That's not an action; that's a gesture. Flip 'em a finger! (In my last line above, of course it should have been 'a firm conviction that they will never be called upon to perform skilled labour'. Was rushed and careless and have no editor.)You may say the removal of a finger is not the best way to illustrate this… perhaps, but there is truth to the saying: “actions speak louder than words.”
No, I don't think it does. People are historically stupid enough to believe lies, yes. People are historically frightened and ready to clutch at supernatural straws, yes. People are historically inclined to believe their shamans rather than their own common sense, yes. And their gullibility has certainly been exploited through the ages by every grade and type of flim-flam artist from traveling snake-oil amulet salesmen to popes, witch-hunters to investment brokers, weight-loss gurus to economists.And, people are historically obsessed with self sacrifice… it has a symbolic importance which in turn has a real tangible importance in the relationship between people and representative leaders.
Instead of feeding their most primitive blood-lust, how about feeding their minds with a few decent civics courses in public school?
And those idjits accomplished - what, exactly?Actually, I first heard of this from a NYT story about a peaceful protest against the Japanese government by 20 South Korean men who each cut off their little finger in retaliation to Japan’s failure to teach an accurate history of its own militaristic colonialism. It is peaceful, but brutal at the same time… a great way to communicate a gravitas statement to a large group of people.
No pain = no visible sacrifice.(I would suggest it be an operation with anesthesia)
Yes. All the sane ones, love notwithstanding. And all the insane musicians and hobbyists.The removal of a finger as a requirement for the candidate who receives a majority of votes would dissuade many people who would otherwise desire to have the position from running in the first place.
Okay, we've eliminated the majority of potential candidates, and still didn't get within sniffing distance of a positive qualification - other than maybe signing executive orders might be painful in the first hundred days.
No, I meant I do not believe it's possible to act or think or decide without a self. It is not possible to function effectively except as an aware individual. It is the self that cares about others, that has empathy, that remembers experience, that solves problems. And I don't want them to! I am a self that wants to be able to relate the people who represent my interests.Now regarding my use of the word zealotry
I think you’re right not to believe in true zealotry, that a person is ever truly selfless for the sake of some person(s) or cause above the reduction of their own discontent.
Are all your role-models self destructive madmen?But few would question that a person can’t become so close to selfless that they genuinely act selflessly, such as the self immolating monk in Vietnam.
Maybe, but they cannot be loved in return. And if there is nobody there to love, the children can't learn how to do it.A parent or a lover may act effectively self-less, and they are not dehumanized as a result because they are genuinely obsessed with the object of their affection.
Now it's obsession! This isn't getting any better, you know.Their creativity and empathy increase as a result of this obsession...they don’t lose functionality. And this is all that is important for my purposes… in other words, (aside from being capable) that a candidate in a high position of authority believes and acts as if they are selfless with regard to their interest in the second and third function… Their actions, after all, are the only things that interest us, and this apparent selflessness becomes more important as the stakes of the position for society increases.
Less likely than if you disqualify all the sane ones to start with! I'm suggesting normal, working, functioning citizens. If they're missing the odd body part due to events unrelated, that's okay: the administrative building needs to be accessible anyway.I can see problems with selecting people randomly… it would be less likely to select an insidious or insane character than the typical sort of person with good intentions, but it wouldn’t be impossible…
I haven't said what the qualifications were. Obsession, zealotry, selflessness and a desire for public disfigurment are not on my list. I'm thinking more along the lines of: Can communicate effectively. Can balance a household budget if necessary. Can organize a bucket-brigade. Can get three children to bed at their assigned time. Can tell the difference between a Ponzi scheme and an investment in infrastructure.Are you suggesting random selection from within a selected group of qualified candidates?
No, there are not! All the cultures within a society need to be represented in the government of that society. In world government, that means all of several thousand.There are cultural characteristics which are disqualifying.
I guess there could be an op out clause from serving on government, but I don't think there should be one.Cultures are often nationalistic and exclusory… their existence as a “separate” culture is also an existence which has a long history of isolation and often distrust… we should deconstruct cultures into one another, seeking the most immersive culture of a non exclusive society… that includes the very gradual movement towards general racial and cultural uniformity.
What, like the battery of civics, history, math and geography tests they have to pass now, before they can be proposed for candidacy?and it would be unlikely that the person you select randomly is qualified without having formal training or....
Having ever taken a bribe a good one! Offering a bribe is another. Perjury? Fraud?Well there’s actually a lot that could prevent any random person from being qualified…