Jump to content

myata

Members
  • Posts

    6,769
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    9

Everything posted by myata

  1. We don't own the banks. OK, we can make rules for them and we make rules through supposedly, a system that we do own as citizens that has been happily spinning out of this reality and any controls for the second century on. And we wouldn't care a tiny fleck about it and could give it less of our time and darn sh*t. The face on the right or the one on the left, please choose no, no other choices allowed and attached to nowhere, like a stupid radio spitting out its own random noise. And we keep walking around pretending that yes, makes sense and this is how it works, follow the ritual around and around "vote or your voice wouldn't be heard". OK, sure. That's a choice, and we make those in life and by the way, evolution. But what the heck would we want to do with the banks?
  2. Well see now I get how we managed to have a two-century old decorated democratic post-colonial system and never thought of a) looking at it more closely and b) updating it. Like I still don't get rationally, in my brain. But I can see it. So it's been two months since pandemic restrictions were lifted in the province (April 1 I think). Folks in the local store still obediently line up in a single line to several cashiers. Employees stopped telling them it's no longer necessary. I try to gently remind every time, with little effect. See, people liked the restrictions! It's so much easier when someone is thinking for you and just telling you what to do, what to put on, where to go or not to and so on. It's exactly how it happened last time and the one before that and so on, forever. Now tell me it all is the fault of the government.
  3. That's so terribly outdated. These days some assign themselves salaries (sure, edging on 200K and why not in a country with a median income of thirty something), others getting annual rises through unions. All pretty much regardless of what's happening elsewhere in the economy. Why would you need a bribe?
  4. Add to that blissful slumber of citizens interest and widespread complacency and even if it was only a remote theory, what would happen if someone thought of trying it? There are precedents and what if it worked? Like why wouldn't it? What's there to stop it?
  5. You cannot prove a logical point, with any credibility siting isolated anecdotes. This is a known logical fallacy. I throw a coin but select only heads, hurray the coin can only fall on the head! This is general problem. There's one specific to good, that means effective, efficient and functional democratic governance too. Accountability cannot be a whim, a fetish or an icon from times long forgotten. It has to be a constant, daily, functional, clean and effective instrument. If it is not in the daily practice of governance stories and picture books will do nothing to replace it.
  6. Wow. A CEO accountable to his direct subordinates who he picks and moves by hand. Or maybe to a far away mystical person who cannot even if wanted to, do anything. Couldn't you come up with something more credible? But thank you for spelling it out because these unlikely if not plain caricature notions are all that can be shown for responsibility and accountability of majority governments in this century, by a great G7 democracy. And we are OK with it. So nobody to blame. There will be no surprises.
  7. Makes sense. Some thousands years back there were people called druids who performed strange rituals and claimed to be able to control weather and even future. With something like "intent" that cannot be defined, let alone determined objectively the field is wide open for all kinds of rituals.
  8. Wrong. Authoritarianism, rule by arbitrary one-way measures without checks and controls is now confirmed reality and is here to stay. Government overreach and violations of rights aren't moot, they are the history and fabric of this society. So, nothing is "moot". But this funny democracy indeed wants you to believe that whatever they've done before was for good a reason and "moot" now. Then, just repeat (forever). Simple, yet powerful as long as we couldn't care.
  9. Well funny - interesting that after such a long while some common grounds could be found still. Only would disagree about the term, it's the opposite: not silly, but smart expression of clear and dominating above all else self-interest. It's been working (for them) perfectly, so what would be the reason to change anything.
  10. 1. Government adopted and forced unjustified, overreaching restrictions on citizens. It doesn't matter that majority supported them. First, many were brainwashed by media that showed that it has little to do with objectivity and impartiality. Secondly, in a democracy even a majority cannot rule arbitrarily, without reason, justification, checks and recourse. That would be medieval justice. 2. Government ignored and suppressed all and any views that questioned its actions. Just be honest and recall how it was unfolding. "Misogynists and racists". 3. There was no mechanisms or channels for a meaningful dialogue. It was a one way dictation. 4. When citizens came out to their streets (governments do not create anything) they were branded criminals and insurectionists denying and nullifying all bills and declarations of rights. 5. Now we know that government acts were not only heavy-handed bordering on authoritarian but also ineffective, unjustified and overreaching. The effectiveness of lockdowns was proven to be marginal. There isn't convincing evidence supporting mask mandates. Other countries managed to achieve same, or better results without overreaching measures. This is our reality of today, not 1789 if it rings any bells. Should we be worried?
  11. That is a mirror, a perception by us of ourselves. Even in this condition, far down the rabbit hole there can be meaningful, working solutions. But no. We convince ourselves that nothing can be done, "don't fix it" and the beaver laughing with the mountie. And that of course is the end destination, for all it matters. Nothing else can and will happen where change is not possible.
  12. And this is no surprise, none. A century ago Germany had democratic system, laws and constitution. And a decade later people applauded authoritarian, then openly totalitarian government and marched in parades. All of this already happened. Complacency produces governments out of bounds and controls. Then governments use propaganda to increase compliance multi-fold. Then nothing independent remains. And it becomes a one-way trajectory. We have those people walking around in masks for years maybe. For no reason, none. A visible, glaring reminder - and warning, of the power of complacency and propaganda.
  13. Obviously you're going for deliberately obtuse, again. It is, of course, an undeniable right. No further comments.
  14. The comment mentioned "authoritarian" governments. Quite obviously they can be (and were) of any ideological orientation. So it's not about ideology obviously. Though for some reason left always gravitates toward authoritarianism (that could be interesting topic for another discussion).
  15. There's nothing new in denying the obvious. It's as old as humanity remembers itself. Let's count what we lost only during this short stretch of a flu-kind epidemics: - we do not have objective and impartial media - we do not have judicial controls over majority governments. Delayed justice is mockery of justice - and we have governments that discovered the capabilities and power of an all-out brainwashing propaganda. With nothing (see above) to limit them. With any meaningful action by citizens immediately branded as war, insurrection and such. And no one pays any attention to meaningless ones, obviously too. All of that is objective, visible reality. That of course, anyone is free to ignore and deny. Like it's any surprise.
  16. Finishing the discussion: authoritarian systems of governance, no matter how well they cover and mask their nature, will sooner or later face the problem of legitimacy. "Formal rule" is not equivalent to legitimacy. A formal stamp of approval by a scared and brainwashed population cannot be a foundation of long term democratic legitimacy. And with absolutely unjustified and unnecessary invocation of war measures the objective conclusion is here and cannot be denied: the country is edging on authoritarianism. There are no effective checks and controls on majority governments. Quasi-free media, justice system aren't effective any longer if ever, now a fact of reality. Someone should be worried, if they are still here.
  17. How much did the lockdowns cost in the first place that protests were about? There are peer reviewed studies that showed that they had marginal efficiency, with intelligent management of the health system. But that was in another country. Will we ever find the answers, or even questions here? Will our quasi-free, now patently false, deceptive and manipulative media even be interested to find out? Don't think we can count on it.
  18. No need to argue: it's a fact. We see, factually, people in the park, in masks, people driving alone in cars in masks, and it's been going on for weeks already. How much longer, who can tell. Yes, brainwashing is here, alongside an authoritarian governance with no checks or accountability. This is exactly how it worked in well known examples in the history. Someone could be very worried. But who is still here, in the reality?
  19. Exactly. And why wouldn't they, if they can and what is there to check, limit or stop them? Water flows where it can. Surely, our governments are more intelligent.
  20. Democratically elected Putin to rule with no checks or controls wielding god-like powers appoints a judge who prosecutes his political opponents. Nothing wrong with this snapshot of thriving modern democracy?
  21. Well yes, in some sense more, given the scale of destruction. But yes both are wrong and standing up to Putin doesn't fix his authoritarian issues. And it's no kidding matter. A month after mandates lifted in the local store most still put them up and line up in a single line. How long are they programmed with the fear for? Who knows? Did they know something when decided to run this crazy propaganda?
  22. Wouldn't that be hugely progressive, compared to elimination of non-masked people?
  23. Well said, "all countries" with no principle difference, what matters is the "order" not from who and how and what it means. Getting there.. you win.
  24. No, you are saying that obviously only because you would like to, but could not find a flaw in the argument. The consequences from Putin's court can be the same and so citing the consequences is not an argument to distinguish a democratic institution from Putin's. Some other difference has to exist and the cause of your conundrum is that you cannot point it. If it walks like Putin, cries and scares you with propaganda like Putin invokes war and emergency acts like Putin (and his handy "party" whatever it happens to be, democratic too) then logically, and empirically, both pointing at the same quite obvious answer, what should it be?
×
×
  • Create New...