... or is it something else, something we know but don't want to see let alone hear. A new day, a new way! - Vaping: Democracy in action?
Democracy in action?
- Thread starter Switched
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
Wow, who knew that it was actually a dictatorship...question is, who exactly is dictating (ie, who has the deepest pockets?)?!
and the EU is supposed to be more liberal and democratic then us...
says who?
Maybe wealth steers democracy but there is the fundamental aspect of the majority making the rules. Most people have no need for tobacco or tobacco products and legislation happens around this fact. Notice how most people drink and there are abundant allowances for accessing and consuming alcohol. Personally I view alcohol more devastating than tobacco on both an individual level and societal level (imho).
Trudeau said it best when he said that the measure of a democracy is in how well it protects its minorities.
Kalvinf - I really like what you said about "maybe wealth steers democracy". It shouldn't. Numbers should steer democracy. The poorest should have the same voice as the wealthiest. Otherwise we're not a democracy - we're an econocracy.
i think that is called a plutocracy
Yeah - I thought that too - but I had a look around and discovered that there is a new word - econocracy - where priority is placed on wealth over people. Not sure if it's exactly correct for this - but I do like new words...
(scrabble anyone?)
Looks like plutocracy and econocracy are synonymous - oops, I'm out of vowels now - toss me the letters bag Kat.
Here's a bit of light reading on one theory of Econocracy....
"The subtle, almost invisible ways in which an econocracy differs from a democracy constitute a kind of doublethink, a doublethink that contributes mightily to the internal inconsistencies of western societies. One aspect of this doublethink is that the rights of the corporation have gradually replaced the rights of the individual as the basis of society, which means of course that corporate survival and corporate interests, not the survival and prosperity of the individual, have become the economic engine. Despite the propaganda that the corporate owned media is feeding us, corporate interests have become the highest priority of our society, more important than the quality of life, more important than life itself.
It follows from this doublethink that all profits flow first to the corporation and then through to the individuals that direct it, own shares in it, and are employed by it. This separates these individuals from the corporation, so that for the most part it is only the corporation that can be held accountable while the individuals in it profit. This further enables individuals to be shielded from punishment for wrongdoing, and much more significantly, from having to face the personal and moral implications of knowingly committing and profiting by irresponsible, inhumane and criminal actions. This shielding of the individual enables their directors to ruthlessly, single-mindedly and irresponsibly pursue the bottom line to any extent that they think they can get away with. To make things worse, it is the duty of the Corporation to maximize profitability for its shareholders by any legal means possible." (Foundations of a Global Econocracy | Jeff Eisen, Ph.D.)
"The subtle, almost invisible ways in which an econocracy differs from a democracy constitute a kind of doublethink, a doublethink that contributes mightily to the internal inconsistencies of western societies. One aspect of this doublethink is that the rights of the corporation have gradually replaced the rights of the individual as the basis of society, which means of course that corporate survival and corporate interests, not the survival and prosperity of the individual, have become the economic engine. Despite the propaganda that the corporate owned media is feeding us, corporate interests have become the highest priority of our society, more important than the quality of life, more important than life itself.
It follows from this doublethink that all profits flow first to the corporation and then through to the individuals that direct it, own shares in it, and are employed by it. This separates these individuals from the corporation, so that for the most part it is only the corporation that can be held accountable while the individuals in it profit. This further enables individuals to be shielded from punishment for wrongdoing, and much more significantly, from having to face the personal and moral implications of knowingly committing and profiting by irresponsible, inhumane and criminal actions. This shielding of the individual enables their directors to ruthlessly, single-mindedly and irresponsibly pursue the bottom line to any extent that they think they can get away with. To make things worse, it is the duty of the Corporation to maximize profitability for its shareholders by any legal means possible." (Foundations of a Global Econocracy | Jeff Eisen, Ph.D.)
Great find Kat I'll see your econocracy and raise ...
Marxism failed by not taking into account two aspects of human nature, selfishness and the survival drive. Margaret Thatcher was of the opinion that due to the same considerations of human nature, there were no viable alternatives to capitalism. However by redefining profitability you neither have to change human nature nor abandon capitalism! Profitability can be redefined by extending its beneficiaries from the individual or corporate selves (as well as other collective selves like family, religion, and nation) to the whole self system of the humansphere. This redefinition takes advantage of human nature and redirects it to benefit the world rather than plundering it. This is just the concept of enlightened self-interest expressed on the corporate level. **
If we redefined what it is to be profitable, neither human selfishness, nor the survival drive, nor the drive to corporate profitability would have to be changed.
Initially this would lead to a reduction in government revenue from corporate taxation. However this would be more than compensated for by a drastic reduction in expenditures for government services, subsidies, regulatory services, and the size of the social safety net. Many if not all of these governmental functions are now necessitated by corporate irresponsibility, but in the new order, where corporations are taxed or compensated for the way they impact social and environmental systems, the need for many of these government services will be dramatically reduced, and others will be assumed by the corporations themselves. In addition the consumption and destruction of our planet will be gradually reversed as corporations find it more profitable to conserve and restore to consume and destroy. The Omnius Manifesto | Jeff Eisen, Ph.D.
I'd like to see were socialism fits into this?
I'll see your econocracy and raise ...Marxism failed by not taking into account two aspects of human nature, selfishness and the survival drive. Margaret Thatcher was of the opinion that due to the same considerations of human nature, there were no viable alternatives to capitalism. However by redefining profitability you neither have to change human nature nor abandon capitalism! Profitability can be redefined by extending its beneficiaries from the individual or corporate selves (as well as other collective selves like family, religion, and nation) to the whole self system of the humansphere. This redefinition takes advantage of human nature and redirects it to benefit the world rather than plundering it. This is just the concept of enlightened self-interest expressed on the corporate level. **
If we redefined what it is to be profitable, neither human selfishness, nor the survival drive, nor the drive to corporate profitability would have to be changed.
Initially this would lead to a reduction in government revenue from corporate taxation. However this would be more than compensated for by a drastic reduction in expenditures for government services, subsidies, regulatory services, and the size of the social safety net. Many if not all of these governmental functions are now necessitated by corporate irresponsibility, but in the new order, where corporations are taxed or compensated for the way they impact social and environmental systems, the need for many of these government services will be dramatically reduced, and others will be assumed by the corporations themselves. In addition the consumption and destruction of our planet will be gradually reversed as corporations find it more profitable to conserve and restore to consume and destroy. The Omnius Manifesto | Jeff Eisen, Ph.D.
I'd like to see were socialism fits into this?
Another fine read is The Grand Chessboard by Zbigniew Brzezinski (pronounce zigniev burzinski) written in 1997. Brzezinski was Carter's National Security Advisor from 1977 - 81.
What I find fascinating is -- what was written then, is unfolding before our very eyes. It goes without saying in order to progress as a Nation, one needs a plan and a vision. Let's just say I am not to fussy on how they achieve the end, This book is an eye opener on many many levels.
What I find fascinating is -- what was written then, is unfolding before our very eyes. It goes without saying in order to progress as a Nation, one needs a plan and a vision. Let's just say I am not to fussy on how they achieve the end, This book is an eye opener on many many levels.
Great find Kat
.......
Initially this would lead to a reduction in government revenue from corporate taxation. However this would be more than compensated for by a drastic reduction in expenditures for government services, subsidies, regulatory services, and the size of the social safety net. Many if not all of these governmental functions are now necessitated by corporate irresponsibility, but in the new order, where corporations are taxed or compensated for the way they impact social and environmental systems, the need for many of these government services will be dramatically reduced, and others will be assumed by the corporations themselves. In addition the consumption and destruction of our planet will be gradually reversed as corporations find it more profitable to conserve and restore to consume and destroy. The Omnius Manifesto | Jeff Eisen, Ph.D.
I'd like to see were socialism fits into this?
I'll admit - while I like Dr Eisen's view of correcting corporate culture - (and his detailed definition of econocracy) - I don't see his implementations as realistic (1). They seem quite "paternalistic" - and I think he loses credibility further with his views on how humanity needs to change (2) (that we all need to be unified in one-ness and enlightenment).
(1) An ethical corporate culture requires many laws and fines and oversight to begin to implement and then to follow that implementation through for the long term. There are just too many people who look at profit then avoid any further responsibility that might interfere with their bottom line. Government included (government especially).
The "occupy" movement started as a backlash to that - but has lost it's direction and voice.
I believe that consumer pressure is about the only thing that will really move the mountain. But government does need to cooperate and listen to it's citizen's voices - making it truely unprofitable to run on the basis of "profit with no concern for effect".
(2) Unfortunately, Dr. Eisen fails to develop an political or economic strategy for his ideal. Instead, he focuses on promoting a quasi-psycological-religious movement to address the problems with implementing his system. That we should all become "enlightened and unified". But who will define that? And what if it goes against my personal beliefs? Or yours? Or your grandmothers? Then what? (...then we have another inquisition).
Utopian idealogies are not new in the world. They don't work - because they fail to respect individual choice, belief and religious freedom.
I'd love to see someone pick up the occupy movement, combine it Eisens corporate ethical standards and find a way to implement that into every socio-political system on earth - without touching individual freedom of choice, religion and culture. That would be something. Not Utopia - just a better a future.
Can't argue with that.
WRT the occupy movement, the majority in attendance didn't know why they were moving, well at least not what was seen on the news So yup it did not have the appropriate effect or is intended a better word?
WRT the occupy movement, the majority in attendance didn't know why they were moving, well at least not what was seen on the news
So yup it did not have the appropriate effect or is intended a better word?- Status
Similar threads
