<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.2722" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3>Hi, I'm
Jack.<BR><BR>I have been reading the posts to this forum for some time with
somewhat<BR>mixed emotions regarding the political point-scoring. As I see it,
the<BR>extropian viewpoint has no precise congruence with any political system
-<BR>rather it subsumes them all (or should do so) with a philosophical
view<BR>point which is flexible enough to allow for any kind of government -
but<BR>should enshrine some core human values to dictate (or at least privede
<BR>guidance benchmarks on) the way any government<BR>conducts its
affairs.<BR><BR>Some OED political definition should be enough to demonstrate
that political<BR>words per se carry no stigma (I'm not denying the
cultural/semantic<BR>baggage that sticks to buzzwords over time - I'm just
trying to drill down<BR>to core meanings):<BR>1. Socialism: a society in which
things are held or used in common<BR>2. Liberal: Free in bestowing; bountiful,
generous, open-hearted. <BR>Originally,<BR>the distinctive epithet of those arts
or sciences that were considered<BR>worthy of a free man; opposed to servile or
mechanical. In later use, of<BR>condition, pursuits, occupations: Pertaining to
or suitable to persons of<BR>superior social station; becoming a
gentleman...<BR>3. Libertarian: One who holds the doctrine of the freedom of the
will, as<BR>opposed to that of necessity.<BR><BR>These are ALL wonderful ideas -
each born of the very best of motives - each<BR>idealistically promoted as a
(often 'THE!") universal panacea. But ideology<BR>and actual practice are two
wildly different things: Socialism often breeds<BR>apathy, wishy-washy
liberalism inspires contempt, libertarian free markets<BR>are - at least
potentially - just a playground for amoral rich kids...<BR><BR>These comments
are not meant to be offensive to the well-meaning proponents<BR>of these systems
in their ideal forms. There is no such thing as a bad<BR>political system -
there are only bad politicians. Capitalism is<BR>wonderful - if you
control capital, or at least make it possible for someone<BR>of reasonable
intelligence to 'make good'. It is just a form of slavery - <BR>with all
mod-cons - for those perpetually in hock and struggling to survive.<BR><BR>A
benign dictatorship is probably the most effective political system -<BR>and the
cheapest and most efficient as well... Problem is - the power<BR>ultimately
devolves to the dictator's inbred off-spring - who have none of<BR>the original
ideals, but all the egocentric rapacity of indulged<BR>privilege...<BR><BR>I
would like to submit the following brief critique of political doctrine
in<BR>general: By way of explanation, I live currently in southeastern China,
and<BR>my ideas are tinged somewhat with my interpretations of Daoist ideas
of<BR>totality.<BR><BR>True wisdom, Daoist style, means adopting the big picture
view. This in turn<BR>means accepting that one must always take into account the
limitations of<BR>conventional wisdom and its assumptions. 'Conventional wisdom'
is used here<BR>as a generic term to include all the prevalent beliefs and ideas
that<BR>motivate individuals, organisations and governments - all the
'isms'.<BR><BR>Conventional wisdom is cyclic; it fosters 'theories' and
'solutions' (the<BR>'isms') that gain widespread popular support and acceptance
- for a while.<BR>Some of the propositions may be quite good and some quite bad.
What<BR>differentiates and separates these passing conceptions from 'true'
wisdom <BR>(and<BR>from the Daoist ideal of wholeness) is their ambit. Without
exception the<BR>fashionable trends in 'conventional' thought fail to be
holistic - they<BR>invariably propose action based on some innovative analysis
of what is<BR>always only a subset of the available data.<BR><BR>It is often
fashionably trendy to speak of thinking 'laterally' and to<BR>consider
'innovative solutions - to have thoughts that are 'outside the<BR>square' and by
inference 'big picture.' But it only takes a quick glance at<BR>governmental and
corporate/organisational policies anywhere and everywhere <BR>throughout
recorded history to see that shortsighted, Band-Aid solutions <BR>are
-<BR>everywhere - generally the order of the day.<BR><BR>It may be that we
expect and hope that humanity will be around for<BR>millennia - but our forward
planning rarely extends much further than the<BR>next local election. With rare
exceptions (major natural disasters, well<BR>publicised tragedies...), 'caring'
stops at a clearly defined local border,<BR>and few would argue that despite
much talk of 'global community' the nations<BR>that make up that community
represent a fragmented 'whole' that is a very<BR>long way from any
reconciliation and always includes some elements in bitter<BR>opposition to each
other.<BR><BR>Measured against any philosophic/political vision of harmony and
wholeness -<BR>we (humanity) suffer critical failures of community. The modern
Daoist<BR>vision (ok my interpretation) is of an integrated vision of totality.
And<BR>this totality is something that ALL conventional wisdom in
practical<BR>application generally lacks the necessary scope to tackle.
Conventional<BR>wisdom (aka a political system) is usually for the benefit of
privileged<BR>interest groups - and is never fully comprehensive in tackling the
real<BR>needs of the people. Like the medicine given to terminally ill patients,
it<BR>eases the immediate pain - but provides no prospect of curing the
malaise.<BR>In treating symptoms rather than causes, conventional wisdom is
always<BR>eventually found lacking - there is short-term gain, but usually at
someone<BR>else's expense - there is no integrated big picture solution, that
addresses<BR>all the criteria of need.<BR><BR>This sounds a little esoteric and
woolly, so consider for a moment one<BR>contemporary example of the type of
conventional wisdom that apparently<BR>offers big-picture solutions for society
at large - the much-promoted and<BR>much-implemented cleverness of 'the market
economy.' That is, regulation of<BR>society based wholly on considerations of
market forces and driven by profit<BR>and loss forecasting. This model of
capitalist society employs a limited<BR>subset of those attributes that make us
human (ie: what is currently defined<BR>as logical/rational) - but then seeks to
impose the 'economic' model on<BR>every aspect of our lives. The healing of the
sick, the acquisition of<BR>knowledge, the dispensing of justice - all become
contingent on<BR>considerations of profit.<BR><BR>Could this kind of niche
thinking really embody some universally applicable<BR>truth? I think that a good
Daoist would frown, walk away quietly and<BR>have nothing further to do with
this inferior idea.<BR><BR>By deliberating excluding and denying the legitimacy
of any other<BR>consideration of people's needs, wants and feelings - by packing
everything<BR>into a box marked 'commerce' the bigger human picture is forever
excluded<BR>and the whole thereby denied. There is no fulfillment for anyone for
whom 'the economic model' has no particular resonance - and the Dao ideal
remains unattainable...<BR><BR>If we really want free trade - we don't
need ANY government. Anyone could set up shop, do what they like -
market forces rule, zero trade barriers...</FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3>The true
purpose of human is not commerce! This is something we do, not something we
are...<BR>True community is surely not difficult to grasp. From time immemorial
people have huddled together for protection. Safety in numbers. The community
can<BR>temporarily compensate for an individuals inability to cope with
sickness,<BR>childbirth, infirmity...<BR><BR>Old age is not really a marketing
opportunity. Disease is not a treasure<BR>chest for big pharma, the poor are not
consumables to be forced to labor<BR>below the poverty line until they expire.
We are not a market! We are a<BR>people!<BR><BR>With this in mind shouldn't the
first concern be to draft a manifesto of<BR>individual liberties which will
admit of any kind of political system - but<BR>will curb the tendency of elite
groups to gather all resources and<BR>prerogatives to themselves?<BR><BR>Sorry
this is such a long initial post! But I view governments the same way<BR>you
might view AI - we create them, but we don't neccessarily control them.<BR>If
they are unfriendly, they are powerful enough to destroy us or enslave<BR>us. A
good first step might be to make politicians personally accountable<BR>for their
errors...<BR><BR>Jack</FONT><BR><BR></DIV></FONT>
<DIV>
<STYLE>
<!--
A.psl {
TEXT-DECORATION:none; COLOR: #4e81c4
}
A:hover {
TEXT-DECORATION: underline
}
A.psl:hover {
COLOR: #999999
}
.noro {
FONT-SIZE: 8pt; COLOR: #4e81c4; FONT-FAMILY: Verdana,Arial,fixed
}
.tiny {
FONT-SIZE: 1pt
}
.logotext {
TEXT-DECORATION: none; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: #ffffff; FONT-FAMILY: Verdana,Arial,fixed
}
A.brand {
COLOR: #777777; FONT-SIZE: 7pt; FONT-FAMILY: Verdana,Arial,fixed; TEXT-DECORATION: none
}
-->
</STYLE>
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width=600 border=0>
<TBODY>
<TR>
<TD>
<TABLE height=80 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width=600 align=right
border=0>
<TBODY>
<TR>
<TD class=tiny>
<TABLE
style="BORDER-RIGHT: #666666 1px solid; BORDER-TOP: #666666 1px solid; BORDER-LEFT: #666666 1px solid; BORDER-BOTTOM: #666666 1px solid"
height="100%" cellSpacing=0 width=600>
<TBODY>
<TR>
<TD colSpan=2>
<TABLE height="100%" cellSpacing=2 width="100%" align=right
border=0>
<TBODY>
<TR style="PADDING-BOTTOM: 4px" height=1>
<TD class=noro style="PADDING-LEFT: 4px"
vAlign=top><B>Jack Parkinson</B> </TD>
<TD class=noro style="PADDING-RIGHT: 4px" vAlign=top
align=right><B>EF - English First</B><BR>Qunzhong Donglu
35<BR>Fuzhou, Peoples Republic of China. </TD></TR>
<TR height=1>
<TD class=noro
style="PADDING-LEFT: 4px; PADDING-BOTTOM: 4px"
vAlign=bottom><A class=psl
href="mailto:isthatyoujack@icqmail.com"
target=_blank>isthatyoujack@icqmail.com</A><BR><A
class=psl
href="mailto:jack.parkinson@englishfirst.com.cn"
target=_blank>jack.parkinson@englishfirst.com.cn</A> </TD>
<TD class=noro
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 4px; PADDING-BOTTOM: 4px"
vAlign=bottom align=right>
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 align=right border=0>
<TBODY>
<TR>
<TD class=noro noWrap align=right>tel: <BR>fax:
<BR>mobile: </TD>
<TD class=noro style="PADDING-LEFT: 4px" noWrap
align=right>+86 591-83399808 (China)<BR>+86
591-83399908 (China)<BR>+86 13055419794 (China)
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></TD>
<TD></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></TD></TR>
<TR>
<TD class=tiny colSpan=2>
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%">
<TBODY>
<TR>
<TD align=left><A class=brand
href="https://www.plaxo.com/add_me?u=8590791537&v0=1697918&k0=1318345874"
target=_blank><I>Add me to your address book...</I></A></TD>
<TD align=right><A class=brand href="http://www.plaxo.com/signature"
target=_blank><I>Want a signature like
this?</I></A></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></DIV></BODY></HTML>