Off the wall suggestion

First candidates for positions in government are found
Second they are made to compete with each other in a series of school-sportsday type events, egg and spoon race etc
The winner at the end of the political sport series gets to be prime minister

Itll be just watching the election and wed have the same amount of control without worrying about voter turn outs


lol

Garnish, you say "if we can get rid of political borders and rely on cultural similarities then we shouldnt have so much in the way of devisive politics" Sadly, we are more likely to distrust cultural differences and that may be what got us into the mess we are in?

cagedDreams, the online testing (unless totally random) would be abused by fantical political groups who would coach their members/proteges to answer as required. And, that is another point - how objective could we afford to make the questions without leading them to the answers WE think are right? You say "having a global system or not is not the actual issue but how its done" - can you elaborate? Socialism combined with spiritualism? Now that's an interesting idea. Are the two exclusive? Somehow, I suspect we are being too idealistic and, because of our very human nature, I doubt that we can find a practical solution that would be acceptable to 'the masses'.

And, finally, Garnish, your cynicism is wicked!!!!

To reach the city-state system we would have to undo the issues of nationality, before Im british im english, before that im from hampshire then portsmouth, should i really say my nationality is regences? because that was what the kingdom i live in was called before roman occupation.
What im saying (badly) is the regional differences between counties in the uk exist but there is a unifying culture which ties us to a broader territory, if we can lose the idea of territory i think half the battle would be won.
Although I think maybe the nature of war prevents this from happening, maybe a need for an invasion cushion/safety zone

Waffling now

Hmmmmmmmm on the vino tonight 'cos no work tomorrow (what an excuse!) BUT!!!! Garnish, it is more than regional differences between counties in the UK as you suggest. We are the UNITED Kingdom for a reason. The English conquered the Scots (who aligned themselves with France rather than subjugate themselves to the English but eventually succumbed - another story!) and the Irish (also the Welsh, who, I believe, were never a 'kingdom'). The National Anthem has a verse in it which talks about 'those rebellious Scots to quell'. It is much more complex than this but are you beginning to get the idea?

Dominating England!

Same thing as you said, Garnish? But can you detect the difference?

I can but at the heart of it, before all the other labels we are human

Peoples wants are broadly the same the world over so I'd like to believe that the political borders we've created could possibly be broken ( i know im dreaming there ) and I also believe that once the borders are gone peoples differences will blur, with differing central ideas of nationality we're angry, remove the nations.

David Starkey has some edgey views on the act of union Ill see if i can dig out the quote

I follow but even losing those man-made boundaries I don't think will solve things. There is a certain arrogance about those who want to lead - and how far are these people prepared to go to persuade us that they know best? Look at history - it does repeat itself - and why?

Methinks I am going round in circles again!

History repeats because of ego, its definately a cas of 'i can succeed where so and so failed'
Napoleon and Hitler
Ceaser and Augustine
I think its about persuading those with power they would be able to maintain that power, its just the nature of how its delivered that changes
Our constitutional monarchy is a good example of how an institution can adapt to change, of course theres upheaval but surely its worth it?

But can those in power really retain 'power'? This ego thing is worth investigating! Why do some people have large ones (they impose on others) whilst others quietly know themselves (and have no desire to impose themselves on others)?

wow, i missed quiet a bit :) - to avoid writing a novel again, i'll comment generally, if anyone would like me to address something i miss, please let me know.

ok, the testing thing (btw, not claiming this is THE solution but think deserves some debate to test it out). the way i'm looking at it, the questions would be there to test the people's understanding of the different options presented. yes, the churches, social clubs etc could have a shot at guiding their members but the whole point of this test would be to make sure that they understand the other sides of the argument. that wouldn't make it foolproof but it would ensure that the other side gets to present their opinions and have them understood(which is the test)...if each of the candidates are presenting the questions that they feel would show an understanding of their side, we can be sure that even if they're biased, the voters will at least not be ignorant....i'll use something that came up in the australian group as an example: our previous government had a bit of a 'white australia' policy, making life hell for refugees and migrants not from england. to get support, what they did was started propaganda about how the refugees are ripping off the system and how economically harmful it is for the country to have migrants come in with not much english or knowladge of australian culture (which by their definition was anglo-saxon culture)...now, these arguments were pretty stupid for anyone educated and capable of thinking but quiet a few of anglo-saxon australians bought this as it was the only side of the argument presented to them and regurgitated in their social environment as uneducated people have a habit of hanging around with other uneducated people of their own color/religion etc....but, all you have to do is present the other side to any of these people as i've done while i was lifting things up for a living and they end up hanging their heads in shame for believing such racist views....i'm a strong believer that ignorance is one of our(human-kind's) biggest enemies.

i'm smiling here that the ego issue came up and you guys are pretty correct in your opinions on the topic. that's where the spiritual comes into the spiritual socialism. ego is the other biggest enemy and defeating the ego and learning to be human beings again is the cornerstone of spiritualism :) - and its not really so hard to do, the whole reason our minds build, maintain and guard the ego is because we have forgotten to like ourselves for who we really are - and i think i'm pretty safe in saying that bigger the ego, the less that person likes themselves for who they are. i mean, why else would you create a pretend person for yourself to be??

mmmmm still having problems with the testing bit. Whether we like it or not, there would be a percentage of people who would either be unwilling or unable to 'pass the tests'. From what you are saying about the Australian government thing, it is the same here. Which brings me back to political funding................we have not tackled the media issue. I am sure you have heard of Rupert Murdoch! The amount of courting politicians do to get media backing!!!! I know more and more people have access to the internet and alternative viewpoints to those popularised in our own media but this human nature thing is - buy the Sun, nice easy crossword, page 3 girl and, bingo, I am brainwashed before I know it! Incidentally we have a Sunday paper in Scotland that carries cartoons and silly stories but when you actually read the 'news' and opinions it is so scarily right wing (but the people who buy these papers are lured by much more innocent entertainment). Help! I've forgotten what I was talking about! Oh yes, testing! Just uncomfortable with it, I guess.

And, yes, I understand the ego thing but had not linked it to spiritualism. We can all learn to be selfless but I am prepared to waget that there are many more who are not! And I disagree with your final statement (i think i'm pretty safe in saying that bigger the ego, the less that person likes themselves for who they are. i mean, why else would you create a pretend person for yourself to be) Who are we to tell people who they are - those with big egos, I am sure, would argue that they know themselves perfectly well and, if you are saying that this is pretence, you will need to convince me!

come on, we gotta iron out kinks, can't do that with 'uncomfortable'!...although i'm not dismissing that as unimportant. nobody is going to want a system that makes them feel that way...guess what i'm saying is, why do you think it makes you feel uncomfortable?

the unwilling/unable people - don't really see a problem with that, as in the example i've given about the australian system, making EVERYONE vote doesn't achieve anything but creates invalid or ignorant votes as people either don't fill out their voting cards properly or vote for the guy who they think 'looks' honest :/ .....and if certain people are unable to understand what their vote is for and its consequences, that's when manipulation by others or media campaigns have power.....i'd say society is better of if those categories of people aren't voting.....guess my point of view is that voting carries a lot of responsibility with it and as such should be a right that has to be earned.....in as fair a way as possible......in addition, its one of the most important responsibilities of human society to ensure that its people are well educated so we have as few unwilling/unable people as possible...

as for the media issue, i think my proposal in response #9 (under money heading) sort of covers that...and once again that testing system comes into it as well, you're not going to pass the test if you're not aware of alternative views to those expressed in common media....and then there's also the non-monopoly thing, i mean we know that capitalism would collapse without non-monopoly laws...wonder why those laws are not enforced as strictly when it comes to media?? or apply to government??...well, i think the government monopolies would be dealt with with the equal access ideas (the public funding and pre-defined campaign activities thing)....and if we have a non-monopolised government system, noone would be able to protect the media owners from the anti-monopoly laws....


ok, ego stuff - i wouldn't necessarily equate escaping from the clutches of ego to selflessness, can actually even look at it as a selfish act (yes, definitions, definitions...lol). although the ego is something we create for ourselves, its something that ends up controlling us, making us its slave - it makes us do things that're not pleasant for our real-selves, makes us feel isolated from the world at large, insecure when we can't meet its expectations etc...defeating it is the same as liberating ourselves so its something done in self-interest....and come to think of it, so is caring for others and helping them out - by doing so, we help them become happier and more loving/caring, then aren't we basically improving our own environment? but you're right in saying that there are many who are not prepared to let go, but i see that as them not being able to do that self-liberation. it takes a lot of focus, strength, effort and couradge to defeat the slave-master!

i think the solution for that is again by concantrating on the self-liberation (not an original idea, one of the basics of buddhism). if we can achieve that, we become happier and more caring towards them, creating an environment where they can feel safe and therefore requiring less couradge. at the same time, the happiness we display would demonstrate to them the benefits of defeating the ego, helping them to develop the will which takes care of focus, strength and effort......what you think? (disclaimer - not claiming i'm anywhere near liberated yet from my ego but working on it...lol....and its the example set by others that helped me get as far as i have)

the final statement....hmm, it was an opinion based on experience rather than logic but i'll have a shot at rationalising it - i think i'll have to borrow tentatively (as i don't know your opinion on that yet) from previous paragraph - the bigger the ego, the more powerful the slavemaster. in other words, as the ego has more requirements that need fulfilling such as success, social status, possessions etc. the person has to dedicate more and more of their being to satisfying the ego. and as the ego is not the real person and whats satisfying to the ego is not what's satisfying to the real person, the real person misses out more and more. a simple example would be the social thing - having a higher social status than your peers involves being better than them (whatever that means in a particular group and even applies to many so called spiritual folk who go around claiming they're more enlightened than others, putting those others down in the process!) and this is very pleasing to the ego. but, being in that situation is also isolating and would have the opposite effect on the real person whose happiness comes more from seeing others as basically being the same as itself which creates a sense of unity, even with those you don't get along with......does that make better sense than my last response?

You're winning me over re the testing! I suppose I want to be as inclusive as possible and the discomfort comes from knowing that there will always be people who lack motivation or ability to try and understand what is at stake so does that make us elitist? I know that, ideally, people would see the need to understand if we are to work towards a better world but the reality is that some people struggle with their day to day living - are they to be excluded from participating in the democratic process? Perhaps we don't need our politicians just our civil service (they get paid enough) but they cannot make any decisions affecting the population they serve (they are our servants after all!) without putting it up for discussion by all! Then those who cannot grasp all the complexities of government can vote on single issues? Now I see your internet suggestion coming into its own (with, of course, the safeguards such a system would require)

Interesting thoughts on the media (thanks for expanding further). We have a British Broadcasting Corporation, funded by all television views in Britain, that is meant to be neutral. The reality is that directors and chief executives have to stay onside with the government of the day to keep their jobs! I wonder, I wonder - is there such a thing as unbiased reporting (intentional or unintentional)?

And egos! You know I had not really thought in depth about what an ego is so I could not resist that good old free dictionary again to see what it says:

1. The self, especially as distinct from the world and other selves.
2. In psychoanalysis, the division of the psyche that is conscious, most immediately controls thought and behavior, and is most in touch with external reality.
3.
a. An exaggerated sense of self-importance; conceit.
b. Appropriate pride in oneself; self-esteem.

I think defs 1 and 2 are acceptable and it is the 3rd def that is causing us concern? What do you think? I like what you are saying but again you are assuming that, if we take this path, others will follow? What makes people interesting is that we are all unique (or at least I like to think so so what sort of ego have I?!!) I don't think we can or are able to banish ego, which I guess tells you a little of how I think about ego!

OK, I get your point about feeding the ego being isolationist but what about recluses and hermits? Are they happy? I don't mind admitting that I don't mind being isolated by my thoughts and opinions as long as I believe them to be true - a bit of arrogance there too! And, sadly, I don't feel a sense of unity with everyone, especially those I don't get along with.

I am not helping here, am I?

n, don't think there's anything elitist about it, more of a responsibility issue - for example, there's a good reason its so hard to be a doctor or engineer, if they stuff up, people die. same happens when wrong people gain power because of mistakes by voters.

but i completely agree with the inclusiveness factor, that's where its up to the system (and all of us as we're parts of it) to ensure that people are well educated and can pass the voting test - i'd like to see that point in the test so everyone understands how important education is...lol

the voting on individual decisions used to be something i (and you and many others) thought about a lot, but there're good reasons its a reality only in science fiction books; 1.we're back to the problem of majority suppressing minorities unless our minds are all linked together and we operate as one (like the borg in star trek but without the dictator) and 2.unless we do have those computers implanted in our brain and can make decisions without thinking, we'd end up spending all day every day voting :/

re media, i'd agree with your implied opinion that non-biased media is not something that's going to happen on its own. however, if people are aware of the different sides of the issues, i think they'd be less likely to be influenced and media would have to start being less manipulative to avoid loosing viewers..pay tv is a good example, they have to battle for the viewers so more likely to program according to wishes of viewers rather than political factors.

ego - just for others, i'll repeat what i msgd you - the ego i was referring to is the spiritual definition which is about the false self-image created by our mind. that false image is very often contradictory to who we really are and the biggest barrier against happiness. i think i've already said a bit on that in my previous response but if anyone would like to discuss that one further let me know..i'll adress the other definitions for now:

1- i would normally define this as self-awareness and yes, its a necessary part of our mind, would either be a very hard or very painful to eat if we couldn't distinguish ourselves from our food...lol

2- i believe this is the freudian angle, been a while i read his book on this but i remember finding it a naive version of spiritualism (guess the elitism of european philosophy made them blind to asian stuff) and it isn't seen as a useful model in modern psychology (even though spiritual practices are...weird world)...now, just to equate definitions, freud's 'id' is my 'animal-mind' (lower level brain functions), his 'ego' my 'self-awareness' and his super-ego would be the spiritual definition of 'ego' (btw, these are not exactly equal in definitions but close enough)...now, based on my response to no.1 and these definitions, y, the ego described here is necessary as before...but where this angle fails is that it sees the 'super-ego' as a functional necessary whereas my opinion is that its the slavemaster in line with the spiritual angle.

3.a.obviously bad...b.hmm, think the discussion on 'self-critisism' better answers that. again might be stumbling on definitions here but i see pride as a bad thing and self-esteem should be something we're full of all the time and based on our value as a human being rather than our achievements etc.


people following the egoless(or trying) - sure, if we're miserable and have a happy person in front of us not only as an example but as support, i think the temptation is pretty massive to check out their methods.

our uniqueness - y, we're all unique in many ways but we're mostly the same, we eat, breathe, drink, shit etc, we all want happiness as opposed to suffering, we love our families (in cases where not, its usually because of damaged psychology), we want to have a roof over our head, want to connect with other etc etc etc....the uniqueness usually comes from the different inclinations of our thought patterns, creativity, skills such as leadership, language, problem-solving, memory etc etc...and even they are mainly learned activities (experience as well as education)...a kid whose parents got them learning an instrument when he's 2 is more likely to have more musical talent etc....i think the problem comes about when people focus more on the little bit of uniqueness and ignore the massive amount of similarities which are mostly taken for granted...and then there's the issue that people see themselves the way they want to rather than the way they really are - major problems from that one :/ ....i guess what i'm saying is, its important to really know who we are, focus on the similarities when dealing with others and be very aware and accepting of our faults as well as our strengths...basically a true and healthy self-image.

recluses and hermits - nope they sure are not and i can tell that from first hand experience (lot better now, people even mistake me for an extrovert these days...lol)....and there's definetely a level of ignorance in being that way, i mean, its easy to think our self-image is correct if its not being tested by interacting with others and the world around us. that interaction is a big part of building that healthy self-image....just needs to be done carefully, one persons ego can trigger the other's...what i've found safe is not getting into conversations that set any kind of social ordering (success, money, car etc) and keep it to human level topics (emotions, thoughts, opinions)...and only turn those into discussions with people who can discuss those without getting competitive...others?...happy to smile and give them a greeting and leave it at that :)

oops, didn't realise i rambled on that much :O ...sorry for the long paragraphs :/