> B Sandford writes:
> > Government is, in practice, a small elite making laws that bind a
> > mass. It is very rare for all people who are going to be bound by a
> > law to make the law and agree to abide by it. When did you last have
> > genuine input into the formulation of a law by which you were to be
> > bound? Voting for a 'representative' who you've never met and has
> > never heard of you does not, obviously, count.
>
> You are using the term government to mean bad government. You should
> clarify that is what you mean before you start. When I use the term
> government, I mean an institution that works to ensure that all
> citizens are political "haves" and economic "haves" and that there are
> no citizens that are political or economic "have nots". I agree that
> no current governments are close enough to this ideal.
My terms are quite clear as I refer, explicitly, to government 'in
practice'. I am not talking about the mush on government that's handed out
in pol. sci. theory classes. Your agreement that no current governments come
close to what we believe they should be would seem to validate my view of
what government *is*, making any need for your qualifier - *bad*, entirely
redundant. I'm not dealing in semantics here, just simple observations of
things as they are - woefully inadequate.
> > > Social democracies generally work that way.
> >
> > Social democracies are benign dictatorships -
>
> No, there are four main forms of government: tyrannical despotism,
> benevolent despotism, constitutional oligarchy, and constitutional
> democracy. A benign dictatorship is a form of benevolent despotism.
> The governments of NZ and Norway are both somewhere between
> constitutional oligarchy and constitutional democracy. They are not
> dictatorships, benign or otherwise.
No, this is pol. sci. terminology obscuring reality. FOrget the buzzword
labels, government is best understood in terms of who actually rules ie
where actual agenda defining and decision making power reside, not by
reference to formal institutions (that obscure reality). NZ is a
dictatorship, albeit of a clique, because effective decision making resides
in Cabinet and the ruling Caucus. In a Westminster system, with tight party
discipline, it cannot be otherwise. A majority for the purposes of formal
decision making in NZ, given our population of 3.7m, is 61. There is no
sovereignty outside of this parliamentary majority.
> You're saying the people of the US, Norway, NZ, Canada, etc, are all
> just stupid sheep. It's not true. Sure, we are all being manipulated
> by oligarchies, political and economic, but most of us are willing
> accomplices. That's why there are no revolutions at the moment.
I suspect that many are unwitting accomplices who's main problem is staying
ahead of today's shit. Then there are some who are well-rewarded and,
consequently, docile pillars of the system. Then there are the sad victims
who just want to milk the world for all they can get out of it. It goes
on.... Sorry if you're in the 'willing accomplices' group.
> > Anarchism does not mean that there are no rules, processes, laws, bodies
> > charged with tasks, duties, obligations - it is not the absence of
> > organisation and order. Anarchism simply has a distinct way of creating,
> > administering and validating the 'bones' of society.
>
> Yes, but that wasn't Milutin's calim.
And...? It wasn't my intention to paraphrase the esteemed Milutin, just to
present my own humble view.
cheers
b
> martin
>
> Martin Smith Email: [log in to unmask]
> P.O. Box 1034 Bekkajordet Tel. : +47 330 35700
> N-3194 HORTEN, Norway Fax. : +47 330 35701
>
|