Reflection on reflections...
Democratic contrivances are quarantine measures against that ancient plague, the lust for power: as such they are very necessary and very boring.
Friedrich Nietzsche
By Ylli Permeti
In the previous reflection I emphasized my deliberation in the mind and morality of the politicians. I took as example a superpower in the international scacchiera and a superpower in the regional periphery. America as we know, is a superpower, and Israel, is as well a superpower in its region. They give to each other power with the only aim to conquer the world. Some times by fighting and some times by helping. They ‘help’ other countries to democratize their established culture. America for instance, with the reliance of Britain has a way very successful to achieve its goal: destroy and democratize. This is simple to understand: first we show off our paradigm of the established democracy, second, we prepare our media to transmit this achievement to the demoi, third, we create some scholars from our knowledge and we put them on the top of those societies or we encourage them to become dissident of their culture and forth, they will be the future star of their society. This equation is well-known and these stars are our governments.
What I laid down in the previous text, was a fact of events i.e., interventions that both these countries continue to violate international law, which unfortunately has been created for the small powers, i.e. inferior countries. No politician today has been convicted for his/her actions, for his/her corrupt policies or incompetent planning and administration. No court has been created for their actions which violate every single right of natural law. On these tracks, some of the questions of the previous introduction -- remain unanswered. One of those is: Who gain and who loses, and by which mechanisms of power?
My first tool then, is the constitution of Britain, a country with long tradition and which try to transcend this tradition to other countries.
As we know from British established democracy, the state has a constitution, which has as principal to govern the state. By constitution, there are three powers: the legislature (parliament); the executive (the government) and the judiciary (judges). I’ll pose some simple questions on this track: if legislature is majoritarian how could one separate the two powers, i.e. legislature and executive which again is majoritarian, and by constitution are presumed to be separate powers? Judiciary as its name imply, is an institution constituting by judges and are by constitution the mentors of the reforms that parliament has in its disposition and they discusses these reforms and finally approve toward execution. How could one, then, can advocate that the three those powers are separate from each other? In my view, they are merely one power. Is merely a closed circle. These institution serve the interest of their power, furthermore, they intertwine in a manner that looks to be very unsuccessful to implement the notion of democracy. Democracy as its name imply, means governing the polity by its demotes, i.e. by its constitutive population. This form of pseudo-democracy rise too many questions and cannot implement this notion in its generic and organic nature. Finally, there is not in the rang of the government the implementation of logon didonai as Plato following Socrates tried to establish in the Athenian democracy, i.e. to give an account to others of what you are doing, the so called: transparency.
Now, the above power/government has an instrument to achieve its goal: money. The only instrument, that government has in its possession and can do whatever they think, about their policies, is the economy, i.e. fiscal policies. Their reforms are based on money which by its nature is false and create corruption. In this sense, citizens, are dependent on money. Without this instrument they cannot live. Then, citizens are results of corruption. On this track, arises the need of laws which try to control the money possessed by the population and to prevent crimes. How could one, then, control the population by using corruption, i.e. pseudo-economy. The core of capitalism is the exchange of goods, i.e. bread against service and so on. Pursuing this corollary, the education is pre-filtered by the time to time governments and this leads us to final result: development is the discretion of power, in its quantitive and qualitive rationality. How can then, one, preserve rationality by using wrong instrument? Of course, he/she cannot. It is impossible to produce positive knowledge in the way that governments are formed. Take, say, the money that governments are using to spend for their army: World wide military expenditures (see bollow) are more than $1100 billion in 2008. Why? Because the governments work under-mentality of war. They live in a continuous war between each other, because they compete each other, for one reason: to be more powerful than the others, i.e. co-human.
Don’t forget, the goal is profit not positive knowledge: profit is never taking into account values that human being inherit by its organic nature; by its family; culture or community. Human mind is constituted mainly by rational thinking than by profit. On this track: why we spend for army; is this decision made by our rational mind i.e. in the form of assemblies, by using our vote or our direct participation into taking such a decision? No! every single decision is made by others to our detriment. The ‘others’ are usually our representatives in the parliament. They think that they preserve their rationality when they are in power and do the good and their duty. But in reality, they don’t. They lose everything, even their values. This phenomenon is unavoidable. They cannot control their feelings when they are in power and they make mistakes. Fatal mistakes. Because even they are victims of the past knowledge/mistakes that is transmitted by one generation to the other. They are just in a ‘trap’ of their mind. Consequently, they cannot change this trap of their mind. And this corollary leads us to the fundamental conclusion: we are all loser. Even if one believes that he’s got wealth or opulence against the others. The only thing that unify all of us is common interest which is our earth and how to apply wisely our knowledge. But, to apply our knowledge in a better way we have to change our knowledge of democracy, we have to change the present regime, giving to it its natural capacity. Democracy can never be implemented in a global version: it is local and context-dependent. Because as Flyvbjerg pointed out: rationality is context-dependent and the more the power the less the rationality. In the next chapter we will discuss the thired question: Is this development desirable?
Friedrich Nietzsche
By Ylli Permeti
In the previous reflection I emphasized my deliberation in the mind and morality of the politicians. I took as example a superpower in the international scacchiera and a superpower in the regional periphery. America as we know, is a superpower, and Israel, is as well a superpower in its region. They give to each other power with the only aim to conquer the world. Some times by fighting and some times by helping. They ‘help’ other countries to democratize their established culture. America for instance, with the reliance of Britain has a way very successful to achieve its goal: destroy and democratize. This is simple to understand: first we show off our paradigm of the established democracy, second, we prepare our media to transmit this achievement to the demoi, third, we create some scholars from our knowledge and we put them on the top of those societies or we encourage them to become dissident of their culture and forth, they will be the future star of their society. This equation is well-known and these stars are our governments.
What I laid down in the previous text, was a fact of events i.e., interventions that both these countries continue to violate international law, which unfortunately has been created for the small powers, i.e. inferior countries. No politician today has been convicted for his/her actions, for his/her corrupt policies or incompetent planning and administration. No court has been created for their actions which violate every single right of natural law. On these tracks, some of the questions of the previous introduction -- remain unanswered. One of those is: Who gain and who loses, and by which mechanisms of power?
My first tool then, is the constitution of Britain, a country with long tradition and which try to transcend this tradition to other countries.
As we know from British established democracy, the state has a constitution, which has as principal to govern the state. By constitution, there are three powers: the legislature (parliament); the executive (the government) and the judiciary (judges). I’ll pose some simple questions on this track: if legislature is majoritarian how could one separate the two powers, i.e. legislature and executive which again is majoritarian, and by constitution are presumed to be separate powers? Judiciary as its name imply, is an institution constituting by judges and are by constitution the mentors of the reforms that parliament has in its disposition and they discusses these reforms and finally approve toward execution. How could one, then, can advocate that the three those powers are separate from each other? In my view, they are merely one power. Is merely a closed circle. These institution serve the interest of their power, furthermore, they intertwine in a manner that looks to be very unsuccessful to implement the notion of democracy. Democracy as its name imply, means governing the polity by its demotes, i.e. by its constitutive population. This form of pseudo-democracy rise too many questions and cannot implement this notion in its generic and organic nature. Finally, there is not in the rang of the government the implementation of logon didonai as Plato following Socrates tried to establish in the Athenian democracy, i.e. to give an account to others of what you are doing, the so called: transparency.
Now, the above power/government has an instrument to achieve its goal: money. The only instrument, that government has in its possession and can do whatever they think, about their policies, is the economy, i.e. fiscal policies. Their reforms are based on money which by its nature is false and create corruption. In this sense, citizens, are dependent on money. Without this instrument they cannot live. Then, citizens are results of corruption. On this track, arises the need of laws which try to control the money possessed by the population and to prevent crimes. How could one, then, control the population by using corruption, i.e. pseudo-economy. The core of capitalism is the exchange of goods, i.e. bread against service and so on. Pursuing this corollary, the education is pre-filtered by the time to time governments and this leads us to final result: development is the discretion of power, in its quantitive and qualitive rationality. How can then, one, preserve rationality by using wrong instrument? Of course, he/she cannot. It is impossible to produce positive knowledge in the way that governments are formed. Take, say, the money that governments are using to spend for their army: World wide military expenditures (see bollow) are more than $1100 billion in 2008. Why? Because the governments work under-mentality of war. They live in a continuous war between each other, because they compete each other, for one reason: to be more powerful than the others, i.e. co-human.
Don’t forget, the goal is profit not positive knowledge: profit is never taking into account values that human being inherit by its organic nature; by its family; culture or community. Human mind is constituted mainly by rational thinking than by profit. On this track: why we spend for army; is this decision made by our rational mind i.e. in the form of assemblies, by using our vote or our direct participation into taking such a decision? No! every single decision is made by others to our detriment. The ‘others’ are usually our representatives in the parliament. They think that they preserve their rationality when they are in power and do the good and their duty. But in reality, they don’t. They lose everything, even their values. This phenomenon is unavoidable. They cannot control their feelings when they are in power and they make mistakes. Fatal mistakes. Because even they are victims of the past knowledge/mistakes that is transmitted by one generation to the other. They are just in a ‘trap’ of their mind. Consequently, they cannot change this trap of their mind. And this corollary leads us to the fundamental conclusion: we are all loser. Even if one believes that he’s got wealth or opulence against the others. The only thing that unify all of us is common interest which is our earth and how to apply wisely our knowledge. But, to apply our knowledge in a better way we have to change our knowledge of democracy, we have to change the present regime, giving to it its natural capacity. Democracy can never be implemented in a global version: it is local and context-dependent. Because as Flyvbjerg pointed out: rationality is context-dependent and the more the power the less the rationality. In the next chapter we will discuss the thired question: Is this development desirable?
No comments:
Post a Comment