|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
joe_doufu
Joined: 09 May 2005
Location: Elsewhere
|
 Posted: Sat Dec 17, 2005 8:14 am Post subject: |
 |
|
Democracy doesn't work. Look at California. The people have taken power... through direct legislative action (ballot initiatives) they've voted in dozens of ridiculous projects and tied the hands of their elected officials. When Schwarzenegger was elected Governor I heard that something like 80% of the state budget was off-limits to his government because multiple and conflicting ballot initiatives had already set aside that much for various departments and projects, and the money couldn't be redirected. World's seventh largest economy and they can't even keep the electricity on because The People were convinced by TV commercials to screw the entire industry over.
Give me a benevolent dictatorship any day. I dream of living in Singapore or Hong Kong. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Satori
Joined: 09 Dec 2005
Location: Above it all
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 17, 2005 8:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
| joe_doufu wrote: |
Give me a benevolent dictatorship any day. I dream of living in Singapore or Hong Kong. |
Where corruption is so deeply ingrained, and so invisible, that it's the very foundation of the structure of beauraucracy? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Hater Depot
Joined: 29 Mar 2005
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 17, 2005 9:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
| The nice thing about democracy is that whatever the people deserve, they get. If they are well-informed and able to argue rationally they will get a good government with wise policies. If they are apathetic there will be corruption and interest groups will run rampant. If they are straight idiots they will vote to destroy everything they have and wonder what happened to it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 17, 2005 9:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
| joe_doufu wrote: |
Democracy doesn't work. Look at California. The people have taken power... through direct legislative action (ballot initiatives) they've voted in dozens of ridiculous projects and tied the hands of their elected officials. When Schwarzenegger was elected Governor I heard that something like 80% of the state budget was off-limits to his government because multiple and conflicting ballot initiatives had already set aside that much for various departments and projects, and the money couldn't be redirected. World's seventh largest economy and they can't even keep the electricity on because The People were convinced by TV commercials to screw the entire industry over.
Give me a benevolent dictatorship any day. I dream of living in Singapore or Hong Kong. |
Eh more like the industry was determined to screw over the state of CA.
While hardly shangri-la, CA is still just humming along.
Thng is a beneveloent dictatorship is a one in a million shot. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
joe_doufu
Joined: 09 May 2005
Location: Elsewhere
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 17, 2005 7:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Hater Depot wrote: |
| The nice thing about democracy is that whatever the people deserve, they get. If they are well-informed and able to argue rationally they will get a good government with wise policies. If they are apathetic there will be corruption and interest groups will run rampant. If they are straight idiots they will vote to destroy everything they have and wonder what happened to it. |
Well-said. It's sad about the children though. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
joe_doufu
Joined: 09 May 2005
Location: Elsewhere
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 17, 2005 7:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| bucheon bum wrote: |
| Eh more like the industry was determined to screw over the state of CA. |
Eh? I don't think you understand the situation. Californians voted for a change in law that (simply put) meant the power producers could charge as much as they wanted for power, and they'd be paid by government-supported middlemen, but that The People wouldn't pay more than a certain rate. Obviously the middlemen and government could only make up the difference for a little while. Only Californians would vote not to pay for the electricity they use, and then blame the industry for shutting off the supply. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
joe_doufu
Joined: 09 May 2005
Location: Elsewhere
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 17, 2005 7:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Satori wrote: |
| joe_doufu wrote: |
Give me a benevolent dictatorship any day. I dream of living in Singapore or Hong Kong. |
Where corruption is so deeply ingrained, and so invisible, that it's the very foundation of the structure of beauraucracy? |
As you say, the corruption is invisible, if it even exists. Hong Kong is a wonderful place to live. I haven't lived in Singapore, only visited, but it seems nice. Benevolent dictatorship, I'm telling you. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 17, 2005 8:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| joe_doufu wrote: |
| bucheon bum wrote: |
| Eh more like the industry was determined to screw over the state of CA. |
Eh? I don't think you understand the situation. Californians voted for a change in law that (simply put) meant the power producers could charge as much as they wanted for power, and they'd be paid by government-supported middlemen, but that The People wouldn't pay more than a certain rate. Obviously the middlemen and government could only make up the difference for a little while. Only Californians would vote not to pay for the electricity they use, and then blame the industry for shutting off the supply. |
I don't understand it?
1. The State assembly deregulated the industry, not the CA voters.
2. That bill, AB 1890, was drafted by one of the power companies in CA: southern Edison.
A good article on the events:
California's Deregulation Disaster
| Quote: |
A bill, AB 1890, was drafted in SoCalEd's offices. After a few perfunctory hearings, the legislature passed it unanimously and Governor Pete Wilson, then a presidential candidate, eagerly signed it. Some consumer and environmental groups were furious about a wide range of issues, most notably the reactor bailouts, which they worried (correctly) would prolong the operating life of deteriorating nukes and other polluters. So in 1998, as the bill was taking effect, a broad coalition put a repeal on the ballot. Surmounting virtually impossible odds, the coalition gathered more than 700,000 signatures in less than five months. Initial polls indicated the measure would be a close call, but the utilities spent $40 million, calling in their chits with labor, ethnic and other organizations around the state. The repeal went down, getting 27 percent of the vote.
But in their haste to cash out, SoCalEd and PG&E made some critical miscalculations. Most important was their assumption that there would always be a surplus of cheap wholesale electricity. So they sold off too much of their generating capacity and had too little of their own supply at a time when rates were still frozen. Then came a hot summer and a cold winter. Natural-gas prices shot up. Some key generators went down. Storms knocked out transmission lines. The nukes had problems. The utilities found themselves at the mercy of independent producers who'd snapped up generating capacity and could manipulate the wholesale market. Having dismantled key efficiency programs, the utilities now realized that their customers, buying power at fixed costs, had little incentive to conserve. So demand quickly outstripped cheap wholesale supply, which now spiked up at the whim of those with power to sell. PG&E and SoCalEd became wounded, bleeding whales at the mercy of sharks they could not control. |
The electric companies screwed up. Enron et co. took advantage.
| Quote: |
And in 1996, the legislature and Governor Pete Wilson joined forces with privately owned utilities and large power consumers to begin to deregulate the market. Under the plan, the utilities sold off most of their power plants, mostly to out-of-state companies. And transmission of power was handed over to a semi-private corporation, the California Independent Service Operator -- ISO.
Surprisingly, for nearly everyone, competition failed to develop. Only a few new power plants were built, as investors shied away from the uncertain regulatory and environmental climate in California. Meanwhile, demand for power kept rising, as the state and the economy grew. Still, practically no one saw a shortage coming.
In the new order, under deregulation, the California utilities had to buy power from the same plants they once owned, and from out-of-state plants. That new wholesale market was unregulated; the people who now owned the plants charged what they could get. But at the same time, the deregulation law would not let the utilities pass the costs along to their customers. The utilities, unable to raise rates enough, found themselves on the verge of bankruptcy. And some power producers wouldn't sell to them, creating a shortage. |
PBS NewsHour
And if you want info on the Enron perspective, I suggest checking out:
The Smartest Guys in the Room: The Amazing Rise and Scandalous Fall of Enron
Basically Enron was barely getting by, so it exploited the CA market to postpone bankruptcy for a year or two.
Say what you'd like, but the CA electorate wasn't directly responsible. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
VanIslander
Joined: 18 Aug 2003
Location: Geoje, Hadong, Tongyeong,... now in a small coastal island town outside Gyeongsangnamdo!
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 17, 2005 8:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| bucheon bum wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
| bucheon bum wrote: |
| Plato's ideal form of gov't is the way to go. Alas, it is a pipe dream and impossible to implement. 'Tis a shame. |
Really? Is it? I would really die of joy if we could discuss this as mature adults in pursuit of the truth, so I wanna egg you on...
...Plato's Republic is irrelevant today... |
How is it irrelevant today? |
Plato argued that democracy is preferable to its alternatives because:
Enlightened rule by one is the BEST but can become the WORST form of government in the hands of a tyrant.
Educated rule by the few is SECOND BEST but can become SECOND WORST.
Rule by the many is the THIRD BEST but is also the THIRD WORST.
Timeless words of wisdom. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 17, 2005 10:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
thanks for the summary but that doesn't answer my question.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 17, 2005 11:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| VanIslander wrote: |
| bucheon bum wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
| bucheon bum wrote: |
| Plato's ideal form of gov't is the way to go. Alas, it is a pipe dream and impossible to implement. 'Tis a shame. |
Really? Is it? I would really die of joy if we could discuss this as mature adults in pursuit of the truth, so I wanna egg you on...
...Plato's Republic is irrelevant today... |
How is it irrelevant today? |
Plato argued that democracy is preferable to its alternatives because:
Enlightened rule by one is the BEST but can become the WORST form of government in the hands of a tyrant.
Educated rule by the few is SECOND BEST but can become SECOND WORST.
Rule by the many is the THIRD BEST but is also the THIRD WORST.
Timeless words of wisdom. |
Timeless words of wisdom, but I could have sworn they came from Aristotle's Politics and were built upon by Polybius. At any rate, the argument that the rule of the many is thouroughly mediocre at worst and just above average at best is hardly a ringing endorsement for democracy. Polybius argued that one needed all systems of government within one, since there were aristocratic, democratic, and imperial aspects and interests all within the same state. Machiavelli expanded on this in his Discourses on Livy, his Renaissance anti-Bible, and Montesquieu gave it checks and balances in The Spirit of the Laws. Finally, certain men in America aspired to make the theory reality, and this chain of political philsophy found expression in the US Constitution, where imperial, democratic, and aristocratic powers check and balance each other in a slightly more subtler manner than the Roman Republic did.
Anyway, I owe an answer to BB's question.
It is not that Plato's Republic is entirely irrelevent, on the contrary, but the Politaea Socrates builds with his interlocutor would probably not come about. Remember, in order to prepare for this state, Socrates says it is necessary for the former inhabitants of the city over the age of ten to be slaughtered.
I think a wonderful example of how the Politaea Socrates builds might look in modernity is contained in A Brave New World. There, a great war ravages the Earth, and eventually the victors set up a state where they control how people are bred (which the essential form of the control of the Republic; remember that the first degeneration from aristocratic rule to timocratic rule occurs because the birth cycles were not carefully adhered to). The five types of government and their corresponding five types of souls (tyrannical, democratic, plutarchic, timarchic, and aristocratic) are represented by the Epsilons, Deltas, Gammas, Betas, and Alphas, the different classes of men bred by the factories. Progress and science are extolled in this Brave New World, but actually everything stays the same. Capitalism and socialism/communism are reconciled, because everyone is interested in the consumption of what the economy is offered, especially the super-drug soma, but because people are bred and psychologically prepared for their role in society, there is no class conflict and everyone enjoys the role in society they are given. The only thing forbidden and exiled in this Brave New World is actual art, groundbreaking philosophy, literature, or any medium of truly creative expression. Indeed, towards the end of the book the noble savage himself almost refutes the entire system by his wonderful and beautiful relationship with the tattered fragments of Shakespeare he grew up with (and the Mustafa admits that he definitely indulges himself in enjoying such secret and profane texts). Indeed, the great, creative, and unsatisfied men, the true alphas, eventually escape this great cave of men of iron, bronze, silver, and gold and live in voluntary and peaceful exile on unterraformed islands of rough weather. But one wonders if the great artistic spirits of anytime lived in spiritual states any different, and if exposure of their work to the public only resulted in anything other than confusion and distortion of their message.
I guess what I'm trying to say is, we already have a wonderful Constitution, the fruits of over two thousand years of the best Western political philosophy, in the on-going American experiment. Can a Brave New World possibly justify ten thousand Fallujahs to get there first? One should even consider if the Republic was meant by Plato to be a working theory of the perfect state. I would say it wasn't, and that he wrote another work to guide worldy statescraft, but that would take much more time to convincingly argue.
So, obviously Plato's Republic is not irrelevent, but it may not be a desirable alternative government either. I personally am not pro-democracy, but this American thing we have going is usually pretty good, although even De Tocqueville posited that the checks and balances favored democracy just a little too much, so that the private interests and personal gain that characterizes the most common indulgence of the American Congress might be what brings the system down. In the meantime, I am going to recommend that we forgo those ten thousand Fallujahs and urge Europe to get on board with a credible Constitution. As far as European goes, the American Constitution is as European and Western a document as any, even if it was not put into effect on properly European soil (and why not? Ask the great many Native American war dead this question). Europe is facing a new birth, it should stick with what has worked elsewhere in the West and alter a few points only to satisfy certain local mores, the Second Amendment can be left out. Remember, the American system is not a true democracy, as I am sure a lot of Leftists on this board will agree. It is a Republic, and it is the better for balancing its democratic nature alongside its imperial and aristocratic natures. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 18, 2005 6:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Benevolent dictatorship, I'm telling you. |
This is exactly why you right wingers scare the bejeezus out of the rest of us, Mr. doufu. First you twist what 'left' and 'right' mean so no one can distinguish between them and then you run the country so far into debt that China holds the deed on our future. After that you poke holes in the Constitution with your Patriot Act. Finally you guys admit that democracy ain't all that good anyway. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
joe_doufu
Joined: 09 May 2005
Location: Elsewhere
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 18, 2005 6:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Benevolent dictatorship, I'm telling you. |
This is exactly why you right wingers scare the bejeezus out of the rest of us, Mr. doufu. First you twist what 'left' and 'right' mean so no one can distinguish between them and then you run the country so far into debt that China holds the deed on our future. After that you poke holes in the Constitution with your Patriot Act. Finally you guys admit that democracy ain't all that good anyway. |
When did I become a "right winger" to you? That's just weird. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 18, 2005 11:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| VanIslander wrote: |
| bucheon bum wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
| bucheon bum wrote: |
| Plato's ideal form of gov't is the way to go. Alas, it is a pipe dream and impossible to implement. 'Tis a shame. |
Really? Is it? I would really die of joy if we could discuss this as mature adults in pursuit of the truth, so I wanna egg you on...
...Plato's Republic is irrelevant today... |
How is it irrelevant today? |
Plato argued that democracy is preferable to its alternatives because:
Enlightened rule by one is the BEST but can become the WORST form of government in the hands of a tyrant.
Educated rule by the few is SECOND BEST but can become SECOND WORST.
Rule by the many is the THIRD BEST but is also the THIRD WORST.
Timeless words of wisdom. |
Timeless words of wisdom, but I could have sworn they came from Aristotle's Politics and were built upon by Polybius. At any rate, the argument that the rule of the many is thouroughly mediocre at worst and just above average at best is hardly a ringing endorsement for democracy. Polybius argued that one needed all systems of government within one, since there were aristocratic, democratic, and imperial aspects and interests all within the same state. Machiavelli expanded on this in his Discourses on Livy, his Renaissance anti-Bible, and Montesquieu gave it checks and balances in The Spirit of the Laws. Finally, certain men in America aspired to make the theory reality, and this chain of political philsophy found expression in the US Constitution, where imperial, democratic, and aristocratic powers check and balance each other in a slightly more subtler manner than the Roman Republic did.
Anyway, I owe an answer to BB's question.
It is not that Plato's Republic is entirely irrelevent, on the contrary, but the Politaea Socrates builds with his interlocutor would probably not come about. Remember, in order to prepare for this state, Socrates says it is necessary for the former inhabitants of the city over the age of ten to be slaughtered.
I think a wonderful example of how the Politaea Socrates builds might look in modernity is contained in A Brave New World. There, a great war ravages the Earth, and eventually the victors set up a state where they control how people are bred (which the essential form of the control of the Republic; remember that the first degeneration from aristocratic rule to timocratic rule occurs because the birth cycles were not carefully adhered to). The five types of government and their corresponding five types of souls (tyrannical, democratic, plutarchic, timarchic, and aristocratic) are represented by the Epsilons, Deltas, Gammas, Betas, and Alphas, the different classes of men bred by the factories. Progress and science are extolled in this Brave New World, but actually everything stays the same. Capitalism and socialism/communism are reconciled, because everyone is interested in the consumption of what the economy is offered, especially the super-drug soma, but because people are bred and psychologically prepared for their role in society, there is no class conflict and everyone enjoys the role in society they are given. The only thing forbidden and exiled in this Brave New World is actual art, groundbreaking philosophy, literature, or any medium of truly creative expression. Indeed, towards the end of the book the noble savage himself almost refutes the entire system by his wonderful and beautiful relationship with the tattered fragments of Shakespeare he grew up with (and the Mustafa admits that he definitely indulges himself in enjoying such secret and profane texts). Indeed, the great, creative, and unsatisfied men, the true alphas, eventually escape this great cave of men of iron, bronze, silver, and gold and live in voluntary and peaceful exile on unterraformed islands of rough weather. But one wonders if the great artistic spirits of anytime lived in spiritual states any different, and if exposure of their work to the public only resulted in anything other than confusion and distortion of their message.
I guess what I'm trying to say is, we already have a wonderful Constitution, the fruits of over two thousand years of the best Western political philosophy, in the on-going American experiment. Can a Brave New World possibly justify ten thousand Fallujahs to get there first? One should even consider if the Republic was meant by Plato to be a working theory of the perfect state. I would say it wasn't, and that he wrote another work to guide worldy statescraft, but that would take much more time to convincingly argue.
So, obviously Plato's Republic is not irrelevent, but it may not be a desirable alternative government either. I personally am not pro-democracy, but this American thing we have going is usually pretty good, although even De Tocqueville posited that the checks and balances favored democracy just a little too much, so that the private interests and personal gain that characterizes the most common indulgence of the American Congress might be what brings the system down. In the meantime, I am going to recommend that we forgo those ten thousand Fallujahs and urge Europe to get on board with a credible Constitution. As far as European goes, the American Constitution is as European and Western a document as any, even if it was not put into effect on properly European soil (and why not? Ask the great many Native American war dead this question). Europe is facing a new birth, it should stick with what has worked elsewhere in the West and alter a few points only to satisfy certain local mores, the Second Amendment can be left out. Remember, the American system is not a true democracy, as I am sure a lot of Leftists on this board will agree. It is a Republic, and it is the better for balancing its democratic nature alongside its imperial and aristocratic natures. |
Thanks for that extensive answer. To be honest, I'm not too familiar with Plato or any of the classical philosophers. I've recently been reading "A March to Folly" by the woman quoted in my sig. and in her opening she makes a brief reference to Plato's ideas. This thread reminded me of that, so I felt compelled to throw in a brief line about that.
I do think the constitution is pretty remarkable. The United States was created in remarkable circumstances, which will most likely never be seen again (certainly not in our lifetimes). The constitution was one product of those circumstances. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nowhere Man
Joined: 08 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 19, 2005 12:58 am Post subject: ... |
|
|
What do I not like about democracy...or our current situation?
What I really don't like about democracy, those who are proud of ours, and those who want to spread our democracy around is that we don't have democracy , we have a republic. The difference? Direct as opposed to representative government. And yes, that is a HUGE difference, not just a matter of semantics.
The problem with our version of the republic is ultimately the problem of any form of government: corruption.
Our specific problem is that we are more capitalist than we are @democratic@ or @republican@.
Of course, at the moment, there are limited alternatives. I hoped that as communism imploded, we'd take a closer look at what's wrong with our government instead of just beaming over how good we have it compared to the commies. Hasn't really happened, but it's still possible.
And wile the benevolent dictator may seem appealing, dictators die, and, more importantly, it'd be far harder to have the discussion we're having here and now were we in Singapore.
I'd agree that we have the government we deserve. A more informed, less malleable populace would give us better results. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
