| Ah Democracy, a word loaded with importance. What is it though? Elections? Well, Cuba has elections, is it a democracy? Greece was a democracy, but only for landowning white men. America is a democracy, but what we are allowed to vote on is only representatives, not on issues. Is your idea of democracy direct democracy -- or representative? Parliamentarian? Or what about those kingdoms which have consultative councils that afford the regular people a lot more access to their rulers than our representative democracy? A Saudi citizen has a better chance to talk directly to the King than any American stands a chance of even seeing the president. And when we talk about bringing democracy to the rest of the world -- what does that mean? We blithely assume, because the vast majority of people are unaware of the facts, that we mean to bring them what takes place in, say, Iowa. But what if the "democracy' they mean over there is one of the ayatollahs meeting with supplicants? Is their form of representative democracy the same? Different? In form? Function? Rights? It is easy to bandy about the word, but what does one mean by it? |
I have long considered proposals and ideas
to solve the problems we face. Not only here in the
United States, but worldwide. What I see presented
as new ideas are often just restatements of existing
reality. A mere tinkering with this tax, or law, or
regulation. Renaming this or that department.
Louisiana is a great one for this. They just
changed the Louisiana Department of Film and
Video in the Governors Film and Video Office. The
difference? None. The policiies remain the same,
the people running the agency remain the same.
The ideas behind the system remain the same.
What is the difference? The name. And to most
people that means change enough. Why go with
the future when you can have your past that you
already know how it works.
Indeed, one problem with the way changes are
proposed is that they are viewed as some sort of
permament reordering of the stars. And when it is
done at the federal level we get one size fits all.
When at the state level we get a regionwide fits all.
The lower the level of government the more likely
an actual new idea will surface, and then spread.
So this section will look at some of the different
proposals that are based on a slow reordering of
the programs and systems in place, leaving time for
consideration and reflection about how the ideas,
the theory, actually meshes with the people who
are living the lives affected.
to solve the problems we face. Not only here in the
United States, but worldwide. What I see presented
as new ideas are often just restatements of existing
reality. A mere tinkering with this tax, or law, or
regulation. Renaming this or that department.
Louisiana is a great one for this. They just
changed the Louisiana Department of Film and
Video in the Governors Film and Video Office. The
difference? None. The policiies remain the same,
the people running the agency remain the same.
The ideas behind the system remain the same.
What is the difference? The name. And to most
people that means change enough. Why go with
the future when you can have your past that you
already know how it works.
Indeed, one problem with the way changes are
proposed is that they are viewed as some sort of
permament reordering of the stars. And when it is
done at the federal level we get one size fits all.
When at the state level we get a regionwide fits all.
The lower the level of government the more likely
an actual new idea will surface, and then spread.
So this section will look at some of the different
proposals that are based on a slow reordering of
the programs and systems in place, leaving time for
consideration and reflection about how the ideas,
the theory, actually meshes with the people who
are living the lives affected.
| Practicalist |
Jim Hlavac |
| Someone had to make a simplified explanation of the way the world works. |