Moffers,
the end of October is close, so I try to summarize my conclusions. Let me
thank once again all the contributors (and also all the lurkers).
Firstly, some considerations about the last posts:
JON:
> ... if you ask me, I'd say America is the highest Quality
> country on earth. Could it be better? Sure. But it's the best the world
has
> ever seen.
Uh? I admire your sureness. Where does it come from? The CNN maybe? Here
also we have millions of persons telling that Italy is the best country on
earth, and I'm sure that everywhere you go you'll find someone saying the
same.
> With the election of our next President just around the corner, the
internet
> is literally overflowing with political rhetoric. Obviously the topic of
> democracy gets mentioned. I've noticed several people in the political
> newsgroups point out that America is not a TRUE democracy (these people
tend
> to be pro-socialism, pro-communism, pro-anarchy, etc).
Socialists, communists, anarchists.....hey! No Nazis against the USA? It's a
little worrying :-) .....
----------
BO:
> As I see it Intellect can't be "invaded" by Social values -
> they are fire and water - but an intellect-influenced culture (or
> "country") can return to a more social influenced status - if need
> be, because it is a more solid latch.
>
Right, Bo. Q-social and q-intellect are like fire and water. I think
my "invasion" idea is related to my concept of "environment". In the past I
suggested public opinion as the environment in which intellectual patterns
arise, meet, fight.... Just like water extinguishes fire when it invades a
burning area, social values are trying to extinguish intellectual values
invading public opinion.
> The examples of "buying writers and readers" are examples of how
> social roots are visible wherever one digs, but presents no invasion -
> except disappointing those who want everything to be purely
> "objective" (Intellect's chief value). See how the SOL idea is proved
> over and over again!
Here I don't understand (sorry). What has to do objectivity and SOL with my
reflections? The MOQ talks about the social/intellectual struggle. My
impression is that today the matter is to understand if intellect is able to
dominate the market, without destroying it. One of the mistakes of
communism has been to destroy the market. One of the mistakes of democracy
is IMO to let free-hands to the market. That's all.
> One other thing: The topic of this month reflects the belief that
> modern (western) countries are good SOCIAL patterns, but can be
> improved. Carrying the analogy a step down; that a mammal is a
> better BIOLOGICAL pattern than an amoeba. This is not so IMO,
> they are more evolved ...evolved enough to become carriers of the
> next value level, and my idea is that by now Intellect has evolved far
> enough to support a new level.
Well my idea is the contrary. Since the intellect can't dominate the social,
the focus of the intellect can be only directed below. IMO intellect has not
yet evolved enough to have the possibility to elevate its sight upwards.
> Look, it's always the higher level that judges the lower one in the
> light of its own values, so it is Intellect that judges societies and
> says that democracy is good, but not good enough ...and brings up
> all those examples of its corruption. This demonstrates of how
> terribly hard it is to tear loose from the Intellect ..and adopt the
> Quality p.o.v.
You are very clever to bring only the examples supporting your theories...
IMO the term "judge" is not appropriate when applied to all levels. Every
level has a natural tendency to search its own freedom from the below level.
"Judging" is merely intellectual. When democracy judges communism, it's
not a *vertical* struggle between two different levels: it's an *horizontal*
struggle to gain the primacy within the intellectual level. The whole
struggle is about to find the best way to dominate the social (i.e. to find
the best economic system) by assuring intellectual rights to the citizens.
On one side we have the "human rights" (freedom mainly), on the other side
there is the idea of "equality" carried to the extremes.
-------------
3WD
>
> DAN
> I feel democracy here in the US and that form of government called
democracy
> in other parts of the world are not at all the same.
>
> 3WD
> The form of government in any particular place is so integrated with all
other
> values that it is difficult to separate their influence and
> interdependency on each other. Another related issue is depth. Not only
> are there , as Rick indicated earlier, three quasi independent branches
> of government, but just like the MoQ there are four distinct levels;
> national, state or provincial, local, and individual . In theory these
> levels are ordered very much like the dominance hierarchy of the MoQ:
>
> Intellectual Level- Individual
> Social Level-Local
> Biological Level-State
> InOrganic Level-National
>
> The highest level of rights and responsibilities, in theory, lie with
> the individual. The ideas of an individual (the minority of one) have the
> right, the moral authority, to try to change or dominant all the lower
> levels as long as this is done peaceably and within the jointly agreed
> upon rules.
It's very interesting your parallelism between the MOQ levels and the
government levels. The value of a modern social structure resides in the
consideration given to the components, not only as minorities, rather as
individuals. One of the limits of our society is exactly this one: they
invented "Nations" based upon a simple set of shared (by the most) values.
As you rightly point out in your "Israel and India" example, the high number
of organized minorities causes big problems for the system to be effective.
Here is another critical point for our modern democracies: the global
village conditions the creation of minorities everywhere, so the original
shared values become surpassed.
What is the solution? To stop the movement of people? To forget the value of
the original social roots? Or....?
-----------------
DAN:
> ..... Here are a couple differences
> which I may be hazy on: here in the States we do not use majority vote
> to determine elections while from what I understand many other nations
> do use such a system. As far as other freedoms one of our basic rights
> built into the Constitution is the right to bear arms. Again, I am not
> really that familiar with firearm laws in other nations but from what I
> understand they are not so liberal. Please correct me if I am wrong. The
> right to bear arms stands fundamental to government by the people, for
> the people and may be one of our most Dynamic rights here in the States
> for it guarantees the people power to overthrow government should it
> become that which the people no longer deem in their best interests.
This about arms is another interesting point. I know it's a hot issue there.
Here we have these rules: we have the right to bear arms only for personal
defense (there's a law to distinguish arms for hunting, personal defense,
and war). And if we want to buy a revolver, firstly we must obtain a
license, just like to drive a car. And, just like cars, every arm must be
reported to the authorities. After all, to manage an arm can be as
dangerous as to drive a car.
I don't know if this is lack of freedom... after all, if I want I can buy a
gun for my personal defense. But the point is not about laws, it's about our
way of thinking. I WILL NEVER BUY a gun. Arms here are not so popular among
the population like there. IMO the duty for my personal defense is of the
police. And owning a gun is maybe more dangerous than not owning.
And isn't this guarantee to overthrow government another farce? The biggest
social advancements we had in Italy in the last 50 years come from non
violent movements which have influenced the public opinion. While the
violent (terroristic) movements against the government have caused
thousands of victims, with no good results.
The main usage of guns is to kill someone else. Here is common thought that
the freedom to bear arms in America is supported mainly by the lobby of the
gun makers. It's very difficult to understand why American people feel that
to
own a gun is normal, while it's morally censored to smoke cigarettes.
> Is capital punishment and our right to bear arms in this country linked
> to our preconditioned "wild west" values? Perhaps.
I think so, but I'm not American, so I can't be sure of it. I just can say
that here one who bear arms is automatically related more easily to a
criminal than to an hero. I can't imagine the right to bear arms as a
human right.
Farces. When you say "the will of the majority is a farce", I agree with
you only in part. In many occasions, it's impossible for a government to
take a decision without the public opinion's support. Take the example of
smoking. Like arms makers, the lobby of tobacco is very strong and has
always tried to obstruct any anti tobacco law. Those laws have been possible
also thanks to a majority among the public opinion. At the contrary it seems
that currently the American public opinion is not still enough contrary to
arms to permit a legal limitation to the right to bear arms. So we are back
to one of my firsts questions. A free and informed public opinion is
necessary for a good democracy, but today the public opinion is easily
conditioned by the media (i.e. the market, i.e. the social), so it ceases to
be free and informed. This is the demagogy I was talking about.
--------------
And now my personal conclusion. The original question was: "Is democracy the
best (most moral) option for the q-social level?".
In the term "Democracy", the "Demos" which owns the power does not indicate
single individuals, rather it's a social aggregation of masses, organized in
majority and minorities. As our world is going to a fragmentation of diverse
populations diffused on the whole surface of the planet, a political system
in which every minority can condition the government (India, Israel... and
Italy, also) is surpassed, as rightly pointed out by Dave, not because
it's not democratic, rather because it doesn't work. Exactly what Richard
expressed about the James Madison's works.
In many countries, like USA and UK, this problem has been solved by a system
in which only two parties are in fact possible. Maybe less democratic (in
fact only a minority votes there), but working.
But the question was not about a working system. It was about a moral (in
moq terms) system. IMO a moral system must have of course dynamism, more
intellectually than socially. Too many evidences tell me that the influence
of the market (social) on the public opinion is reducing any intellectual
dynamism. That's why the biggest democracy on earth is still full of
ancestral "wild west" values, and its dynamism is more social than
intellectual. And that's why we have just "working solutions" and we are
blind to many problems of the world.
So I did not find my answer. I'm not sure that democracy is able to support
new dynamic enhancements. That is, I'm not sure it's the most moral
solution.
I've seen the Horse's suggestions for November. In case, hope my thoughts
can stimulate the future discussions.
tks
Marco.
------- End of forwarded message -------
MOQ.org - http://www.moq.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:03:27 BST