.

Dear Grim,

.

"The classic simple argument against democracy is 2 wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for dinner."

I see that as a classical example of black humour.

I think it's quite funny. It's the fruit of someone's imagination. But it has nothing to do with reality. Auto-derision is healthy but should never be confused with reality.

I agree with and share all the concerns you have expressed in your last two posts.

Thank you for that introduction to Hamilton Albert Long's book on "The American Ideal of 1776". I shall read it with interest.

It seems to me that Edmund Burke, whom you quote, is something of an idealist. I have had quite a lot of contact with various Australian and French "representatives" over the years, including our ex-prime ministers, Howard and Rudd (even a quiet chat with the latter last year here in Paris).

Though I have nearly always received prompt, polite and instructive responses from the Australian "representatives" to my written queries on specific issues, the French generally tend to ignore them, except on the local, municipal level.

My impression is that, generally speaking, the "representatives'" allegiance to the political party they represent takes precedence over all other considerations.

Indeed, it is crystal clear to me that they have little or no power, individually, even to represent themselves, let alone anybody else. Whatever power they might have is strictly collective. They are there to vote on party lines and that's it.

They would like to have us believe that they are invested in political power from the "constituency", as you say, but the hard reality is that the only power they hold is invested in them by their party. The party dumps them if they dare cross the line. It is the party that the "constituency" invests, not the individual.

Your quest for the "holy grail" is thoroughly commendable. I wish you well in your endeavours.

I, personally, encourage you to reflect on the remarkable innovation of the Ancient Athenians 2 500 years ago and their modern emulators, the Icelanders.

.

Dear Banjo,
You write:<< They would like to have us believe that they are invested in political power from the "constituency"... but the hard reality is that the only power they hold is invested in them by their party. The party dumps them if they dare cross the line. It is the party that the "constituency" invests, not the individual.>>
This unpalatable fact is the reason political parties are incompatible with democracy. Only informed independents who seek the best for the country and who are prepared to compromise to reach solutions acceptable to all, can give us democratic government. Iceland being a good example; but they can only do that because of the small population and consequent lack of anonymity that demands accountability.

.

Dear landrights4all,

.

" ... up to half the unemployed in public housing might be interested, ... If it was as productive as hoped, perhaps other unemployed not in public housing would like to participate in building public housing for themselves .... ultimately this could become half of the unemployed workforce? ... perhaps some retirees would round it up to 5%."

I am afraid you have lost me with your mathematics there, landrights4all. I was OK up to "half of the unemployed workforce", then when you added on "some retirees" it dropped back to "5%", which you present as "rounded up to 5%". Very confusing.

So let's forget about the retirees for the moment.

The total workforce is 11.5 million. The unemployed workforce is 658 000 as of January 2013. Half of that is 329 000.

You propose land hand-outs for about 329 000 unemployed persons plus their families - a total population of between 329 000 and a million or more. Subject to expulsion of families failing to meet their commitments.

That's quite a lot of tents and makeshift shanties. Just how solid would they be? Wooden sticks and corrugated iron? What would the security be like in those ghettos? How about the infrastructure? Streets? Electricity? Water? Sanitary services? Street lighting? Hospitals and medical services?

If each shanty is 10sq m or less do they touch or are they to be well separated from each other. What about the inevitable noise and lack of privacy?

Are these unemployed people to be parked in these ghettos permanently, with no prospect of finding work, no longer integrated into society?

Locking up nearly a million people in ghettos or scattering them around the Australian desert would not seem a very attractive prospect for me and my kids if I were on the dole. It is not the way I should like to see my country treating anybody, especially the poor and defenseless.

I have no idea what your motivations are, landrights4all. I can only hope they are innocent, misguided generosity and not some cynical ploy of callous inhumanity in disguise.

.

.

Dear ybgirp,

.

As I already wrote on page 7 of this thread, I confirm:

"I agree that abolishing political parties might be an improvement on the present system. We could give that a try. Hopefully the inconveniences would not outweigh the advantages."

.

Banjo
I've got no idea why you are imposing images of "tents and makeshift shanties" "Wooden sticks and corrugated iron" "ghettos" "scattering them around the Australian desert" onto what I have proposed - have you actually read it?

When you ask me a question I think it is reasonable to think you will listen to the answer, not just scan it and assume things to support your own preferred imaginings. There is nothing in what I said to allow you to think that this is socially unintegrated. You need to be able to clear your mind to receive something new. This proposal is all about social integration and participation. I have already given you all you would need to realise this, including a link to a web site with modern images of suburban cooperation which even someone with a closed mind could not ignore.

Dear Landrights4all,

I understand that it may be tiresome, but if you believe it's important to protect life, then it's crucial to understand exactly what life is and all about, which may then be protected.

I'm glad that you answered "No" to my third question, that life doesn't only mean humans. In contrast, however, you mentioned "all based on equality of men in balance with the natural world", which seem to exclude all other life-forms but men (and women, I assume) from being equal.

If all men are equal (a concept I find strange and contrary to empirical evidence), why should non-humans be unequal? why should they for example have less rights to land, water, air and sunlight?
Also, where would you draw the line between [equal] men and [unequal] animals? should "men" for example include those on the fringes of humanity (the unborn, the unconscious/nearly-dead, mass-murderer-psychopaths, the severely-retarded, etc.), as well as those already dead, but who may perhaps be brought back to life (if we invested all our resources in scientific-research to that end)? After all, if all men were equal, including those of the future, then why not those of the past?

Obviously, if everyone without discrimination, including animals, plants and microbes, past present and future deserves land, water, air and sunlight rights, then there isn't enough to go around.

Next you state: "Life's requirements are in a hierarchy - first physical, then as those needs are secured, spiritual".

As you place physical needs before the spiritual, and given there isn't and never will be enough to fulfil everyone's physical needs, it implies that spiritual needs should never be attended to.

Sorry, but I find these priorities wrong because I believe that life's purpose is spiritual, that biological existence on its own, including its social extensions, is of no value.

Yes, I also believe that men should generally have the opportunity to live on the land, breath fresh air, drink clear water and absorb [moderate-amounts-of] sunlight, but the purpose of that is to allow them the peace to grow spiritually, not to make them "equal" to others.