Speaking For Oneself
Many people don’t realize that in union elections, they are voting to give up their right to speak for themselves -- and then wonder why they have no right to speak for themselves, and have no say in determining their own working conditions. The right to speak and represent themselves is granted to everyone as the highest right -- in a republic. That is what a republic stands for -- the granting of rights and powers from the citizens -- and not divine rights from those most ruthless in asserting them.
That is still problematical for many people -- who believe that they have the right, authority and wisdom to speak for everybody else -- and to tell everybody else what to do. Psychologists call such people, “authoritarian” personalities -- of which the totalitarians, despots, tyrants, demagogues, and everybody else claiming to speak for God and truth exclusively, are easily recognized.
Such types are contrasted by “democratic” personalities -- which is not simply the right of individuals to gang up and impose their collective will on the (unorganized) minority, but are those who regard the rights of others as inviolable also -- and no majority or consensus can vote to eliminate them.
In witnessing the proceedings at the Hawaii state legislature, what is distressing is not so much that many citizens are distressed by the treatment of such minorities, but that it doesn’t bother the leaders and representatives to preside over such injustices -- and in fact, are rather proud of them as their show of power and dominance. For whatever reason, the reporters sent to cover such deliberations, seem also to share in the triumph of these injustices as though they were on the “winning” team running interference for these abuses. It’s really quite sickening and disheartening -- to know that not only are the politicians predictably corrupted, but those self-designated to be the “watchdogs” for the citizens --cannot distinguish right from wrong either, and for that, proudly call themselves “objective,” rather than realizing their blinding bias, prejudices and even hatreds -- often touted as “political correctness.”
Thus, the most egregious wrong doings are legitimized because the majority has voted to make it so -- losing sight of the fact that the major justification for government in the first and last place, is the guaranteeing of those rights -- of those minorities. That is the defining criteria for determining justice, fairness and value in any society -- the baseline treatment of the least powerful.
The truly powerful, don’t need government; government was not designed for their own benefit -- and to legitimize and aggrandize their own power.
The most inviolable power in a free republic, is the right to speak only for oneself -- and not the claim to speak for everybody else. Yet in almost every tactic to convince others of the legitimacy of their own views, they seldom make an appeal on its own merits exclusively, but only make an attempt to manipulate the mind and opinions of the other -- which is not speaking any truth, and being clearly recognized by that.
posted by Mike Hu @ 9:08 AM
4 comments
4 Comments:
You bring up the very points of what makes up the pathocracy that rules the world nowadays. The ruling classes are made up of, basically, psychopaths. They have no conscience nor do they have any empathy for the people who are being killed and hurt by their actions.
There is an article about the book "Political Ponerology" that discusses just how this process develops. If you are really serious about what you are claiming, you should read this article. You can find it here:
http://www.cassiopaea.org/cass/political_
ponerology_lobaczewski.htm
Everybody should be aware of what is happening to us on the Big Blue Marble. And how to get the sanity back.
If you want to be taken seriously Suzanne, you can't be posting comments or blogging anonymously-- otherwise, people aren't going to investigate further into your links (which also didn't work). You should believe enough in what you're propagating to identify yourself fully -- before you can expect other people to invest their time, especially since you bother to identify those who might be most interested in these insights.
The professor contends that 5% of the population are psychopaths -- while the rest are normal, healthy people. I think that 5% rule also applies to the healthy, or superhealthy people which has been the topic of greatest interest to me.
the 5% rule is that which is most significant to determine and study in every population sample -- from politics to athletics, to human virtues and attraction.
The 5% is what is significant to identify -- both negatively and positively. Given limited time and resources, I'd rather focus on the healthy 5% rather than the pathological 5% -- which I'd rather avoid than become the world's leading expert on.
A lot of people study pathology and become the world's leading experts on the various manifestations and syndromes -- but few beyond people such as Maslow, Ayn Rand and Krishnamurti, focused on the idea of optimally healthy people.
It's not helpful to know healthy as just the opposite of pathological. It has to have a totally positive manifestation -- rather than just being the opposite of not pathological. The presumption is that we know what normal and healthy is -- when we've never really inquired into what that is -- optimally, and without that prototype, we really can't say that the default value is "normal and healthy."
Mike, I'm sorry, it seems that I misunderstood your blog. I was under the impression that you really wanted to make changes for the better to our society. The only way this can be done is to educate ourselves to who/what is really running our governments. Psychopaths. And I am quite serious about this.
Obviously, this is not what you are trying to do, so I have misinterpreted what you wrote. Won't happen again.
It's not enough to know what's wrong -- or to claim to know what's wrong, with an exhaustive explanation.
Far more productive is creating the healthy prototype -- because unless one can do so, s/he doesn't know whether their explanation is right. That is the problem with explanations of what is wrong; they could be anything, and you don't know if it explains anything at all -- unless you can test that thesis independently with an alternative.
Otherwise, it is just an ad hoc explanation -- for every situation -- which is the problem of the culture/government in Hawaii, in which everything is regarded as being unrelated to everything else.
And so each situation, has its own long, convoluted explanation, in which people fly off the handle whenver they are held accountable to some more universal test of reality.
It's very problematical in the "liberal studies" and "professional schools" in which the truth is anything they agree it is, and by convention, nobody can ever challenge them.
Post a Comment
<< Home