The power of many people should not restricted by the people or person in charge

page: 1
2

log in

join

posted on Nov, 13 2013 @ 06:16 PM
link   
Businesses
Regions
Governments
medical

Theses organisations operate above common man, they say in their best interest (what lone man could stand up against an institution?). BUT personnel involvement and often money corruptions lead each a stray like sick clock work


The only fraction from this list of organised focused professionals that raise just a bit above the others - are medics. Because when there's everything on the table and a life at risk, they do what is best for the patient. They do not think "i might die, i need to leave" or "this man is the enemy" - they do their jobs.

Why? because they take IT DEADLY SERIOUSLY - no personal, political or biased rules - they help people, humans.

Does a army commander imagine every causality before issue a commend? He accepts his losses for the win and proceeds with the battle. Calculating only loss/injury costs.
The same why a politician at war does. focus on result, forget the rest.

Would it be so bad to have a medic in politics?




posted on Nov, 13 2013 @ 07:19 PM
link   

Biigs
Would it be so bad to have a medic in politics?

We did. His name is Ron Paul. Look what happened to HIM. There's no allowance in politics for compassion towards the common man; by and large, they only work for corporations and other politicians. Cronyism is the rule, and We, the People have no way to change that. (Don't say "Revolution," because that doesn't stand a chance... even if it succeeded, the system would go right back to the way it is within a few years.)



posted on Nov, 14 2013 @ 05:38 AM
link   
reply to post by Biigs
 


A medic is no better or worse than anyone else, and no more or less prone to becoming corrupt. I know of plenty of doctors who were deeply morally questionable throughout history, so I really do not believe that it makes a difference whether a person has a medical background, as to how well adjusted and morally solid they are.

My issue with all the people who end up in politics is this. No matter why a person thinks "Today, I will run for office", the simple fact of the matter is that being a politician means, no matter what the INTENT of that politician may be, that that person desires some small measure, or a large measure, of power over other people. No one... NO ONE, who desires such a thing, should ever have it, no matter how noble their initial motivations may be. The kind of power that politicians wield is such that only God, or fate (for the godless among us) ought to be allowed to wield. They can ruin entire cities, nations, continents, kill thousands, hundreds of thousands of people, with a word, with an act of parliament, with bombs and by with holding money, or by over taxing their own people (which, and this is not a point for debate, just a fact, does end up killing people. Its indirect, and it is difficult to trace, but it happens none the less).

The act of applying oneself to the task of governance instantly invalidates any motivation which may have lead to it. The idea that any person, or small group of persons, has any right to decide anything on behalf of a multitude is frankly intrinsically flawed, and ought in fairness to have been done away with the very SECOND that social networking engines begun to reach the majority of people in a given nation. The technology exists to make the people masters of their own fate, to allow people to engage with the material which would inform their choices when asked to vote on propositions and future methods of dealing with the needs of the nation. The only thing that future politicians ought to have in their job description is "DO AS YOU ARE DAMNED WELL TOLD! THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE IS INVIOLATE, OBEY YOUR NUMEROUS MASTERS, AND SEE THEIR BIDDING DONE AS THEY HAVE INSTRUCTED YOU!", because in future it should not be a committee that decides foreign policy, taxation, law, welfare, or any other damned thing. It should be the whole of the people, asked to dedicate half an hour a day to the task of administration, and their will would be the ONLY word on any topic. It would be beautiful.

It would be functionally impossible for lobby groups to be able to get a word in edgeways, before being crushed by the weight of opinion against their idiocies. There would be no point in companies and individuals offering backhanders, and there would be no campaigns, because there would be no real leader, just a person whose job it is to parrot the word of the people, the word which will be law, and over which no power in the land can hold sway.

Now, when I say that it would be beautiful, I do not mean that it would be perfect. But it IS the only way that governance will ever be just. As long as any but the whole of the people have daily control over the affairs of a nation, there will be injustice, and a nation cannot thrive in this day and age, with injustice in its midst. Their are solutions now, ways that a fairer future could be enacted for all, which did not exist many years ago. The excuse for the continuance of the status quo is eroding as we speak, and will only get thinner as time wears on.





 
2

log in

join