Democracy without negation.

[diamantis]

According to my judgement,politics should not serve as an engine of negativity,because it has been invented to serve the common good.
Therefore,since political sides are prone to negativity,due to occasional oppossitions,it is unavoidable that they based on dogmas ,as a shield against their opponents.
These political dogmas,in turn,due to their inherited negation,create sects,that are sources of new dogmas, or "subdogmas".
Finally,in order to protect politics from this unhealthy environment,political sides ought to consider all their occasional opponents as sharing the same interest for progress as they do,in order to protect politics from negativity.

[Fido]

Originally Posted by diamantis

According to my judgement,politics should not serve as an engine of negativity,because it has been invented to serve the common good.
Therefore,since political parties are prone to negativity,due to occasional oppossitions,it is unavoidable that they based on dogmas ,as a shield against their opponents.
These political dogmas,in turn,due to their inherited negation,create sects,that are sources of new dogmas, or "subdogmas".
Finally,in order to protect democracy from this unhealthy environment,political parties ought to consider all their occasional opponents as sharing the same interest for progress as they do,in order to protect democracy from negativity.

Parties are forms of relationship. So are governments forms of relationship. Our forms have grown old, and are feeding on our relationships. Look at what divides us one from another. It is ideals. It is ends, which are ideals which justify their means, even if that is the destruction of the relationship. Do you ask why rational seeming persons can be sent to government only to become mired and intractable? They are captured by their ideals. And that is a problem because ideals don't think and idealistic people don't think; and while everything might be framed as a moral question, ideals are immoral. For a good ideal people have always allowed others to be swept away by the flood of history. For a good ideal, people have often started wars, and watched children starve. People hide behind ideals to avoid the moral question. Your reference to dogma is apt. Consider that many hold ideals that are completely contrary to democracy, and are happy to have democracy so long as it can be perverted with ideology. Democracy also is a form of relationship, and as such is dependent upon other forms that are important such as equality, and justice. We have to remember that in all healthy relationship whether on the scale of a country, or of a home, that the form recedes into the back ground, and the relationship is primary. Look at the edifices and trappings of government, and of parties. It is all form, and formality; and the dying form has gobbled up all the meaning of love and goodness and relationship that once filled the nation with hope.

[Mr. Fight the Power]

Originally Posted by diamantis

According to my judgement,politics should not serve as an engine of negativity,because it has been invented to serve the common good.
Therefore,since political parties are prone to negativity,due to occasional oppossitions,it is unavoidable that they based on dogmas ,as a shield against their opponents.
These political dogmas,in turn,due to their inherited negation,create sects,that are sources of new dogmas, or "subdogmas".
Finally,in order to protect democracy from this unhealthy environment,political parties ought to consider all their occasional opponents as sharing the same interest for progress as they do,in order to protect democracy from negativity.

Negation is a vital force in politics, and it does not necessarily result in the creation of dogma.

[Fido]

Originally Posted by Mr. Fight the Power

Negation is a vital force in politics, and it does not necessarily result in the creation of dogma.

Negation is not a vital force, but an anti vital force. The life of any organization is its members. When the form of the organization demands a certain character, or personality, it excludes as much as includes, so it cannot grow, and finds its own self imposed limits, and begins to die back. What brought me to my point of discovery about forms, and relationships was trying to answer the question: Is it possible to form a group that includes all and excludes none. We have forms which are purely moral forms like humanity, but people are regularly excluded from humanity so they may be killed, or have wars made upon them, so as a physical reality, no, we do not have such a group.

[krazy kaju]

The more important question is whether or not democracy is preferable. My stance is that it is not. A better society would be a society based on certain unchangeable laws with only the military, police, etc. led by elected leaders.

[Fido]

Originally Posted by krazy kaju

The more important question is whether or not democracy is preferable. My stance is that it is not. A better society would be a society based on certain unchangeable laws with only the military, police, etc. led by elected leaders.

What you are suggesting is all form, and no relationship. Anyone who thinks they can construct a society with unchangeable laws is really saying they know the future and future needs of the people. We deal with a constitution that is nearly impossible to change. Does it help? It offers a lot of impediments to good government, but determined individuals can always find around impediments to bad behavior of self enrichment.

Wouldn't it be much better to minimize government, but leave people free to form their own relationships? I mean, we have a lot of people now who count on law, but use legal means to undercut the whole support of society for law. It is like getting on the expressway and trying to drive the speed limit and finding yourself alone. It's a law. Doesn't it mean anything? For it to mean something everyone has to have something to lose. And people still have their jobs to lose if they are not there on time, or early. But there is no gain; not even psychological from obeying the law. So the law itself, the moral of law; none of it has any meaning. They are like so many bait fish knowing the baracuda is going to get some, and some will get away; but it is no longer a relationship between equals, but between victors and victims.

[Mr. Fight the Power]

Originally Posted by Fido

Anyone who thinks they can construct a society with unchangeable laws is really saying they know the future and future needs of the people.

I agree to an extent. I have long held that the different "types" of anarchy are really the same thing, only with the individual anarchists simply betraying their own preferences and trying to project them onto society, which is self-defeating to the anarchist.

With that said, I think that there are simple rules that are both morally and practically unassailable. Any free and just society must abide by them. For example, deny the NAP.

[Fido]

Originally Posted by Mr. Fight the Power

I agree to an extent. I have long held that the different "types" of anarchy are really the same thing, only with the individual anarchists simply betraying their own preferences and trying to project them onto society, which is self-defeating to the anarchist.

With that said, I think that there are simple rules that are both morally and practically unassailable. Any free and just society must abide by them. For example, deny the NAP.

Your rules and laws are forms. Great, but the best and most successful relationships are often informal. Can we create a form for evey occasion, and every relaitonship? It is best if the people in the relationship choose the level of formality they want. And there are things that have the likelyhood of affecting you alone that are your business, or the business only of those who are likely to be affected, and for that business, or activity, Government has no place. Differing from the Christians, freedom of religion can, and should, mean freedom from religion. It has no part of government, and government has no business deciding your religion, or lack of. Government should not do everything, or attempt everything. Rather it should produce good, or do nothing at all, so people will know when it is time to replace the form. But, none of it is really a mystery. People progress by changing forms, and as much is said in the Declaration of Independence. People change forms. It should not be a thing to get all intense over and frustrated with. Long after it becomes necessary, people change their forms. And then for a long period they can get on with their lives unmolested.

[Dewey]

Hi,

I’m a newcomer to this forum eager to learn and, of course, to add my two bits worth.

The first thing I did after getting registered was to go to the Politics branch, my favorite subject. I scanned down the discussions and was attracted by the title: “Politics without negation.” It sure looked like an oxymoron, but what if someone had found out how to make politics peaceful? I wouldn’t have to listen to any more campaign debates? Full of hope, I read what diamantis and the other folks had to say.

Right off, I ran into trouble. I couldn’t agree with diamantis that politics had been invented to serve the common good. If I were religious I would have to counter that claim by referring to Nimrod, the biblical figure also known as "The First Politician" and "The First Tyrant". Secularly, I would refer to the kings and religious leaders ruling in early times. The former always, and the latter almost always, served only their own selfish ends.

The next trouble spot was the claim that, because political parties are prone to negativity, they (the political parties?) are based on dogmas as a shield against their opponents. That seems to me to misidentify cause and effect. I think that political parties are (naturally) prone to negativity because of, rather than as a result of, the other parties’ different beliefs (not necessarily “dogmas”).

Talk about negation! That’s all you have gotten from me so far. Here’s a little affirmation. I share diamantis’ concern about political dissention. My concern is just aimed a little bit different than his. I want the dissention to be arguments as a way to reconcile differences and make decisions. I regard argument as an essential tool for cooperative human advancement. (Where would we philosophers be without it?) We would probably agree pretty much (and I don’t know a thing about the state of politics in his country) that we both are fed up to the gills with the rancor, irrationality, and indecisiveness that have degraded our politics.

[Fido]

Originally Posted by Dewey

Hi,

I’m a newcomer to this forum eager to learn and, of course, to add my two bits worth.

The first thing I did after getting registered was to go to the Politics branch, my favorite subject. I scanned down the discussions and was attracted by the title: “Politics without negation.” It sure looked like an oxymoron, but what if someone had found out how to make politics peaceful? I wouldn’t have to listen to any more campaign debates? Full of hope, I read what diamantis and the other folks had to say.

Right off, I ran into trouble. I couldn’t agree with diamantis that politics had been invented to serve the common good. If I were religious I would have to counter that claim by referring to Nimrod, the biblical figure also known as "The First Politician" and "The First Tyrant". Secularly, I would refer to the kings and religious leaders ruling in early times. The former always, and the latter almost always, served only their own selfish ends.

The next trouble spot was the claim that, because political parties are prone to negativity, they (the political parties?) are based on dogmas as a shield against their opponents. That seems to me to misidentify cause and effect. I think that political parties are (naturally) prone to negativity because of, rather than as a result of, the other parties’ different beliefs (not necessarily “dogmas”).

Talk about negation! That’s all you have gotten from me so far. Here’s a little affirmation. I share diamantis’ concern about political dissention. My concern is just aimed a little bit different than his. I want the dissention to be arguments as a way to reconcile differences and make decisions. I regard argument as an essential tool for cooperative human advancement. (Where would we philosophers be without it?) We would probably agree pretty much (and I don’t know a thing about the state of politics in his country) that we both are fed up to the gills with the rancor, irrationality, and indecisiveness that have degraded our politics.

If it seems like rancor and irrationality are taking over, I think the reason is clear. People in politics use the ideas most people think with as ends in themselves, so the quit thinking with them, and begin thinking too much of them. Morality is something everyone has. Everything is a moral question for people, and societies. So soon as you begin to think of morality as some kind of answer rather than a question people ask all the time, you close your mind to true morality which is something government seeks in the process of ensuring survival. How can any government influenced so strongly by evangelical christianity, and the ethic of Capital which is blind to the future- how can they govern for the future. Believing the world will end or that the situation will be righted by the very forces that led it wrong is stupid. Yet it governs us. Ideas govern us instead of thoughful people.