Calligraphy by Dr. Sun Yat Sen "Father of Modern China" Tian Xia Wei Gong (large characters. Read top down) - What is under Heaven is for all. [Under Heaven denoting the physical universe]
This is tied up with early Chinese philosophy, politics and ideals.
The ruler of the country/area/region (China is very large, and multiple states constantly arose and fell throughout its history) would be deemed to have the "mandate of Heaven". He/she had the mandate, authority and power to rule over the people as granted by Heaven.
However, and this is what distinguished the Chinese version of monarchy from the European "Divine Right of Kings" was that the mandate of Heaven was not eternal nor absolute. If the land suffered from drought, earthquakes, disasters, civil unrest etc... and the population suffered. This would be seen that the ruler no longer had the backing or mandate from Heaven to rule any longer. Rebellion would follow. The faction that next took power would be seen to have gained the mandate as they won.
The quote "Tian Xia" was seen in the Chinese movie "Hero" (2002) when an assassin is sent to kill Qin Shi Huang (The First Emperor) of China. Qin Shi Huang was the leader of the Qin faction when China was still split into seven warring states all vying for supremacy over the land. He subjugated all the other states and solidified it under his rule, thus becoming the First Emperor of China. Now, in the film the assassin meets up with another assassin who had earlier tried and failed to assassinate the Emperor. Their own states had been invaded and conquered by the Qin and they were out for revenge. However, the assassin who failed said he would not assassinate the Emperor. When asked why he simply wrote 'Tian Xia" on the ground. The view was the the infighting between the states was doing no good and the whole could only advance properly under strong directed leadership.
Qin Shi Huang was not without his faults. In fact he had plenty, however, the unification of the country stemmed the infighting and allowed some truly astonishing engineering projects and legacies to be left which still influence modern China today. I'm not going to repost the Wikipedia article here but you get the idea.
With that background out of the way lets move on to the topic of a good government.
The good government is provides for the rule of law and is itself subject to it. The law of course being made in accordance with the wishes of the society it governs.
To put it succinctly, a good government should:
1. Be subject to and provide for The Rule of Law
2. Be responsive to the needs of the population and society
3. Make laws that are fair and unbiased to any one section of society
4. Be adaptable
5. Act in the interests of the country and its people.
Expansion of the topics.
1. A government and the leaders must be accountable to the law they themselves enforce on the population. The laws made must be provided as part of the governing process. A possible loophole would be passing a law to exempt leaders from legal constraints. But that would be contrary to the Rule of Law in itself by seeking exemptions from it. I think.
2. The needs of the population must be addressed because what else is the point of a government if not to serve the people of its country. A leader isn't simply to be a mouthpiece but to provide that society as a whole can flourish and thrive in the conditions the country finds itself in. No country exists in a vacuum, and as global pressures cause difficulties for the population, a government needs to take steps so that the country, the nation is positioned so that the hardship is lessened.
3. No one segment of society should be favoured at the expense of others. This is mostly in regards to a culture with a possible caste system, or in the case of the United States of America, based on income.
4. The world is ever changing. And if a government cannot adapt and keep one step ahead of its friends and foes, then the country will suffer. If they cannot keep up with the changing needs of society. The country will suffer. Even the average citizen would do well to heed this.
5. This seems like such a basic thing that it almost need not be said. Sadly, this key point of having a government in the first place seems to have passed many by. Acting for the benefit means for the country and nation overall. Not recklessly taking actions that caused pointless hardship on the populace.
+++
Thats all folks
This is to reply to the earlier comments in the earlier post.
ReplyDeleteTo Anarcho: The democracy I mentioned was direct democracy. Which I view as the democracy in its most raw state. One person one vote. When it gets to representative democracy you don't actually get to cast your say fully in line with what you think. Because you elect the representative who is suppose to support your views. Mostly. Or at least better than the other candidate.
Also, man, where did the abortion video come from. Right outta the blue.
To First Striker: Hah... quite the controversial post on Athenian Democracy. But it'd be better suited if you'd have argued for direct democracy don't you think? More in line with the current situation.
To Victorius: I kind of get where you are going with the discussion of your ideal government but I think I'm still unclear. Let me know if I understood it, but basically for the change we want to see in others we need to change ourselves first then effect the change elsewhere? Or is it aiming to effect the change on others by getting them to change their character (the inside)?
TThe video is suppose to show the stupidity of Herman Cain where he actually doesn't know the position he holds.
ReplyDeleteIt is impossible to find a candidate in an election that holds identical views with any given individual. Having said that, the combination of political parties and lobbyist has ensured that only certain interests hold priority. I think that form of direct democracy is the ideal. With better technology it can become more of a reality by utilising propositions for example. But the problem is you may end up with tyranny of the masses. Especially if the masses are uneducated. For example if you had that form of direct democracy in Afghanistan you would end up with extreme Sharia Law. I think it is inevitable that for democracy to survive that form of direct democracy needs to play a bigger role. But I'm not sure if it will happen in our lifetime.
In my opinion to achieve good government power must be curbed. It isn't so much what characteristic the type of government should have but how much of its power has been checked. If you think from the beginning of civilisation with the Greeks, those in power have had their authority reduced incrementally. You had the rule of man - divine right of kings, then Parliament (albeit only for aristocrats) followed by the English model enunciated in the Leviathan, then Forty Shilling Freeholders until complete enfranchisement. So the importance is how power can be reduced no matter the form (economic, political, class etc).
Don't worry no one understands Victorious, not even himself lol.
BY: THEHAIRYPATCH [comment relocated]
ReplyDeleteI thought democracy meant representation of peoples wants and desires, so how can one binary(bascially) vote every 4 years truly represent want citizens want?
To me this is the foundation of most problems. When people bother to ask 'how do we obtain more representation from the community?' , then we might start heading in the right direction.
Well, that is the question isn't it. How do you implement direct democracy since representative democracy can never reach the 1 to 1 ratio of your desires reflected in your vote. Technology I suppose, like Anarcho said could be the step.
ReplyDeleteBut then how can a government or country act in a timely manner if everyone must be consulted. Place four people in a room and ask everyone where they want to go for dinner and you could spend hours before someone settles it by saying "K.F.C, and thats final". That or it triggers a whole new round of debate. That to me is a problem with direct democracy.
I feel that other types of democracy suffer from an inability to be able to take the long term view. Because people are on average short term minded. But many problems and solutions take a while to implement.
So the question Anarcho, is who watches those who govern? Power corrupts, so curb power. But whoever curbs the power has power.
Am I right in thinking this could get quite circular? I'm not saying you shouldn't curb power, just saying that it almost seems recursive? Circular?
An example would be a recent audit case I heard of. The man in charge of ensuring that the property wasn't misused was himself negligent on the job. So now there needs to be overseer for that position. Which is an overseer position itself. Its recursive! 0_0 Can it actually be broken? I know not.
Also, I feel if Afghanistan got the direct vote, I don't think it'll go strict Sharia. It will definitely go tribal with Sharia mixed in. Al Qaeda is actually not as popular with local populations as you might think since they're actions are pretty harsh on the locals as well.
Well, that is the question isn't it. How do you implement direct democracy since representative democracy can never reach the 1 to 1 ratio of your desires reflected in your vote. Technology I suppose, like Anarcho said could be the step.
ReplyDeleteYea such a system could be easily implemented using the internet, an identification number issued by a 'central authority' and verifiable voting implemented using cryptographic protocols. Such technology has existed for at-least 10 years.
'Direct Decisions' would have an associated 'time -limit' that is indicative of the decision importance. Therefore, if a decision must be made in a timely fashion, the time limit would be reduced accordingly. An option for 'default-vote' would allow people to assign their vote according to their preferred political party. Consequently, this system is simply an extension of the current voting system, and any citizen that does not want to participate can assign their votes to their political party, as they always have.
I feel that other types of democracy suffer from an inability to be able to take the long term view. Because people are on average short term minded. But many problems and solutions take a while to implement.
I find that most people think on a long & short term basis. However the current political system does not allow people to fully express their long term desires, therefore most 'real' decisions appear to be only short-term.
Ultimately, IMO the 'governors' are there to redistribute power, so that neither they or anyone else is capable of absolute rule. When ever there is a deviation from this rule, then undoubtedly it is only a matter of chance before unchallenged rule happens.
Firstly, to Voodoo Child,
ReplyDeleteI was concentrating on the individual. Nothing to do with second persons. Even if I wanted to change another, I dont think it can be accomplished, save for interning them in a psychiatric ward, which might cause more harm than good. There can certainly be encouragement, or guidance to a degree, but the change must come from within the individual.
To give some generalised examples. If I fall in love with a beautiful girl one day, and, as time goes on, I realised our personalities clash. I cannot change her. I must continue loving her, if that is my choice. In its true sense, this is why love is meant to be unconditional. Moreover, this is where I believe, I must first love myself, beyond narcissistic manifestation of the word, whereafter I can freely choose to love, or not. Without judgement. I love because I choose to love, not expecting the other person to love back, and, in fact, not expecting anything at all.
Another example. I may think Anarcho Vandal is severely tied up inside. In internal, psychological, conflict. An atheist one day, and a religious conservative the next. However, apart from giving him my two-cents, it is not my responsibility to change him. Let alone; put him at ease regarding his internal dualism. It is up to the individual to seek that which makes them whole.
Secondly, to Anarcho.
You said ‘Don't worry no one understands Victorious, not even himself lol.’
To which I must reply, if you cannot understand it does not mean that others also do not understand. Your dream of reality is exactly that. Your dream, and does not go beyond your perception of reality and into the next persons perception of reality.
I can only suggest that, in a futile attempt to dissuade you from your ways, you broaden your sources.
Changing topic, I disagree with your comment that Herman Cain showed stupidity. I think he instead didn’t want to come clean. He was quite clear, but refrained from putting his opinion into context, which is what the reporter was seeking. Instead Cain opted for a blanket statement which didn’t fit the specific context, until he was repeated pushed. This behaviour, I would suggest, is not stupidity rather canny. He is in the middle of election campaigns. And was certainly less than forthcoming but it did not seem to be stupidity. He was trying to get votes.
Thirdly, getting back to Voodoo Childs abortion review.
ReplyDeleteA preliminary note: I realise the following may insult Anarcho’s atheistic mind today, but that he will repent and re-think it tomorrow, once he puts on his conservative Churchy hat. But even then, he will be jumping from extremist views to extremist views, which will still conflict with what I am about to go through. Nevertheless, I cherish his ranting. Rant-on! oh rant-er of mine.
On abortion.
A premise; I consider that sentience is a necessary condition for moral consider-ability. This is what separates us from non-human animals. However, I also consider being the subject of life (being alive), and the value of life itself, to be necessary conditions for moral consider-ability (This extends it to non-human animals).
I have started with reference to moral consider-ability because in the language of philosophers, members of the moral community have ‘moral standing,’ that means they are morally consider-able. This is what is called having intrinsic value, it has have through mere contemplation, or existence. Elaborating a little, intrinsic value is also the end result of something that possessed instrumental value. To explain the difference between intrinsic and instrumental value:
Example 1, when Anarcho bats-off to his favourite pornographic movie, the bating-off has instrumental value, and the end-result intrinsic value.
However, instrinsic and instrumental value are interchangeable, can coexist, and one is not necessarily superior to the other.
Example 2, I have nearly fallen off a cliff and am hanging from a rope. At home I have a stamp collection. Now, my rope has instrumental value, because I will use it to get back up the cliff and to safety, and the stamp collection has intrinsic value to be simply because it exists. BUT in a reversal from Example 1, here the instrumental value was more important, not the intrinsic value.
However (To use David Clark’s refrain), I digress... This view, that all life is morally considerable, goes back to the Nobel Prize-winning humanitarian, theologian, missionary, organist, and medical doctor, Albert Schweitzer. In his 1923 book, Philosophy of Civilisation, he wrote: “true philosophy must start from the most immediate and comprehensive fact of consciousness: ‘I am life that wants to live, in the midst of life that wants to live.’”* The appropriate moral response to this insight, Schweitzer thought, is reverence for all life.
Now, traditional attribution of morality extends via sentience, and no further. The reason why my moral consider-ability thought goes beyond mere sentience, and includes life and the value of life itself, is because sentientism merely explains our capacity for pleasure and pain. This simply means that some organisms, such as humans, use sentience to realise their ends. It provides a way of obtaining information about the environment. More precisely, sentience is a biological adaptation that occurs in some organism that is conducive to fulfilling their biological functions. However, I think it is implausible that a single particular adaptation, directed towards solving some particular biological problems, faced by some particular organisms, should be seen as the criterion of moral consider-ability, alone.
I realise I am being very broad brush here. But I need to discuss a further issue. Other philosophers consider it crucial for moral standing to equate to linguistic competence or self-consciousness. These two are important western philosophical traditional views, which are distinguishable from each other, but many philosophers have closely associated them, like Descartes, so I will pile them up together for our purposes, as well.
ReplyDeleteHowever, once again, I think linguistic competence or self-awareness criteria alone are ambivalent from both sides of the spectrum they pose. Let me explain; think of new borns, people in a comma, or grandparents suffering from dementia. They are not self-conscious. On the other side of the spectrum, new borns are not linguistically competent either.
So, to get to the point, the issue that both arguments are getting at, boils down to a relationship called being a ‘moral agent’ and or being a ‘moral patient.’ A moral agent is someone who has moral obligations, and a moral patient is someone to whom obligations are owed. This is not very obvious because reciprocal “duties” are very common in everyday life, however, it is important for figuring out our moral standing of foetuses issue.
For example, I know I should tell the truth when lying, because otherwise there is no moral responsibility on the other person, whom I lied to, to tell the truth to me next time we talk. This is a simply example of the relationship I referred to above.
Moving along, the crux is that only creatures who themselves have moral obligations can be owed moral obligations. But the limitation of the philosophy is that severely brain damaged people, and new borns are all moral patients, because we owe them obligations, but they are not moral agents, because they do not owe obligations to others, because they cannot fulfil them, even if they realised those obligations existed.
Unfortunately, no one has the whole truth, nor all the answers, so I must end this on an inconclusive note, by posing a question which each and every one of your, who read this, must answer in your own heart of hearts.
If we can accept that there are human beings whom are moral patients, but whom are not moral agents, why can we not accept the idea that there are non-human patients (such as flora, fauna or foetuses) whom are moral agents too, and thus possess moral standing, which should be respected?
(Please don’t reply with RAPE! RAPE! It’s too easy to get out of asking yourself the question by doing so)
It’s past my bed time, boys. Goodnight.
*Chapter 26 “The ethics of reverence for life” available online at .
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteThe web link doesn't paste onto the screen, sorry.
ReplyDeleteTo Hairy Patch: Basically a national Identification number, linked database along with a method for people to communicate their vote securely.
ReplyDeleteWould that mean placing a constant connection in every citizen's home, or would we have permanent voting booths? Enter the booth, input your ID, vote on the available issues and hey presto you're done. Make announcements over which issues are upcoming and require voting.
Would this simply end-result in the current USA system though? Voting is non-compulsory so only those who feel strongest about the issues vote. Resulting in the two extreme ends of politics you see there today. Would this system be vulnerable to that. Also how are voting options on timely issues presented? Multiple choice?
If I had to implement it, that would be my method. Although I wouldn't implement something like that given the choice.
Redistribute power. Well, I suppose. But there isn't such a thing as absolute power so your theory will stand for quite some time I reckon.
To Victorious: So did you mention your ideal government or is it more about individuals experiencing this uncondtional love who band together?
I assume the example given meant: relationship began, did not work out, but you still hold affection regardless by choice.
I understand the part at the end about unconditional love though. Love all equally without condition?
Abortion issues I replied to in the abortion post. I assume the weblink is "Chapter 26 etc..." and easily googled so anyone who wants to find it... don't be lazy FFS. Use google.
I want to respond to the first point of Victorious' comments and not to the second point. I don't care much for Herman Cain. The third point, on the morality and abortion issues, I will respond to under the abortion post.
ReplyDeleteYou say if "I fall in love with a beautiful girl one day" and I ask, can you fall out of love? These arguments are based on the assumption that love exists and not just a convenient human construct. Or that if it does exist, all persons are capable of experiencing it. Some might argue it's basic to human nature. If that argument is successful, then it lays the foundation for your proposition that to achieve an idea government one has to improve themselves. Improvements in various external forms including governance can be achieved from then on.
Good point First Striker,
ReplyDeleteI think your right. The only thing I would like to highlight though is that love, as I spoke about it, comes from within.
Because I must love myself first, before I can love another, I find it difficult to see how one can fall out of love, unless there are egoistic, or narcissistic, or physical, or material considerations for it.
As such, if our subject were to fall out of love, one must ask whether they truly loved themselves before entering into a loving relationship. Otherwise a falling out of love would not surface in first place, because love is projected to the other unconditionally. They are loved for who they are, without wanting to change them in any way.
On whether love actually exists.
I dont know. I dont know. What is reality? What if we are all dreaming this reality right now, as we read. What does that entail for love, or feelings. I dont know if love actually exists in reality. I dont even know what actual reality is! lol.
Building on Striker's commentary on individual development first then working up to the governmental level. I can't see how that is an ideal government. Because you rely on the individual to be in a certain state first before the outside is addressed. In which case maybe we would be better off discussing the ideal state of the individual?
ReplyDelete(this should be another post xD)
Reality is as scientifically observable and measured. Even if we were all the dream of Descarte's Daemon that would be irrelevant because there are still set rules that everything observable obeys. Gravity, electromagnetic forces, thermodynamics etc... It is impossible to 100% disprove this is a computer simulation or dream. However, it is very very unlikely such is the case.
Also love does exist. In the individual's head. Like any other emotion. Give me enough hormones and chemicals and I'm pretty sure I can make anyone love anybody. I'd need an endorphine dispenser and a way to time the dosage so it delivers in the presence of the "love interest" and cuts off when not.
Don't get me wrong, love is a wonderful emotion, but there is no metaphysical origin for it. It is in the mind.