Dear SOG,

I find that the source of
difficulty lies in the way "freedom" is defined.
In our society we're primarily concerned with
freedom "Of": freedom of speech, freedom of
assembly, freedom of the press, freedom of
the individual to make a fortune.

Socialist societies - that claim to be "democratic"
although their political systems have few of the features
we would identify as prerequisites for democracy. They
are primarily concerned with freedom "from." Freedom from
supposed exploitation by people who want to make a fortune.
Or put another way,we interpret freedom as meaning :liberty."
They interpret it as meaning "equality".

Liberty and equality are uneasy bedfellows. In general, the
more you have of one, the less you will have of the other.
Your liberty to be richer than anyone else violates other
people's right to be your equal: other people's right to
be your equal violates your liberty to earn more than anyone
else.

The US has chosen to emphasize personal liberty, an emphasis
that can lead only to social inequality.

Socialist societies (like the former Soviet Union) had stressed
equality, an emphasis that as we know led to infringements of
personal liberty.

Most Western European countries have chosen a middle-way,
that of "democratic socialism"; as they attempt to balance
the demands of liberty and equality more evenly.

As I stated earlier, most people, of course, tend to simply
accept the system they have been socialized to believe in.

One final word - In a democracy, power is theoretically
vested in the people, who periodically delegate it to
their representatives. The difficulty is, of course,
that power may become vested in the representatives
themselves and in those individuals and interests who
have privileged access to the decision-making process.

Elites are present in all societies, communities,
amd organisations. Some people have greater skill,
determination, ambition, intelligence, or
manipulative ability than others, and they tend to
dominate the group. Political life is no different.
Of course in our political system - our system is
one that allows new rulers to replace old ones in
a continued "circulation of elites."

Lexi,

On that point, this is a great article on social democracy (from a lecture) by Tony Judt. I've posted it a few times before, however, IMO it's a good article:

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2009/dec/17/what-is-living-and-what-is-dead-in-social-democrac/

Sonofgloin,

Two very good illustrations,and both achieved results in very different ways, didn't they?

In the early 70's I remember Times Square as a seedy example which attracted the dregs of society. If I remember correctly, this was completely turned around in an exceedingly short period of time by one very strong and ethical mayor. Would love to see it now that it has become a family and tourist oriented area.

Your two examples just proves social change is possible. At this moment in time we Aussies are lacking in direction simply because our leaders are themselves constantly vacilating. We not only need clear directives - we should be entitled to them. As it now stands, we don't know from one day to the next what to expect. First we feel frustration, then the inevitable apathy sets in.

Worlwide we have been known for our optimism, enthusiasm and resilience, but this is now fast being eroded.
It is hard to find anyone on these threads who is upbeat about either the economy, our future, or our politicians. Very depressing.

I agree with the great Sir Winston Churchill on this topic:

>>Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.<<

Cheers,

Tony

Thanks Poirot,

Just finished the article. Found it very interesting.

Any form of regime is fine, democratic or otherwise, so long as it is voluntary, so long as the people affected have given their consent to be part of it.

This is not the case, in Australia and as far as I can tell, nowhere else (except perhaps in very small countries like Bhutan).

The problems start and end when an imaginary "social contract" is assumed. Any group of people may sign a social contract, and are entitled to join forces in order to defend themselves collectively, but while they may protect each other, they may not assume any right to protect others who have not signed their social contract and have not invited their protection. When a significant minority does not consent to join a given social contract, the best and most ethical way is to divide the land.

For your information, Sonofgloin, Ultra-Orthodox Jews in Israel are a distinct group from the Jewish settlers - and most of them are not even Zionist. Israel is a strange place because it consists of very different groups of people, whose only common denominator, the only reason for huddling together, is their wish to defend themselves in fear of a new Hitler. Apart from a Palestinian state or two, Israel itself should be divided into 3-4 independent states.