The Matador’s Veil
When I set out to understand some particular matter I start with some model of what I think is the answer I am after. From this point I modify my papier-mâché like intellectual model until I reach some kind of understanding for the question I posed to myself in the beginning.
The question I started with many years ago was ‘How does my world operate’? My metaphor, that represents “how the cow ate-the-cabbageâ€, is bullfight. I would call this my world view but more appropriately it is my nation view, because I only know my nation--the United States.
The Matador waving a red cape to manipulate a giant muscular bull is my understanding of how my world functions. The bull is the people; the Matador is the oligarchy that controls the people with various ideologies.
In America the oligarchy consists primarily of the leaders of CA (Corporate America). It is the wealth and organization of corporations that comprises the corner-stone of American power.
I recently watched the DVD copy of the movie “The Insiderâ€. This depicts the story of Jeffrey Wiegand, former executive of Brown & Williamson Tobacco, who decided to make known to the world the facts of Big Tobacco.
The movie clearly demonstrates the power of CA and the pain they can inflict on any person who attempts to reveal their secrets. Comparing the DVD movie to the TV show the “Sopranos†I decided that there is little difference between the two modes of operation except for the fact that the actions of the Sopranos are often illegal whereas the actions of the corporations are most often legal.
I think that both shows are valuable viewing for the public because both shows peel back the surface layer of reality to expose the layer that is not obvious to the common sense realism we perceive life to be.
Is an oligarchy (government by the few) necessary for any democracy to function?
Matador's Veil
Matador's Veil
coberst wrote: The Matador’s Veil
When I set out to understand some particular matter I start with some model of what I think is the answer I am after. From this point I modify my papier-mâché like intellectual model until I reach some kind of understanding for the question I posed to myself in the beginning.
Is an oligarchy (government by the few) necessary for any democracy to function?
Laying aside for the moment the concept of starting with the expected answer and then tweaking it until you answer the question, can I examine an alternative proposal – government by all (theoretically, perfect democracy)
We are already in a position where a country like the UK or the US could easily institute a system whereby every adult gets to vote on every question facing the “governmentâ€.
Two immediate problems would have to be decided, who chooses the subjects to be voted on (and the phrasing of the questions) and what of decisions which, by their nature, must be kept secret. The first is reasonably straightforward, anyone can propose a subject and, if enough support is forthcoming, it will go to vote. The second problem I would like to park as outside the bounds if this argument.
What would be the result of such a system?
Most questions need consideration of many subtleties with a view to the consequences of the action.
Due thought must be given to a large amount of information, where would this information come from and, more importantly, how would it be manipulated on the way. That the Media manipulates the stories it publishes should be a surprise to nobody, if the results of a parliamentary vote were to be directly influenced by the information in the Press then how much more blatant would be that manipulation?
Then there is the problem of the mass mind and mob thought. It would be relatively easy to raise a groundswell of opinion to drive a result that would not be reached by calm reflective thought.
Again, most people are inherently selfish and short termist (witness the NIMBY phenomenon). What we require from our political system is to work for the good of the country as a whole in the medium to long term.
I would contend that a government of the people by the people for the people could not work with a unit size above a single community. For a nation state it is necessary to have a professional government although, what form that government should take I do not know.
So to answer your question, yes, some form of government by the few is necessary but, as someone very wise once said, never give power to anyone who asks for it.
When I set out to understand some particular matter I start with some model of what I think is the answer I am after. From this point I modify my papier-mâché like intellectual model until I reach some kind of understanding for the question I posed to myself in the beginning.
Is an oligarchy (government by the few) necessary for any democracy to function?
Laying aside for the moment the concept of starting with the expected answer and then tweaking it until you answer the question, can I examine an alternative proposal – government by all (theoretically, perfect democracy)
We are already in a position where a country like the UK or the US could easily institute a system whereby every adult gets to vote on every question facing the “governmentâ€.
Two immediate problems would have to be decided, who chooses the subjects to be voted on (and the phrasing of the questions) and what of decisions which, by their nature, must be kept secret. The first is reasonably straightforward, anyone can propose a subject and, if enough support is forthcoming, it will go to vote. The second problem I would like to park as outside the bounds if this argument.
What would be the result of such a system?
Most questions need consideration of many subtleties with a view to the consequences of the action.
Due thought must be given to a large amount of information, where would this information come from and, more importantly, how would it be manipulated on the way. That the Media manipulates the stories it publishes should be a surprise to nobody, if the results of a parliamentary vote were to be directly influenced by the information in the Press then how much more blatant would be that manipulation?
Then there is the problem of the mass mind and mob thought. It would be relatively easy to raise a groundswell of opinion to drive a result that would not be reached by calm reflective thought.
Again, most people are inherently selfish and short termist (witness the NIMBY phenomenon). What we require from our political system is to work for the good of the country as a whole in the medium to long term.
I would contend that a government of the people by the people for the people could not work with a unit size above a single community. For a nation state it is necessary to have a professional government although, what form that government should take I do not know.
So to answer your question, yes, some form of government by the few is necessary but, as someone very wise once said, never give power to anyone who asks for it.
Matador's Veil
Bryn saysâ€â€œSo to answer your question, yes, some form of government by the few is necessary but, as someone very wise once said, never give power to anyone who asks for it.. “
I am not asking if a government is required I am asking if a clandestine oligarchy is necessary.
I am basically asking ‘can democracy work?’â€will any group of people shoulder the responsibility of a democratic (republican) government like we have in the UK or the US.
Evidence leads me to conclude that the citizens of the US will not shoulder the hard work of making a democratic government work except in an illusory form, i.e. I claim that in America our democracy is an illusion that satisfies the people because the people will not shoulder their responsibility.
I am not asking if a government is required I am asking if a clandestine oligarchy is necessary.
I am basically asking ‘can democracy work?’â€will any group of people shoulder the responsibility of a democratic (republican) government like we have in the UK or the US.
Evidence leads me to conclude that the citizens of the US will not shoulder the hard work of making a democratic government work except in an illusory form, i.e. I claim that in America our democracy is an illusion that satisfies the people because the people will not shoulder their responsibility.
Matador's Veil
I think that we must become detectives if we wish to ‘see’ beyond the cape. The important things are often well hidden and without detective skills and a critical self-consciousness we cannot see beyond the first layer of reality.
The detective must analyze evidence and draw lines of incrimination between possibilities, what is in accord with human nature, and motive.
The power rests in the hands of a few. This few are like all humans inclined to protect their own selfish needs. The people are like bovine, either staring vacantly into the distance or running with the herd. If CA CEOs do not run America then they are dimmer than I think they are.
These leaders of corporations, banks, media, elite universities, insurance, military, think tanks, etc. network with one another and already control most of America’s power they would have little reason not to run things. There is nothing to stop them.
The detective must analyze evidence and draw lines of incrimination between possibilities, what is in accord with human nature, and motive.
The power rests in the hands of a few. This few are like all humans inclined to protect their own selfish needs. The people are like bovine, either staring vacantly into the distance or running with the herd. If CA CEOs do not run America then they are dimmer than I think they are.
These leaders of corporations, banks, media, elite universities, insurance, military, think tanks, etc. network with one another and already control most of America’s power they would have little reason not to run things. There is nothing to stop them.