Yeah...I'm a whacknut right wing psychopath to some...
and a commie freak liberalisto psychopath to others...
at least one thing is consistent.
|
I find it amusing that in New York, I was considered a "right-wing reactionary." Here in Texas, I'm a "communist humanist bleeding-heart liberal." My views haven't changed, only my geography.I've experienced the exact same thing. In school, on an archaeological dig in the American SW, I camped and worked daily with a ton of folks from NE schools. They all thought I was a southern conservative because I have a slight north Florida drawl. Here at home, I'm about the most radically left person I know.
Cept in Austin; I'm a rightist again.
People carry lots of baggage around with them, and they like to hit you with it. 6 weeks of camping with them in the desert, and I think they still left with the impression that I'm a republican. Hell, I'm not even a capitalist!
Yeh...when I was in Gainesville, Fl (it's a lot like Austin Tx btw,) I was a right wing extremist, borderline bears watching. Now in Dallas, Tx I'm a revolutionary Red Army propaganda minister for the Bolshy's.
I suppose I only object to it on the assumption that a democracy representative of the people is a good thing. Even if entry to the military was open to everyone
Isn't it? - Barring signifiacant health issues - but even then it is pretty easy to envision a from of service for those individuals.
you would end up with a hugely disproportionate amount of votes in the hands of males between the ages of 18 and 50. Coming from Australia where voting is compulsory for everyone over the age of 18 that seems grossly unbalanced to me.
I get that that is the background that you come from - so it is what you are used to. But if you had the opportunity to create a system from scratch is that what you would advocate.
From my perspective, I would not want to require or encourage, people who where ill informed or apathetic to vote. fr that matter I am not sure that, if got to start from scratch I would want individuals who wear on certain types of social assistance voting.
There is also I think a stronger potential for some sort of fascist police state to emerge than there is in a standard democracy, though if only the military voted that is probably what you'd end up with as a matter of course.
I respectfully disagree - I lean more towards the view that soldiers, at least ones that emerge from the American system - the only one I am really familiar with) are more likely to support personal liberties. At least that has been my personal experience.
It's a nice idea in principle, rewarding those who are willing to die for the demos with control of the demos, but I don't think it follows that the way of life of someone prepared to die for their beliefs is suitable for everyone. Most people are not that hard-core basically, and I think it would create a state where the majority was unhappy, which is against the spirit of a modern democracy.
As I hope I made clear I really have no issue with dissenting views. But I wonder if people should be entitled to the rights, liberties, opportunities, and control over a system that they are not willing to defend.
My experience in the military - though brief, and not without its travails was on the whole overwhelmingly positive - in terms of what I learned and how I grew. Most of the people I have spoken to that have been in the military feel that way about it as well - though I readily conceed this is not a universal sentiment. My experience was also pre-Iraq 2 - which has been horrifically mismanaged (IMO) - so current views may differ. It should be note though that the mismanagement is largely the fault of politicians that have not served, and do not have children in service - It is my opinion that politicians with experience as veterans and sons an daughters in service would make very different and better decisions about many things.
I saw 300 the other day.
I thought it was ok. Not good -just ok.
A popcorn movie with pretty images and music. You could get away with just watching the trailer. I outright hated some of it: Freedom isn't free... Urgh! -I actually laughed out loud when that line was spoken.
Also the spartans were hard for me to get along with and I ended up rooting for the 'bad guys'. Poor Quasimodo was told to take a hike because he would be usless in a phalanx -yet the spartans spend half the film breaking ranks and jumping around in slow mo... Hmmm...
Nice beards.
I hope Watchmen is done right...
Sorry Kyr, I only just realized you'd replied! I forgot which thread this discussion was in...
you would end up with a hugely disproportionate amount of votes in the hands of males between the ages of 18 and 50. Coming from Australia where voting is compulsory for everyone over the age of 18 that seems grossly unbalanced to me.I get that that is the background that you come from - so it is what you are used to. But if you had the opportunity to create a system from scratch is that what you would advocate.
From my perspective, I would not want to require or encourage, people who where ill informed or apathetic to vote. fr that matter I am not sure that, if got to start from scratch I would want individuals who wear on certain types of social assistance voting.
Yeah, I think I would advocate compulsory voting. Like I said (though I probably didn't make it too clear) I have nothing against the idea of citizen-soldiers as a valid form of government. I just don't think you can legitimately call a system like the one in Starship Troopers or ancient Athens a democracy in the sense of the word today. It is simply not representatitive of the people, there's no getting around that.
Maybe I should correct a few misconceptions about our system here in Oz while I'm at it, as most foreigners I've had this discussion with in the past seem to have the wrong idea. We are not forced by law to vote; we are forced by law to get our names ticked off and go into a voting booth. That's it. Once you're in the booth you can do whatever you like. You can eat the ballot paper. You can write "I hate all these jerks" across it. My little brother always draws a new box, writes "Lord Vader, THE EMPIRE" beside it and puts a big fat 1 in there. All of these actions are legal, and are called informal voting, or "donkey voting" in everyday speech.
That way, people who wish to register their displeasure at being forced to vote, or who hate all politicians, or who don't care, are not forced to pick someone and influence the decision of the people who DO care. Usually the national percentage of donkey votes in federal elections hovers at between 4-5%. That means 95-96% of Australians are making what they consider to be informed and deliberate choices for our government. That is much much higher than any country that has voluntary voting.
I respectfully disagree - I lean more towards the view that soldiers, at least ones that emerge from the American system - the only one I am really familiar with) are more likely to support personal liberties. At least that has been my personal experience.
There is also I think a stronger potential for some sort of fascist police state to emerge than there is in a standard democracy, though if only the military voted that is probably what you'd end up with as a matter of course.
OK you got me there! :D The point I made above was a bit silly, I was just trying to think why I actually disagree with the idea and some of my thoughts weren't too well-considered. Nothing against soldiers, like I said my dad's one. So was my grandad and great grandfather. I take back my "police state" comment!
It's a nice idea in principle, rewarding those who are willing to die for the demos with control of the demos, but I don't think it follows that the way of life of someone prepared to die for their beliefs is suitable for everyone. Most people are not that hard-core basically, and I think it would create a state where the majority was unhappy, which is against the spirit of a modern democracy.As I hope I made clear I really have no issue with dissenting views. But I wonder if people should be entitled to the rights, liberties, opportunities, and control over a system that they are not willing to defend.
My experience in the military - though brief, and not without its travails was on the whole overwhelmingly positive - in terms of what I learned and how I grew. Most of the people I have spoken to that have been in the military feel that way about it as well - though I readily conceed this is not a universal sentiment. My experience was also pre-Iraq 2 - which has been horrifically mismanaged (IMO) - so current views may differ. It should be note though that the mismanagement is largely the fault of politicians that have not served, and do not have children in service - It is my opinion that politicians with experience as veterans and sons an daughters in service would make very different and better decisions about many things.
I have no issue with dissenting views either - always good to have a theoretical discussion with someone who doesn't lose their rag over it. And I agree that military life is generally a positive thing. But I stick by my view though that no one segment of the population should be given political power at the expence of all the others. And I don't mean the military in particular, I mean ANY one segment. But let's take the military as an example, and assume that a few years service is required for someone to gain citizenship:
*What about scientists, doctors, and other highly trained professionals and researchers? Should they be required to waste valuable years serving in the military just so they can have a say? Studying medicine is already a huge commitment in terms of years of your life; years where you could otherwise be out making money, starting a family, etc.*What about law enforcement officers? Do they count?
*What about valuable members of society like artists, writers, clergy, and teachers? Should they be required to serve in the military? Or do they get some sort of special deal? Or are they out of luck? How about stay-at-home mothers? These people influence the minds of the next generation greatly, they are very important for a nations' identity. Are they excluded because they aren't fighters? Maybe you invent a form of service for them that they can comfortably perform, but what's the point of that?
*Finally, who feeds the army? Who supports them? Why are they less important than the soldiers? The military can't exist without them.
I think society is a whole that is made up of many co-dependant parts. If you took any one part and said "this one knows best and should be given all the power" then I think you might have a workable government. But it's not a democracy It's an aristocracy.
One final point: What about Plato's Republic? Seems like a good idea on the surface, government by a class of philosopher-aristocrats: Trained thinkers who are indoctrinated to serve the people. Sounds awesome to me, but then again I have a degree in philosophy and would therefore be counted as a citizen. You, as a soldier, would not. Do you think it's a good idea to put sole governmental authority in the hands of the world's philosophy professors?
Sorry I waffled on, but I'm really enjoying this discussion.
Maybe I should correct a few misconceptions ...
Thanks I appreciate that.
{quote="kahoolin"] That is much much higher than any country that has voluntary voting.
No argument - the question I am asking is, "Is that a good thing."
It may very well be that the 90% plus of Australians voters understand the issues, consider their options, and making voting decisions based on what is best not only for themselves, but the nation.If it is true - I commend your people and your system.
I pose the question however because it is outside of my experience, it appears to me that many Americans who vote are driven by party politics, and special interests - with destructive agendas.
That exposure, and the decline in the calibre of leadership, schools, health care, etc has soured me on the current system - which happens to be universal sufferage. I readily concede that the solution proposed may not be idea lor even work - what I do know is that the current system is broken.
BTW - Starship Troopers - while a fun movie - my opinion of 300 too - is not the actually the model I advocate. It is just an example (cited by someone else originally actually not me) of a A path to citizenship (in the movie service guarantees citizenship - but does not specify that it is the only path.
I take back my "police state" comment!
Thanks
And a show of courage to do so and still not back off a comment but give no ground or your belief - well doneI have no issue with dissenting views either - always good to have a theoretical discussion with someone who doesn't lose their rag over it. And I agree that military life is generally a positive thing. But I stick by my view though that no one segment of the population should be given political power at the expence of all the others.
Here is the heart of it - I basically feel the same way - but it is my opinion that "service" should be an obligation for ALL segments - you can opt out, but IF you do you are electing not to participate in the process of government.
Service does not necessarily mean "infantry" by the way - in today's army the numbers vary but for every "line soldier" there are 7 - 10 in support. And in a better military, this number would be even higher.
Take you examples:
Scientists - lots of opportunity for young scientists to practice and hone their skills, managing projects, and applying their knowledge to applications - before venturing into pure research. Correctly managed military experience would produce better scientists - more competitive in a global market. The same is IMO true of all of the examples you present.
Doctors - this one is obvious - not only battlefield medicine, but research, sports injuries, even health missions to other countries.
Two years (for example) of service wold serve the individuals far more than it would serve the country, it would provide a common experience with other economic strata, fields of interest, that even college never does.
Other highly trained professionals and researchers - all have miltary analogs and could develop real world experience that would make them more effective in the civilian market place, as well as stronger, healthier, more disciplined, and professional. To my thinking this is not a waste, it is a high yield investment, and extension of one education.
*What about law enforcement officers?
*What about valuable members of society like clergy, and teachers? Should they be required to serve in the military?
The military provides some of the best possible professional development. You yes absolutely.
*Artists/Writers - I concede for those individuals it is more difficult to make the case, but I will make a couple of points:
1. I am not suggesting a lifetime of service
2. The life experience and training would probably serve the individual well
3. Experience shows that many good writers/artists have emerged with military experience
How about stay-at-home mothers?
I am thinking of service out of high school - or college prior to that as a realistic choice
These people influence the minds of the next generation greatly, they are very important for a nations' identity. Are they excluded because they aren't fighters? Maybe you invent a form of service for them that they can comfortably perform, but what's the point of that?
No. Service is a way to provide a shared experience and investment to INCLUDE everyone equally - to provide everyone the opportunity to earn their rights by virtue of defending them.
*Finally, who feeds the army? Who supports them? Why are they less important than the soldiers? The military can't exist without them.
I am not suggesting a lifetime of service for all - I am not a Spartan. But the model of the other Greek states - a term of service for citizenship, as a right of passage, as part of a young persons education, and indoctination into society is implementable - and is still done in many countries - Israel for example.
One final point: What about Plato's Republic? Seems like a good idea on the surface, government by a class of philosopher-aristocrats: Trained thinkers who are indoctrinated to serve the people. Sounds awesome to me, but then again I have a degree in philosophy and would therefore be counted as a citizen. You, as a soldier, would not. Do you think it's a good idea to put sole governmental authority in the hands of the world's philosophy professors?
Thats a really interesting question.
I have limited experience with philosophers or philosophy students, and it has been largely negative. In that experience they have been arrogant, and condescending, sophmoric in their opinions, and lack the experience to be able to develop anything useful. But expect to be taken very seriously - in spite of not having to deliver outcomes - hit sales targets, meet production deadlines, take the hill, etc. No offense intended I can only think of 3 "philosophers" I know personally.That said the idea of government by true, "Lovers of Knowledge" as opposed to rule by those who write long pointless papers might have some appeal.
The most valuable knowledge IMO comes from experience, from actions, from striving to achieve results in some field. I am not trying to discount the importance of writing about it, but business not academia at least in my experience, produces stronger more ideas, philosophies, and thinkers of relevance.
Please keep the dialogue going!
No worries.
No argument - the question I am asking is, "Is that a good thing."
It may very well be that the 90% plus of Australians voters understand the issues, consider their options, and making voting decisions based on what is best not only for themselves, but the nation.If it is true - I commend your people and your system.
I pose the question however because it is outside of my experience, it appears to me that many Americans who vote are driven by party politics, and special interests - with destructive agendas.
You're right, it doesn't necessarily mean that the people ARE making informed and deliberate choices, only that they THINK they are. But if they are not, then I would say that is the fault of auxiliary social systems like the media and education more than the idea of universal suffrage itself. What I would like to see is in-depth political education in schools and workplaces, perhaps by appointed ombudsmen or something who are required to be objective. I mean there isn't much more important when you get down to it than government, and it seems wierd to me that we expect everyone to make such important decisions based on what little information they can seek out themselves, or from inherently biased campaign advertisements. One hour-long class a week from maybe year 10 to year 12 (ages 16-18), and scheduled paid information days during work hours for those who choose to attend. It's not a lot to ask. I mean I only have a rudimentary knowledge of how our system works, many others just vote labour or liberal depending on the traditions of their family or peers. We can't rely on the free press- they just give people what they want, which is mostly disasters and sport. If we expect everyone to make informed decisions we need to inform them.
BTW - Starship Troopers - while a fun movie - my opinion of 300 too - is not the actually the model I advocate. It is just an example (cited by someone else originally actually not me) of a A path to citizenship (in the movie service guarantees citizenship - but does not specify that it is the only path.
In the book it is specified that only those who serve in the military can become citizens. Heinlein modelled it after the Athenian demos.
Here is the heart of it - I basically feel the same way - but it is my opinion that "service" should be an obligation for ALL segments - you can opt out, but IF you do you are electing not to participate in the process of government.
Service does not necessarily mean "infantry" by the way - in today's army the numbers vary but for every "line soldier" there are 7 - 10 in support. And in a better military, this number would be even higher.
Take you examples... (a bunch of good points)... I am thinking of service out of high school - or college prior to that as a realistic choice
Oh, OK. So you are not advocating military service as a pre-requisite to citizenship. You are advocating national service? I agree, I think compulsory national service is a great idea. I wish we had it in Australia. You might be wondering what the difference is, and I admit it is subtle, but I think the idea that everyone should serve in the military for a short time when they are young builds a common experience for all citizens, and would probably curb welfare cheats by giving them discipline, pride, and a career. Also it makes the military less of an elite club of musclebound young blokes eager for battle, as everyone is in it at least for a while. But I still think suffrage should come at a certain age, and not be tied to military service, even if you say everyone (except those with a good reason such as the severely disabled or mothers of young children) must serve at age 18 and everyone can vote at age 18. I think it's better to send out the message that "the reason you have to serve is because you are a citizen" rather than "the reason you can vote is that you are a soldier."
I am not suggesting a lifetime of service for all - I am not a Spartan. But the model of the other Greek states - a term of service for citizenship, as a right of passage, as part of a young persons education, and indoctination into society is implementable - and is still done in many countries - Israel for example.
Agreed, the system in Israel, Spain, Switzerland and many other places appeals to me. But I still think service should be a responsibility of citizenship, not citizenship a reward for service. That way if someone can't or won't serve for some reason (there wouldn't be many, I'd think), they are still a citizen. I include "won't" because anyone of strong enough principle to provide a real justification as to why they don't want to serve (maybe an essay or an interview in front of a panel?) would probably be a valuable citizen. It shows they can at least think for themselves.
One final point: What about Plato's Republic? Seems like a good idea on the surface, government by a class of philosopher-aristocrats: Trained thinkers who are indoctrinated to serve the people. Sounds awesome to me, but then again I have a degree in philosophy and would therefore be counted as a citizen. You, as a soldier, would not. Do you think it's a good idea to put sole governmental authority in the hands of the world's philosophy professors?Thats a really interesting question.
I have limited experience with philosophers or philosophy students, and it has been largely negative. In that experience they have been arrogant, and condescending, sophmoric in their opinions, and lack the experience to be able to develop anything useful. But expect to be taken very seriously - in spite of not having to deliver outcomes - hit sales targets, meet production deadlines, take the hill, etc. No offense intended I can only think of 3 "philosophers" I know personally.That said the idea of government by true, "Lovers of Knowledge" as opposed to rule by those who write long pointless papers might have some appeal.
The most valuable knowledge IMO comes from experience, from actions, from striving to achieve results in some field. I am not trying to discount the importance of writing about it, but business not academia at least in my experience, produces stronger more ideas, philosophies, and thinkers of relevance.
It was more of a rhetorical question, as I am aware of the reputation of philosophers! And I admit that the field attracts quite a few flakes at university. Not many of them make it though, in my experience, and everyone I know who actually has a completed major in philosophy has a lot of knowledge about the history of western thought coupled with an ability to think clearly and deeply analyze all sides of a problem. For example I am going for the foreign affairs exam next year as I got a letter inviting me to try it - The Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade sources many of it's junior diplomatic staff from philosophy graduates with good marks, as they have found them to be flexible thinkers able to adapt well and see to the heart of issues.
I think the not having to deliver outcomes thing is kind of the point - in The Republic the philosopher-kings are supposed to have all of their worldly needs filled by tax money so they can concentrate totally on making competent decisions, and part of their indoctrination is to make them think greed is bad so they can't be corrupted. But yeah, for every serious student of philosophy you get 10 pot-smoking idiots who think they know everything. Luckily most of them can't cut it and change to something else when it gets too hard. And it IS hard :)
Maybe we can combine the two, have the old "scholar and a gentleman" thing. I read an awesome quote once, I think it's Thucydides but I could be wrong. Paraphrased:
Any kingdom that let's it's soldiers become too seperate from it's scholars will end up with it's thinking done by cowards and it's fighting done by idiots.
:D
Any kingdom that let's it's soldiers become too seperate from it's scholars will end up with it's thinking done by cowards and it's fighting done by idiots.
I like that quote.
I was going to respond to more line by line - but it was getting a bit long.
To a couple of basic points.
I think that in general - responsibility and accountibilty come before priviledge. Hence my writing to see service before rights - butin truth I doubt if it were left to me I would take such a hard line - individuals in service would have sufferage as well.
As to philosphers - and the value of having them seperate - from the needs and demands of commerce (and the world) so they would remain uncorruptable - well - no offence, but I think that is crap.
Would you prefer to entrust your business over to men who came up through the ranks of business and have managed and grown them - maen who know ho to manage men, and money, and who are truly in the market - or would you entrust you business, your livelihood to those who just sat around thinking about it?
For me experience trumps contemplation. Add to that that those of us who are required to execute rather than merely theorize on what a good course of action would be are not necessarily wholly devoid of wit. Some of us who "act" - actually do think about what we are doing, in addition we read outside of our fields, learn from books and history - but we are able to apply the context of experience to those books and learnings. Leadership by pure academics is probably one of the most frightening forms of government I can think of. It is bad enough that academics have so much sway over academia - to the point look at the standard of education in the US, look at its global rank and whether it is moving up or down.
What would you think of a system where financial independance - was a prerequisite to public office - a system that required say 30 years of documentable work experience to run for office. Thus eleiminating career politicians?
Heh, I had to wait until the language went back to normal before I could read your post!
As to philosphers - and the value of having them seperate - from the needs and demands of commerce (and the world) so they would remain uncorruptable - well - no offence, but I think that is crap.
Would you prefer to entrust your business over to men who came up through the ranks of business and have managed and grown them - maen who know ho to manage men, and money, and who are truly in the market - or would you entrust you business, your livelihood to those who just sat around thinking about it?
For me experience trumps contemplation. Add to that that those of us who are required to execute rather than merely theorize on what a good course of action would be are not necessarily wholly devoid of wit. Some of us who "act" - actually do think about what we are doing, in addition we read outside of our fields, learn from books and history - but we are able to apply the context of experience to those books and learnings. Leadership by pure academics is probably one of the most frightening forms of government I can think of. It is bad enough that academics have so much sway over academia - to the point look at the standard of education in the US, look at its global rank and whether it is moving up or down.
I would naturally want my busines entrusted to business people. But good government is not business. It is not people management. That's what the public service is for. Good government is the formation of social policies that lead to the best possible society for everyone. Philosophers are trained in ethics, logic and as I said earlier, the history of western (and sometimes also eastern) thought. They know how to make consistent arguments that take into account all known possibilities on these issues while avoiding the mistakes of the past. They are not the only people capable of doing that of course, but they ARE the only people who can do it without having to extend outside of their particular field of expertise.
Here's my take on it: Of course people outside a field are capable of reading outside that field and of course every intelligent person thinks before they act. But in each field (including business, the military, anything) there is far more accrued knowledge than a person could ever learn in a lifetime. I think it is a little insulting to say that anyone in the street with a bit of common sense could be just as good in a field as someone who has spent many years learning and training in that field. This applies to ethics and problem solving as much as to business, and these two fields are both very important to good government and happen to be what philosophers are trained in.
Of course you may think philosophy is a special case and is nothing more than common sense, in which case you probably think philosophers are a joke, but I would obviously have to disagree. I didn't study philosophy because I thought it would be easy and help me get chicks :) While your average university philosophy professor may be concerned with questions like "do we exist?", there are many philosophy-trained individuals in positions outside teaching who spend their lives wrestling with difficult questions like "is euthanasia OK? What should the legal status of animals be? Under what circumstances are we justified in going to war?"
As I said in the very beginning, to me everything points toward evryone working together, each of us filling our little niches. I wouldn't want philosphers to be the only poeple who vote, but I would feel a lot better to know that they were there, along with high ranking military personnel and successful business people, when the hard decisions were made. I think the only way to ensure that is to have a system like the one we have now: Universal suffrage not dependant on anything but age. Australia has excellent education by world standards and a public health system I have always been very happy with, to be honest. I think it's pretty good here, and I think a large part of that is because of universal citizenship and compulsory voter registration. To be perfectly frank, I think restricting ciizenship to certain groups only is elitist and against the spirit of modern democracy, and I doubt it would lead to widespread happiness no matter which group you decided were the wisest/strongest/smartest/most deserving. And to me widespread happiness, or at least satisfaction, is the ultimate goal of government. I think we may have to agree to disagree.
What would you think of a system where financial independance - was a prerequisite to public office - a system that required say 30 years of documentable work experience to run for office. Thus eleiminating career politicians?
I would prefer a system where all politicians were paid around the same as a low-level public servant. That way the only people who would run for office would be people who genuinely cared, and were willing to take on the great responsibilities without expecting much material reward. Think about it: If pollies worked for peanuts they would be heroes to the people, and I think that's about the most valuable thing a career politician can do for society. I mean people need heroes, and it's not like they do anything else important ;)
Sorry for not quoting specifically the posts were getting loooong. (Also I am at work waiting for stuff to download - but wnated to get your bounce on a few things)
Also, sorryif the laast post was curt - not the intent.
Government is business - management of large groups - operating divisions, and individuals - all with conflicting interests, keeping budgets, generating revenue, collecting it, providing services, marketing them, etc. It requires, the application of ethics, history (and forecasting from it), as well as an understanding of econominics,
Granted it is different than other businesses, but I think business is the single best model for it. I think real business leaders are some of the best thinkers and philosophers we've got in todays society. But I readily concede that is a personal bias. So in the interest of keeping the dialogue going I'll try to broaden my mind and give a beter and more general expression of my view:
Government is first and foremost the execution of policy for the public good. Not the contemplation, or the writing of that policy (though that is clearly importatant) but the execution.
1. Organization and coordination of teams and groups
2. Managing those teams for best results
3. Cost control
4. Marketing
5. Revenue generation
6. Performance tracking
Whether you are talking about defence, health care, the legal system, roads - it is the execution not the theory that serves the people.
Philosophers - in my limited experience are not trainied for that - or rather it is not their training in philosophy and logic that provides them with that expertise if they possess it.
Is there a role for philosophers - of course - and it is critical, but it is not the role of leader but rather as counselor, educator, and analyst.
As to low pay for politicians.
I would argue:
Reward based where possible for bureacrats.
What about No pay for elected positions - expenses yes? What about a system where people (maybe I am delusional on this point) serve out of civic duty, after they have a history of proven performance and have amassed the resources (and experience) to make this a good choice for them.
Gotta go month end sales numbers to crunch
So I finally saw the movie and I was torn between two sides. On the one hand it was meant to be escapist violent fiction and there was some pretty cool moments in the movie and on the other hand the plot was completely overdone. Lets face it you are telling a story about men that sacrificed themselves to save their city state. (No not for 'Greece', nor some abstract ideal of western freedom but for their way of life.) And you turn it in to a half-baked concept of the greatest evil the world has ever known is trying to subvert and corrupt and grind under its feet the entire western world then why not stick to the men that did this? It's called character development. What worked in the comic simply didn't 'feel right' for a movie.
The whole thing should have been about the battle and the men who fought it. Instead you end up with cardboard cutout superheroes with red capes and bogey-men wearing silver masks. The whole Spartan traitor rapes Leonidas' wife before she skewers him plot line, well one word... weak.
I won't go into the blatantly ridiculous historical mangling because it really is meant to be mythic fantasy. But I would again encourage anyone who likes the idea behind the story to pick up this "Gates of Fire" book. I can only hope Universal gets off their duff and uses the movie option soon, it would grind 300 under its' sandals.
Sorry for not quoting specifically the posts were getting loooong.
I know what you mean! I'll try to keep quoting to a minimum.
Government is first and foremost the execution of policy for the public good. Not the contemplation, or the writing of that policy (though that is clearly importatant) but the execution.
See, I would define government as the formation and writing of policy, and the execution as being the job of bureaucrats, who go into action once the policy has been handed down. So I think business people could readily replace bureaucrats and society would become much more efficient, but I don't think they could replace politicians (the policy makers), at least not as well as say, philosophers could. But that is my personal bias. I also don't think busines people would be interested in being bureaucrats. If they were they wouldn't be business people. Business is about making money for personal gain, that's what drives people into business. Implementing governmental policy doesn't make you any money. Bureaucrats are paid by taxes, and have no opportunity to increase their income within their field. It's a pity, but I can't see any way to make implementing government policy competitive, and hence attractive to the sort of go-getters that business attracts.
As to low pay for politicians....
What about No pay for elected positions - expenses yes? What about a system where...
I don't know, I tend to think politicians should be paid, for if they aren't paid at all beyond expenses then realistically the field would only attract people who were already independantly wealthy - whether through business or inherited wealth. As you've probably noticed I am all for representation from a wide cross-section of society. I don't like the idea of only the rich being politicians. I don't know what it's like in the US but here one of our two major parties (labour) tends to draw it's politicians from working class and middle-class families. I think a lot of these people would be shut out if independant wealth was made an unofficial pre-requisite for political service. You would end up with only the lame children of wealthy families in politics as the actual bright money-makers would stick to the business end. I wouldn't want Paris Hilton forming my social policy.
I reckon give them enough money to make it an average career, competitive with a middle-class job. Ambulance officers don't get paid hugely; they work because it pays the bills and they get the reward of saving lives.
See, I would define government as the formation and writing of policy, and the execution as being the job of bureaucrats, who go into action once the policy has been handed down.
Well I guess on this point we just have to disagree - Business is about making money - yes. But the skills that go into that:
Planning
Determining Strategy and Direction
Assessing the Environment and Context you are operating in
Managing and Developing People and Teams
Controlling Costs
Allocating Resources
Pushing to see that plans are executed
Following up
Determinig public reaction ad satisfaction to actions taken
AND Accountibility for the actions and outcomes
Those are some of the most basic skills of successful business leaders.
And the skills I want in my government leaders.
I may be wrong but those are not the skills I associate with beauracrats or philosophers . Writing policy and proceedure - that is - to me - the least role of government and again business people have far more experience - via the analogy of structuring deals, negotiating contracts, and determining policy - than beauracrats or philosophers (though I confess my understanding of what philosophers do in the modern context is limited - but I have trouble seeing how a group of academics that can't find jobs will be able to create them ;-). The other thing I don't see beauracrats or philosophers stepping up to is accountability - and that is a big part of the government today - business people accept it (the good ones at least).
As to the creation of competition - thats easy - for many things construction projects (roads, hospitals, schools, etc.) the competition is necessarily against other teams (though that could be too) but time frames, budgets, or performance. Hit your targets earn a bonus - exceed you targets get points toward promotion, over perform get your choice of future projects etc. _ again like business.
The other thing to remember, is that business people ARE part of the communities they work in, they want education - for their kids - or f if you are really cynical to produce a better class of workers and consumers, roads, health care - they are all consumers as well. I would argue that by working for their own organizations, and understanding the needs of their customers, and the actions of competitors and the regulatory environment that IN GENERAL they have a much closer, deeper, and visceral understanding of their communities and its needs than academics or beauracrats (which in my experience are largely isolated from the broaders perspective).
I think also that many business people are motivated by more than money, though a lot of academics don't seem to get that, which I can understand because so man of the measuring sticks are finance based - but that is more a function of common language than the money itself.
Making something grow
Improving the business - making it better than you found it
Introducing new products and ideas
Creating jobs
Creating your product or service - making it exciting to others -
Fighting to promote the value of your ideas in the market (as represented by the product - and getting the company to react as you will
Those are all major drivers for any business person - and good analogs for what I want from my leadership.
As to the poor governing - I don't agree that that has any real value, but my no pay plan doesn't exclude it. My proposal is that people who run for office should have expereince - retirees, people who have had a career and have a context to base their decisions on. Retirees from the sanitation department wouldn't be excluded if public office was how they wanted to spend their retirement - let them go for it, same witht academics - afte ra career of teaching or research. Young people wouldn't be excluded from the process could serve on staffs and learn the system - and if they had the resources, could run - they just wouldn't be paid.
Paris Hilton - yeah that could happen - but the accountibility thing would be an issue - and she would still have to run and win in a public election. Your common man sword cuts both ways - If you are putting your faith in the common man to hold office and govern - you have to have faith that they won't vote a self aggrandizing slut as well.
I deeply disagree that government is about the writing of policy.
Government (at least good government as I see it) is about leadership, and the effective execution of certain services:
Education - First and foremost
This area in particualr I think would benefit from business leaders
Health Care
Defense
Infrastructure
Fair administration of the legal system
Keep up the posts this is fun.
I'm about to go away for a few days (camping in the bush - it should be great for getting all the office-work out of my system). So I won't be able to reply for a while. But I'll respond when I get back.
By the way, I think we win the award for most long-winded and off-topic threadjack ever ;)
I'm about to go away for a few days (camping in the bush - it should be great for getting all the office-work out of my system). So I won't be able to reply for a while. But I'll respond when I get back.
By the way, I think we win the award for most long-winded and off-topic threadjack ever ;)
See a way to work competition into anything - and in this case we made a better thread
Sorry it took so long to reply. I've been thinking a lot about what you said above and you certainly make an excellent case for business people as implementers. I do have some reservations though.
I deeply disagree that government is about the writing of policy.
Government (at least good government as I see it) is about leadership, and the effective execution of certain services:
Education - First and foremost
This area in particualr I think would benefit from business leaders
Health Care
Defense
Infrastructure
Fair administration of the legal system
OK, but I would ask what is leadership but the creation of policy? Leaders are people who have either forced others to follow their policies or others have invested in them the right to make decisions on their behalf. I agree that business people are very well-equipped for management, but managemet is not leadership. It is a step down from that, it is efficient implementation. Now that is probably more important than leadership, as a good policy badly implemented is worse than an average policy well implemented, but it's still not the same thing.
You suggested that business people are qualified to make policy as they are part of the community and therefore know what is best for their own families and by extension everyone else's. Fair enough, but that is true of everyone, even the poor and unemployed. They have kids who have to go to school. I'll stop using philosophy as an example as it has a particularly bad rep, but let's say an economics, or a history lecturer, or a maths professor. These people don't live in an ivory tower, they have families, mortgages, their kids go to school. Thus they are just as well qualified to make social policy as your business person. Added to this inherent qualification though is that the intellectual class are the people in each society who are trained to know things, learn things, teach things and understand things. Business people are the sector who are trained to do things. Why not have our intellectuals decide what's best and our business poeple do it? Or better yet, let everyone decide who they trust to do it at every stage, which is what we already do.
I don't know about the US but the anti-intellectualism of Australia really galls me. It boggles my mind that some professions are regarded as almost heroic (school teachers, nurses, firemen, anything blue collar) while others are scorned as being worthless (university teachers, advisors). I have friends who are academics and friends who work down the mines. The miners get paid more and have more social status than the academics. People respect them at every social event they go to. Not so for my academic friends: Outside their own circle people laugh at them and think them useless or a bit crazy. I'm not saying it should be the other way around, I'm saying it should be equal.
In my view a functional society needs workers, intellectuals, business people, soldiers, everything, and they should all be respected. If you want an example of a society that scorned it's intellectual class look no further than China in the early years of Mao's rule: First the academics were belittled as being decadent and worthless. Then they were beaten and arrested for being actively anti-working class. Pretty soon everyone was driving around in trucks killing sparrows because they were demonstrating "anti-worker sentiment" by eating crops. Then there was a famine because the insects that were controlled by the sparrows ate everything. Any scientist who dared to point this out at any stage was beaten and locked up or worse. This is an extreme example, but it's a short step from saying someone is a useless drain to taking away all of their rights. Look at the poor in many so called modern nations.
This is a good discussion, but I'm not sure we can get much further. I think the current system is the best and fairest for everyone, though we could do with a bit more respect for those who spend their lives pursuing knowledge. You seem to hold to the economic rationalist position that society functions like a market and if we let market forces decide then everything will work out for the best. I strongly disagree, I don't think government and business are the same thing at all.
By the way I finally saw 300 and I loved it. I think all the angst about it being racist war propaganda is a little misplaced. That's how the Greeks are in Herodotus, and I think the fantasy elements were just that. It was a great sword and sorcery movie and I haven't seen anything like it since Conan the Barbarian. The reason they are talking about freedom and war is not because Bush is; Bush talks about freedom and war because Leonidas and Pericles did. It worked for them and it works for him. All modern political rhetoric is directly descended from Ancient Greek political rhetoric. Two thumbs up from me.
See, I would define government as the formation and writing of policy, and the execution as being the job of bureaucrats, who go into action once the policy has been handed down.Well I guess on this point we just have to disagree - Business is about making money - yes. But the skills that go into that:
Planning
Determining Strategy and Direction
Assessing the Environment and Context you are operating in
Managing and Developing People and Teams
Controlling Costs
Allocating Resources
Pushing to see that plans are executed
Following up
Determinig public reaction ad satisfaction to actions takenAND Accountibility for the actions and outcomes
Those are some of the most basic skills of successful business leaders.
Disclaimer: I'll admit to having not read all the very long posts before this one but as to the point that government should be run like a business I'm not sure I agree. Sure right now I think it would be nice if we could fire incompetent leaders but beyond now I really don't think business really gets what ideal governance is all about. Contrary to popular belief governance is not about making a buck in the lobby industry after you are out of office or about huge kick-backs for contracts, things that might be considered networking for the business world.
I don't see growth on the list other than making jobs. Most companies I know want to grow, want to outrun the competition. And controlling costs could lead allocating resources to creating more jobs in other cheaper markets where you can develope the work force for less, thereby "down-sizing" your current workforce by outsourcing. You can outsource practically anything these days including the military (i.e. "independant (no-bid) contractors") it seems. Do we really want the government to outsource stuff like food quality to a Pepsi? Or air quality to a company invested in coal or cars? They could bid for and it would control costs, but even still....
Pushing to see that plans are executed - would this include plans that hurt more people than they help even if it looks good on the bottom line? Could business-government perhaps spin things in their advertising and marketting branch to make it look like a good thing for the "consumers." Buy this drug it cures shyness and makes your life as rich as this commercial - side effects include.... Business to me has always been about the bottom line, if you don't turn a profit people won't pay you. And if you get paid enough it has been proven you don't have to be accountable, you can just move to the Bahama's and avoid all those nasty taxes, or to your own country like Dubai and not have to worry about your home country's regulatory laws anymore. Money is like power. You get enough power in one place and you get arguments like "I did it* (*lied, cheated, infringed, deregulated, backdoor contracted, leaked, etc...) because it was within my executive power to do so. So there. What you gonna do about it, baby? Cry? You gonna cry, baby? Well that's unAmerican." Very munchkin and boarderline with in the rules when seen through a carnival mirror.
I really don't want to have to live though another four years of "business rule" from the VP's seat, where a victim feels the need to apologize for being shot in the face. I rather have actual representation - sure it's noisey with lots of different voices and doesn't get as much done unless there's an emergency (and then they might tend to help everyone more equally), but also it is not as indoctornated in business' driving need to increase profit and squash the competition for that all-mighty buck. Management skills can come from anywhere including such places as the military, charity organizations, the secretary's pool, local government, and academia regarless of gender and to a certain extent age (folks should be mature but beyond that if you can get the job done and have fresh ideas I don't see why a wise 20-something can't do the same job as Strom Thurmond). And sure, it can come even from the business world and the Simple Life every now and then. ;)
-GGG
I can't say I was overly excited by this movie (especially after all the hype). While I think that the whole racist, anti-Islamic, America against the rest of the pagan world stuff has been overemphasized by people who are just a tad too sensitive about such things (though I can see where they might have some justification) it was the rest of the movie that left me lukewarm.
Stylistically the movie was hit and miss. While I liked certain elements for their visual and/or emotional appeal (the tree of corpses, some of the slow-mow choreography, the allegorial connection between the wolf trapped in the narrow cleft and the Persians at the Hot Gates) and enjoyed some of the fight scenes for purely visceral reasons (the decapitations and such) the rest of the movie grated on my nerves.
Some of the acting was absolutely woeful (and the narration annoying), though Gerard Butler was good as King Leonidus. The scenes with Queen Gorgo were pointless (except for her last lines to Theron), but the lines taken from Herodotus were great (Come and get them, fight in the shade, and so on). The humor was also enjoyable, but seemed at odds with the rest of the film.
Certain parts of this film also grated on me as a D&D player. I'm sick of seeing warriors running around with no armor simply because the director, etc wants them to show off their pecks. It's ludicrous (in fact one of the reasons the traditional Spartans were successful against the Persians was because they were more heavily armored). LOTR proved you could have armored warriors who still looked macho. Also, their phalanx fighting fell apart rather quickly, simply because it suited the storyline (another stupidity).
It's interesting that freedom is such a big theme of the movie and used to show the dichotamy between the Persians and the Spartans. I wonder what the ancient Helots would have thought about the movie had they seen it? As always, history puts holes in every mediocre film that would have been great simply if it had told the truth!
I know what you mean...Freedom...that's funny considering the whole reason for the Spartans warlike culture was that they had more slaves than most other city-states and were paranoid about the possibility of a slave result. Also...the "going on the journey to become a man thing?" Not so. They went down the fields and butchered a defenseless slave. Go Spartans.
Frank Miller wants to write a book about the Peloponnesian War where the Spartans are the villains and the heroic Athenian democracy are the ones fighting for freedom. I'm sure the Spartans will be wearing the jackboots in that one...
Even though the Peloponnesian war was the beginning of the Athenian hegemony in the name of democracy. Heh - I guess in ancient times everyone was jerks.
Go Spartans.
Ah, a Michigan State fan. I'm sure Sebastion will be along any moment....
;)
GGG
Heh - I guess in ancient times everyone was jerks.
Amen, brother. Unfortunately, most of 'em still are, mate.
|
I knew by watching the preview of this movie that the Persians would be portrayed as monsters. I knew that light skinned Spartans would be the heros and the darker skinned persians the villians as soon as I saw the king kick the persian messenger down a well in the preview.
I then CHOSE to go spend my money and enjoy it. This is not a reflection of my personal politics. I do not feel an upwelling of pride in my breast and imagine the film as an allegory of the west's superiority over the east. I was entertained. Period.
If the modern decendants of the Persians were to make a movie demonizing the west or america specifically I would not get upset or take it personally. I might even watch it and laugh at the ignorance of any of my fellow americans who did take it to heart.
Ever since seeing Zulu Dawn as a kid I have been afraid of black people in large numbers. Not the same I know, but in this one instance I can't help but let my ignorance shine.
Tam
I saw it here in rehab. About 17 times. Made me proud to be Greek.
|
|
I knew by watching the preview of this movie that the Persians would be portrayed as monsters. I knew that light skinned Spartans would be the heros and the darker skinned persians the villians as soon as I saw the king kick the persian messenger down a well in the preview.
I then CHOSE to go spend my money and enjoy it. This is not a reflection of my personal politics. I do not feel an upwelling of pride in my breast and imagine the film as an allegory of the west's superiority over the east. I was entertained. Period.
If the modern decendants of the Persians were to make a movie demonizing the west or america specifically I would not get upset or take it personally. I might even watch it and laugh at the ignorance of any of my fellow americans who did take it to heart.
Ever since seeing Zulu Dawn as a kid I have been afraid of black people in large numbers. Not the same I know, but in this one instance I can't help but let my ignorance shine.
Tam
Yep. Dass it right there.
Is this the '300' thread? Could have fooled me....
Anyway, just watched it on DVD last night. I payed 5 bucks at Blockbuster.
I want my 5 bucks back, and the two hours I spent watching it. If it weren't for the nudity, I would have got up to play Age of Empires for the 300th time instead of watching this lame Gladiator knock off.
This movie doesn't even come close to Sin City.
Just finished watching Hot Fuzz. Way better than 300...WAY BETTER.
Is this the '300' thread? Could have fooled me....
Anyway, just watched it on DVD last night. I payed 5 bucks at Blockbuster.
I want my 5 bucks back, and the two hours I spent watching it. If it weren't for the nudity, I would have got up to play Age of Empires for the 300th time instead of watching this lame Gladiator knock off.
This movie doesn't even come close to Sin City.
Just finished watching Hot Fuzz. Way better than 300...WAY BETTER.
Werd!
Hot Fuzz is the snizzle! Great movie!
|
|
I liked it. When I'm fighting 25 dudes sometimes it all gets all slow and I start flipping them around all slomo in the air. It's good to strip down to your speedo's and oil your muscles up afore a big fight; then folks can't rassle you too well. You're like a greased pig of mayhem.
Then some 8 foot tall guy with a gold rang in his nose comes and says he'll give you a free trip to Europe if you quit whuppin his boys. So I tell him, "eff you and the ziggurat you rode in on. This is my bar."
I loved 300. And I hated Gladiator. Gladiator tried to be effing serious and artsy movie and failed dismally. 300 tried to be pretty and fun romp and succeeded brilliantly.
Most of the gals in our office LOVE 300; they talk about it a lot. They go all ga-ga over the oiled, hairless pecs and abs, to the point where I have no desire to ever see the movie (not that I did anyway--I'm bycotting CGI this week).
Show the droolers THIS 300 trailer recut with "Its Raining Men" by the Weather Girls.
I saw it once and have no intention of getting the dvd. I kicked around my opinions about it for a while, went back and forth and ultimately decided that it just wasn't that good of a movie. And that it definitely wasn't worth thinking about all that much.
I've said it before and I'll say it again: really funny how a three hour movie about nubile perfect man-ass can have this outward homophobic attitude. No matter how often those speedo-clad Spartans make pithy comments about the "Athenian boy lovers", they're still a bunch of mostly naked men running around in tight formation. Give me a break.
|
I liked it. When I'm fighting 25 dudes sometimes it all gets all slow and I start flipping them around all slomo in the air. It's good to strip down to your speedo's and oil your muscles up afore a big fight; then folks can't rassle you too well. You're like a greased pig of mayhem.
Then some 8 foot tall guy with a gold rang in his nose comes and says he'll give you a free trip to Europe if you quit whuppin his boys. So I tell him, "eff you and the ziggurat you rode in on. This is my bar."
So... Right now I have an hour to kill until I have to be somewhere, so I wandered into the library to do some Paizoin'.
And this made me laugh so hard I think they're going to throw me out. An old lady is on her way over...
Not even a universal library ban (after the Great Library Rampage of 'aught Four) can contain Heathansson's fury. Quake, summer reading children. Quake and know fear.
Regardless of what folks think of the movie it has inspired something of a fitness craze - if any of you workout regularly or are interested in what bodies like those in the movie take you may want to check out the link: 300 Workout
Also, after seeing the movie I read a couple of books on the battle (history books - not novels - actually I read one of those too) there are lots of folks complaining about the history and representation that seem to be misinformed about the Spartans and the Persians of the day. I would highly recommend Thermopylae - Battle for the West. Its a lot of fun and a nice synopsis of both sides though weighted on the Spartans.
This film had: Ancient history, Greeks, Persians, Swords, Spears, Monsters and Boobies. All things that I love. The movie still managed to stink. It was well manufactured but the complete lack of historical veracity and the constant right-wing drumbeat ruined it for me.
If it was a Hercules episode it would have been ok, but it did not claim to be, it claimed to be a retelling of an ancient tale of something that actually happened.
It's fine to not have exactly the right armor or to have mythical creatures and such.. but in reality Sparta was a brutal land where a caste of warriors lived off the labor of an entire race of enslaved people. In the film the happy peasants looked on lovingly at their noble masters. In real life the Spartans greatest fear was that their slaves who outnumbered them would successfully overthrow them. Slavery was common at that time but even other greeks considered it barbaric to enslave their fellow greeks.
In the film Leonidas taunts the Athenians (art & freedom loving proto-democrats) about being gay. In real life the Agogi (sp?) system of Sparta promoted young boys living with older men to form a male-only martial & sexual bond. When a boy was old enough to take a wife she had her head shaved and they were introduced in the dark so it would be more like what he was used to. Even once married a warrior lived with the other warriors.
But in general the message was: Foreigners are all evil sex-perverts and less than human, so kill them! And if anyone says mindless war might be a bad idea? They are traitors!!!! I liked Sin City and the comics it was based on but in 300 Miller took a real historical event and wizzed all over it to justify his own political leanings. It was a huge love letter to totalitarian right wing politics and it made me want to puke.
So yeah, sorry to go all Comic Book Guy on a movie that was out a long time ago but I have rarely been as pissed at a movie as I was at this one.
The movie didn't pretend to be history. It wasn't even based on history it was based on a comic book that was inspired by but not based on the history. So to be pissed about how it didn't match the History channel is a bit silly. The Fantastic Four doesn't paint a real picture of life in NY City either.
The Spartans were not a perfect people. But just as they were not champions of freedom and justice portrayed in the film - it is equally unfair to paint them with the dark brush used by the History channel. Many Helots for example chose to fight with the Spartans.
The Helots were slaves and Spartans as a culture were paranoid - but relative to Persian peasants of the same age Helots were pretty free. And yes the Spartans lived on the back of the peasantry - but it wasn't as if like the Persain elite the lived in luxury endlessly exploiting their subject peoples for cash, privelege and personal gratifiaction. There is a reason that the definition of spartan in the dictionary is what it is. Spartan men weren't even allowed pocket money.
Going back that length of time and different definitions of freedom (and they are mutable cultural determined concepts) the question is what would the world of looked like if the Persians were victorious. Lots of complaints about how the Persians were represented - no comments on how the Persians should of been represented - the filed teeth and mutant giants were wrong - and showing them in "dresses" - what should they have been wearing? How should the slaves of Xerxes been shown - because ALL Persians were slaves. How should the execution of his field commanders been portrayed? Miller didn't make it up.
Oddly 300 (comic or film) didn't even mention Sparta's other kings in the story - Sparta always had two, plus the deposed Spartan King in Xerxes service providing him with inteligence on Sparta and Spartan tactics, culture and thinking. Or ,strange for a film, the involvment of a real warrior queen on Xerxes counsel (Artemisia of Halicarnassus). All things that would help make the story richer - but it wasn't an attempt at history - it was the Miller comic on the large screen- plus the constraint of a medium defined by 2 hours.
Sparta contributed a lot to western civilization - they were far from perfect but it doesn't make sense to vilify them, because of words the screenwriter put in their mouths.
Athens contributed a lot too - but they weren't perfect either and a lot of the political manuevering on their side was pretty vile before during and after the battle.
I close with what the Greeks themselves said of this strange xenophobic people:
An old man wandering around the Olympic Games looking for a seat was jeered at by the crowd until he reached the seats of the Spartans, whereupon every Spartan younger than him, and some that were older, stood up and offered him their seat. The crowd applauded and the old man turned to them with a sigh, saying "All Greeks know what is right, but only the Spartans do it."