Democracy: Every Cook Can Govern
-
- Posts: 10339
- Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Re: Democracy: Every Cook Can Govern
But, of course, I still don't know because I can never be 100% sure if your sarcasm is really sarcasm. I guess I'll never know.
Hey ho.
- ZoneOfNonBeing
- Posts: 93
- Joined: June 8th, 2016, 9:41 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Alan Watts
Re: Democracy: Every Cook Can Govern
the Question of U?
-
- Posts: 10339
- Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Re: Democracy: Every Cook Can Govern
For myself: I'm afraid I'm not as exciting as that. I'm boringly centre-left in my political views. I believe that the "free" market is sometimes a useful tool but is not genuinely free (hence the quotes) and is not a universal solution. I believe in elements of socialism (if we define socialism as public services funded by taxation). I believe it taxpayer funded healthcare and education, for example.
But obviously (as you'd probably guess) I think your idea of violently overthrowing the government in a blood bath in which probably tens of millions of people would be killed and the fabric of society would be destroyed is stark raving mad. The railing against "specialists" (which seems to be alarmingly common these days at both extremes of the political spectrum) reminds me of the Khmer Rouge marching people with professions out into the fields to starve.
-
- Posts: 460
- Joined: September 12th, 2017, 6:03 pm
Re: Democracy: Every Cook Can Govern
- ZoneOfNonBeing
- Posts: 93
- Joined: June 8th, 2016, 9:41 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Alan Watts
Re: Democracy: Every Cook Can Govern
Hahahahahaha. Thanks for the inspiration to write another post debunking that idea
the Question of U?
-
- Posts: 460
- Joined: September 12th, 2017, 6:03 pm
Re: Democracy: Every Cook Can Govern
- ZoneOfNonBeing
- Posts: 93
- Joined: June 8th, 2016, 9:41 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Alan Watts
Re: Democracy: Every Cook Can Govern
the Question of U?
-
- Posts: 460
- Joined: September 12th, 2017, 6:03 pm
Re: Democracy: Every Cook Can Govern
-
- Posts: 392
- Joined: September 29th, 2017, 4:59 pm
Re: Democracy: Every Cook Can Govern
Nothing is necessary. Government doesn't require excellence, but it's nice. People prefer it. Specialization is embedded in every society where anything is done with excellence. All sane people will laugh off the requirement that there be no specialization. Societies who don't encourage and exploit the principle of specialization will fall behind societies that do. You must be very satisfied with the presence of Rick Perry in the EPA. He barely knows anything about anything.ZoneOfNonBeing wrote:does government require specialization? Why or why not? I will not entertain responses that circumvent an answer to this.
Perhaps in the future, we'll all have our IQs boosted and then anyone can do any job in the government. For now, the only hope is to have people with specializations who know at least something about what they're doing.
- ZoneOfNonBeing
- Posts: 93
- Joined: June 8th, 2016, 9:41 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Alan Watts
Re: Democracy: Every Cook Can Govern
-- Updated November 10th, 2017, 6:13 pm to add the following --
Raising up and raising hell**
-- Updated November 10th, 2017, 6:14 pm to add the following --
Chili : ask Africa what the "specialization" of government has gotten it.
Ask the indigeneous people how specialization is working out for it.
-- Updated November 10th, 2017, 6:16 pm to add the following --
I am willing to bet everyone on this thread is either a white male, or well-to-do.
Two cheers for the status quo with this thread
-- Updated November 10th, 2017, 6:25 pm to add the following --
Chili -
In short, the problem is not that individuals lack marketable skills (i.e. not knowing how to code). But rather, the problem is that the working class is being exploited.
Your view is individual. My view is structural. You are interested in preserving the present order. I say it needs to be brought down.
the Question of U?
-
- Posts: 392
- Joined: September 29th, 2017, 4:59 pm
Re: Democracy: Every Cook Can Govern
I'm all for increases in the social safety net - guaranteed income, training programs, the whole bit.ZoneOfNonBeing wrote: Chili -
In short, the problem is not that individuals lack marketable skills (i.e. not knowing how to code). But rather, the problem is that the working class is being exploited.
Your view is individual. My view is structural. You are interested in preserving the present order. I say it needs to be brought down.
- ZoneOfNonBeing
- Posts: 93
- Joined: June 8th, 2016, 9:41 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Alan Watts
Re: Democracy: Every Cook Can Govern
-- Updated November 10th, 2017, 7:36 pm to add the following --
Can you agree that housing, food, and health insurance are human rights? Do you agree that every person deserves a living wage?
the Question of U?
- Sy Borg
- Site Admin
- Posts: 15148
- Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm
Re: Democracy: Every Cook Can Govern
If you are amazed at anything people believe, including that pixies lie at the bottom of your garden, then you have not spent too much of your life on philosophy forums - well done :)ZoneOfNonBeing wrote:It amazes me how people in the West suffer from historical amnesia. We have achieved egalitarianism. It is not a question of if - it is a statement of when. The West has not achieved it, but human beings have. If you read the work of Henry Louis Morgan - an anthropologist - he captures the egalitarian structure of the Iroquois in North America in the 1800s. If you read "The Origins of the Family, Private Property, and the State" by Friedrich Engels, he elaborates on the fact that human beings were communal and egalitarian until the development of class society (the exploitation of slavery).Greta wrote: Humans have aimed for this goal for thousands of years. If non-corrupt, egalitarian societies were possible we would have achieved them.
You are not respecting scale and logistics. Seven billion people. Gigantic societies. A tribal society can achieve what modern societies cannot in the same way as families can achieve what companies cannot. It's a matter of connection and coordination. Societies always bifurcate when they become large enough - with a schism between not only rich and poor, but various subcultures.
The fact is that indigenous people around the world were out-competed by those with a stronger military. They rationalised, speaking about "civilising the savages", but ultimately they just wanted their land and resources - otherwise they would have left them be.
If you think short termism has nothing to do with lack of infrastructure investment, you are not paying attention.ZoneOfNonBeing wrote:The "infrastructural paralysis" of the West is not due to "focusing on winning the next election" - it is due to a crude focus on competition instead of cooperation.Watching the infrastructure paralysis in the west due to governments focused on winning the next election rather than nation-building has many westerners looking wistfully at the harsh efficiency of the Chinese, knowing that unless something changes they are going to be out-competed.
To blame competition ignores the fact that the kind of society you envisage has no precedent, even though people have dreamed of fairness and egalitarianism for thousands of years, with many great geniuses devoting their minds to the issue to no avail. Do you think that they have not considered all that you say?
No matter how much mediation, regulation, protest and pleas to their better nature, the strong cannot resist exploiting their advantages and it's always been so, aside from small anomalous societies that perhaps give us a hint as to how future, more advanced societies may operate. It's not today's reality, with civilisation only centuries old.
Not all corruption is equal. There is no sense in breaking up a system for being too corrupt and then removing checks and balances to greatly increase corruption.ZoneOfNonBeing wrote:I understand what is being argued here, but this argument employs a very thin definition of corruption. Capitalism, in and of itself, is corrupt.Desperately the US reaches out to a political neophyte, one of the more exploitative and less philanthropic billionaires out there, hoping to break the chain. Instead of finding a politician not beholden to corruption they elect one of the corrupters, one whose first action was to free up his own company's pipeline project, previously held up by environmental concerns.
-
- Posts: 10339
- Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Re: Democracy: Every Cook Can Govern
You can't make an omlette without breaking an egg, eh?We would need a mass movement of people who are armed, as the capitalists are not going to surrender without a fight. It would be ideal to infiltrate the military and have hold of some of those heavy duty weapons, so as to suppress rebellion.
There will be bloodshed. There is no avoiding it. There is already bloodshed. The only difference is: we need to start dying FOR something, as opposed to just being killed and not striking back.
It's interesting to see the label "the capitalists" being used in this case. These kinds of ideas always need a bogeyman to be a focus for the anger, with a label that can be used to strike terror into people once the full horror beings. And they usually need to force the world into a binary choice: you're either 100% in favour of the revolution (Here's a gun. Kill a capitalist to prove it.) or you're in favour of the status quo, and probably in league with those capitalists, and due for a lynching.
I can just see the show-trials, the settling of old scores and the mass executions of counter-revolutionaries ("the capitalists") now. We have plenty of lessons from history to show us how it's done. Some cartoons caricaturing these capitalists would be a good start. Along with lots of talk of them being "rats" and "vermin". You've made a good start on that already, ZoneOfNonBeing. At least with words.
Once the revolution is underway it's important to make sure as many people as possible have blood on their hands. The best way to "suppress rebellion" would be to force people to denounce their neighbours as "capitalists" (in the case of this particular revolution) and hang them publicly in the town square. The wider you spread the guilt for the crimes against humanity that will be committed in this revolution, the more people will have a strong vested interest in seeing the revolution continued and counter-revolutionary rebellions crushed (Mao understood this very well). The tyrannies that rise from these revolutions seem to be very effective at constructing these pyramids of blood - of people who have done such horrors that they have no choice but to keep it up.
Anyway, to get back to the title of the topic, in a country with more guns than people which already has an itchy trigger finger, it seems likely that if the bloody revolution and subsequent tyranny being hoped for here ever did take place there wouldn't be any cooks left and there'd be very little left to govern by the end of it.
- Sy Borg
- Site Admin
- Posts: 15148
- Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm
Re: Democracy: Every Cook Can Govern
2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023
Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023