with it, there would be no need for laws other than basic structural laws that impose a loose form on society but
do not dictate actions of one kind or another. Otherwise, you would be looking at a school program that would indoctrinate children to prepare them
for such a society, and punish them accordingly....counterproductive
[edit on 22-2-2008 by Silenceisall]
|
This is such a pertinent conversation that I flagged this thread. I was thinking about the extreme utopias that thought systems such as
libertarianism, environementalism, capitalism etc. and I wondered if the ideal of a true democracy is also frought with overlooked dangers.
Is a fully informed voting and socially participating populous in danger at the end if drawn out to the utopian end of fully representational
democracy? did that make sense?
|
You're missing the point - at this moment in time the correct way of acting is to do things by the book, because people respect that kind of
professionalism.
Not the anarchist's cookbook either you dolt.
I'm talking about the kind of thing that would work two-fold; you'd need:
A: Media Representation (good luck).
and
B: Political Representation (good luck).
At no point must you mention the words Capitalism, Democracy or Corporate Brainwashing - doing so will make you an awful lot of
enemies and will essentially turn the cause into the equivalent of trying to climb a ceiling - which is impossible if there are no walls.
The idea is to stay positive, to refrain from making things personal, and to assert that you know what is best for this society.
Now then, how many radical ideallists do you know that would be able to keep that act up whilst staring in the face of someone like condi or Gordon
brown?
If you know a few, how many do you think will be able to face the kind of harsh criticisms that someone like myself would be able to spit out?
p.s; this is the only avenue of social change that is accepted in this day and age - and tbh, that is what it is that i think makes society act like a
chained dog scrabbling in the dirt for food (money).
[edit on 22-2-2008 by Throbber]
|
reply to post by stikkinikki
I think you need to divorce the human element from the ideological one. Communism might have been fine, if the Russians had been able to deal with the
heavy resonsibility. Capitalism is fine too, as long as people are not cutting eachother's throats and stepping on eachother to get to the top for
the all mighty dollar. Anarchism is a kind of extreem version of Libertarianism, IMO, and it too would be fine if we were able to reach a state in
which we could responsibly self-regulate and where we all deeply cared about eachother. You see, the human element is the key. And what is the human
element. I think it boils down to what I call an inner voice, which itself boils down to spiritual maturity. You may have another opinion, but
then...well... we are back to square one.
|
reply to post by Throbber
Yeah, the radical idealists tend to cause a lot of trouble, but second only to those who use radical idealism as a shield for their own aims...
[edit on 22-2-2008 by Silenceisall]
|
reply to post by Silenceisall
Sadly, of course - those aims tend to be the reason why people get all uppity about social change in the first place.
It's almost ironic that someone would use the ideology of those who know the explicit reasons why society is broken in such a way that contributes to
that breakage.
|
reply to post by Throbber
Even more sadly, looking back over history, I see that the only leaders of ideological countries that have been true to their word and had intentions
in line with the ideology itself, were leading a nasty ideology. Take Hitler for example. Nasty man heading up a nasty ideology, but he was true to
the ideology and chose death when the ideology itself was crushed.
|
