PhiloMadrid on Skype 6:30pm Sunday 27th June: How much is too much democracy?

Dear Friends,

This Sunday we have the option of discussing two topics, subject to
general agreement.

We can continue with the debate by Ines from last Sunday:
What makes a good debate?
https://www.philomadrid.com/2021/06/what-makes-good-debate.html

Or we can start the new subject:

How much is too much democracy?
https://www.philomadrid.com/2021/06/how-much-is-too-much-democracy.html

When I proposed the topic on democracy I was thinking that democracy can
really be fragile and subject to abuse and corruption. In my short essay
I discuss certain issues that really weaken democracy.

In the meantime you can link to the current news and notices here:
https://www.philomadrid.com/2020/10/news-and-notices.html

-Alfonso has a new website and he gave us link to his latest book of
poems: Después

-Oscar's book on his reflections on COVID-19 is still available

-David J. Butler has published a new book "Absent Friends" regarding the
Cementerio Británico in Madrid

Finally if you have problems with Skype try launching it again if you
have the App or browser. Send me a message for the link.

Best and take care
Lawrence

telephone/WhatsApp: 606081813
Email: philomadrid@gmail.com
http://www.philomadrid.com


PhiloMadrid on Skype 6:30pm Sunday 27th June: How much is too much
democracy?

How much is too much democracy?

How much is too much democracy?

 

 Topic and Essay by Lawrence

 

There are two aspects of political democracy: the methodology and the system. The system part of democracy is generally described as the division of power, which is to be understood as the legislature (parliament), the administration (government) and the judiciary.

 

The methodology usually involves some form of election, which we erroneously assume is the part of democracy associated with the will of the people. Indeed in the system of separation of powers, the people only feature in the elections of the legislature. And even then not all members of society are eligible to vote, and those who do have a vote not all will choose to participate in any plebiscite. Some countries do impose on those entitled to vote to actually vote is pain of a fine if they do not. Thus the idea that democracy is by the people for the people is just a fraction of reality.

 

The only problem with democracy is that it is quite easy to abuse the principles of democracy and then cause a lot of harm to society. By definition the hurdles of democracy are quite straightforward for those determined and organised enough to participate in the methodology, but the rewards of power can be endless for the corrupt and the wicked.

 

Is it, therefore, reasonable to assume that if there are limits to democracy there would be fewer opportunities to abuse the democratic process? The result of the democratic process is that the winners practically have absolute power.

 

The only reason why one would want to limit democracy is because excessive democracy might lead to corruption and abuse of power. But the problem need not be the result of malicious intentions.

 

In my opinion the most excess and serious form of democracy is the formation of political parties in parliament. Political parties in parliament are no different than the most primitive form of tribalism. The idea that a group of people who say X and another group who say Y, and all of a sudden when one of them is elected to government they will legislate for ABC…XY and Z. In theory this is how governments should behave but we know from the National Socialists, the Conservative party in the UK, and the communist parties or racist governments in various countries this does not happen. Parliamentarians should be independent and should only be loyal to the country and their electorate.

 

The next most excessive form of democracy are referendums. The problem is that referendums might be construed as a political tool to avoid the scrutiny of the legislature. Some people might argue that referendums are direct political participation of the people on a specific issue. But before a referendum is organised they still have to go through the process of approval and formulation. And as we know from the Brexit referendum of 2016 referendums are not safe from corruption and manipulation. Governments and parliaments who really have the interests of the people at heart would be able to protect national interests with direct legislation.

 

Another source of excess democracy is the two chamber parliaments. On the Westminster model the House of Lords were supposed to be an overseeing chamber to protect the monarchy from the vagaries of the common people and their representatives in the House of Commons (Commons = ordinary people). The irony is that in the recent past the House of Lords was more objective and accountable to the people than the toxic two party system of the House of Commons.

 

The issue is that if members of the second chamber are elected they can claim they represent the people as much as the elected first chamber. In the USA, the President, Senate and Congress are all directly elected by the people by the Americans cannot claim any higher degree of fairness and justice than any country in the EU.

 

Finally, many countries share power, especially local power according to some historical set up, or maybe according to the latest constitution. Local power directly affects the people, but each region or locality might run their affairs differently from each other. Thus there is a danger that some regions are more corrupt than others and prioritise certain needs which other regions ignore. In this scenario different groups of people in the country enjoy different rights.

 

What is inevitable is that democracies based on the sole participation of political parties tend to be weak on doing what is best for the country and the people.

 

Best Lawrence

 

 telephone/WhatsApp: 606081813

 

 Email: philomadrid@gmail.com

 

 http://www.philomadrid.com

 

PhiloMadrid on Skype 6:30pm Sunday 20th June: What makes a good debate?

Dear Friends,

This Sunday we are discussing: What makes a good debate?

The topic was proposed by Ines that was due for a long time. In my short
essay I try share some idea of what makes a good debate which is a
different question from how to debate.

What makes a good debate?
https://www.philomadrid.com/2021/06/what-makes-good-debate.html


In the meantime you can link to the current news and notices here:
https://www.philomadrid.com/2020/10/news-and-notices.html

-Alfonso has a new website and he gave us link to his latest book of
poems: Después

-Oscar's book on his reflections on COVID-19 is still available

-David J. Butler has published a new book "Absent Friends" regarding the
Cementerio Británico in Madrid

Finally if you have problems with Skype try launching it again if you
have the App or browser. Send me a message for the link.

Best and take care
Lawrence

telephone/WhatsApp: 606081813
Email: philomadrid@gmail.com
http://www.philomadrid.com


PhiloMadrid on Skype 6:30pm Sunday 20th June: What makes a good debate?

What makes a good debate?

 

What makes a good debate?

 

Topic by Ines

Essay By Lawrence

 

 

The Socratic Method, is probably the most celebrated strategy to win a debate. But this is about winning debates and not necessarily about having a good debate.

 

Hence, the criteria and objective of a good debate may not be the same criteria as winning a debate. But what is certain is that a good topic will build expectation and might not put people off people from joining or following the debate. But as we know from experience during our meeting the topic by itself does not necessarily guarantee a good debate.

 

We also know that no matter what the topic is we never really know how it will end. Even the most uneventful debate might still offer the participants interesting and new arguments. Even when we think we know most of what there is to know about a topic, there is always something we missed out. Indeed a good debate is certainly one that teaches us something new or reminds us of something we forgot. And the pleasure of a good argument is independent of whether the debate is good or bad.

 

The participants are also a necessary factor for a good debate. It is people that make a debate good and that motivate others to participate. Some people are just gifted at expressing themselves and transmitting an argument. There is nothing more pleasurable than hearing someone speak eloquently and effortlessly. Such people are like singing with knowledge and pleasure for others.

 

This does not mean that the rest of us have nothing to contribute to any debate. This has been demonstrated many times of the years of our meeting that everyone who wishes to contribute to the meeting will certainly enrich the meeting.

 

But none of this is possible without respect for all the participants. Respect to let those who are speaking to finish what they are saying: respect by not turning a debate against the person who is speaking. Ad hominem arguments, when someone attacks the speaker rather than the argument are the death knell of a good debate. This does not mean the speaker is not wrong or talking nonsense, but rather this sort of argument takes away from the scope of the debate. The debate is about ideas and knowledge, not about people. Attack the idea or the knowledge and the person will be held to account.

 

But there is another form of argument that might affect the outcome of a debate and I am referring to arguments from authority. The worst type of argument from authority during a debate is to assume that just because a well known author said something which is accepted to be the truth then it is the truth and cannot be questioned. Just because a person said something it does not mean it cannot be questioned. It is more difficult to question arguments and knowledge that that has been shown to be valid and cohrent.

 

Another form of authority is someone who is an authority because of their social or political position. What matters to a debate is not what the “famous” persons says, but rather the information and logic of the contribution. This form of argument is certainly toxic to a debate. Political and religious dogma, for example, are not necessarily conducive to good debates, hence why we avoid these local topics in our meeting.

 

So, the idea that we cannot question a claim or comment because Professor X or Prime Minister Y said is absurd and certainly not harmonious to a good debate. This is not to say that someone who is a professional in a given disciple is not to be trusted, but such a person has very specific knowledge to share with others. This kind of authority ought to command respect and maybe any objection to such contribution might be abutted by other valid arguments or even taking the debate to a professional arena.

 

My favourite form of argument from authority is when people speak from experience. Maybe one of the reasons why speaking from experience is attractive is because the speaker can weave the details of the experience with confidence and certainly: all this despite what we know about memory loss. Another aspect might be that we can relate to the experience of other people rather than the logical and factual account of reality. A good yarn is always a good yarn.

 

Of course, debates are not held to change opinions, even though we should try anyway. In effect a good debate is one when those following and participating in the debate contribute to the debate and the participants learn from the contributions. Luckily everyone has something to say during a debate which is new to the rest of the forum.

 

Best Lawrence

 

Best Lawrence

 

 

 telephone/WhatsApp: 606081813

 Email: philomadrid@gmail.com

 http://www.philomadrid.com

 

 

PhiloMadrid on Skype 6:30pm Sunday 13th June: Agenda 2030

Dear Friends,

This Sunday we are discussing: Agenda 2030.

The topic was proposed by Sara and she kindly provided us with some
links on the subject in Spanish and English. In my short essay I point
out that we have discussed many of the key points of Agenda 2030.

Agenda 2030 – Links provided by Sara
https://www.philomadrid.com/2021/06/agenda-2030-links.html


Agenda 2030 essay by Lawrence
https://www.philomadrid.com/2021/06/agenda-2030.html

In the meantime you can link to the current news and notices here:
https://www.philomadrid.com/2020/10/news-and-notices.html

-Alfonso has a new website and he gave us link to his latest book of
poems: Después

-Oscar's book on his reflections on COVID-19 is still available

-David J. Butler has published a new book "Absent Friends" regarding the
Cementerio Británico in Madrid

Finally if you have problems with Skype try launching it again if you
have the App or browser. Send me a message for the link.

Best and take care
Lawrence

telephone/WhatsApp: 606081813
Email: philomadrid@gmail.com
http://www.philomadrid.com


PhiloMadrid on Skype 6:30pm Sunday 13th June: Agenda 2030

Agenda 2030 – Links

 

Agenda 2030 – Links provided by Sara

 

 

8 predictions for the world in 2030

World Economic Forum

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/11/8-predictions-for-the-world-in-2030/

 

 

8 predicciones para el mundo en 2030

World Economic Forum (in Spanish)

https://youtu.be/ZzdCTyMWQBs

 

 

And Google translation into Spanish.:

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/11/8-predictions-for-the-world-in-2030/

 

1. Todos los productos se habrán convertido en servicios. “No tengo nada. No tengo auto. No soy dueño de una casa. No tengo electrodomésticos ni ropa ”, escribe la diputada danesa Ida Auken. Ir de compras es un recuerdo lejano en la ciudad de 2030, cuyos habitantes han agrietado*  energías limpias y piden prestado lo que necesitan a pedido. Suena utópico, hasta que ella menciona que cada uno de sus movimientos es rastreado y fuera de la ciudad vive franjas de descontento, la descripción definitiva de una sociedad dividida en dos.

      

2. Existe un precio global para el carbono. China tomó la delantera en 2017 con un mercado para negociar el derecho a emitir una tonelada de CO2, lo que encamina al mundo hacia un precio único del carbono y un poderoso incentivo para deshacerse de los combustibles fósiles, predice Jane Burston, directora de Clima y Medio Ambiente en el Laboratorio Nacional de Física del Reino Unido. Europa, mientras tanto, se encontró en el centro del comercio de paneles solares baratos y eficientes, ya que los precios de las energías renovables cayeron abruptamente.

       

3 . El dominio de Estados Unidos se acabó. Tenemos un puñado de potencias globales. Los estados nacionales habrán regresado, escribe Robert Muggah, director de investigación del Instituto Igarapé. En lugar de una sola fuerza, un puñado de países, entre ellos Estados Unidos, Rusia, China, Alemania, India y Japón, muestran tendencias semiimperiales. Sin embargo, al mismo tiempo, el papel del estado se ve amenazado por tendencias que incluyen el auge de las ciudades y la difusión de identidades en línea.

 

4. Adiós hospital, hola hogar-spital . La tecnología habrá perturbado aún más las enfermedades, escribe Melanie Walker, doctora en medicina y asesora del Banco Mundial. El hospital tal y como lo conocemos va a salir, con menos accidentes gracias a los coches autónomos y grandes avances en la medicina preventiva y personalizada. Los bisturíes y los donantes de órganos están fuera, los diminutos tubos robóticos y los órganos bioimpresos están dentro.

 

5. Estamos comiendo mucha menos carne. Al igual que nuestros abuelos, trataremos la carne como un placer en lugar de un alimento básico, escribe Tim Benton, profesor de ecología de poblaciones en la Universidad de Leeds, Reino Unido. No serán la agricultura grande o los pequeños productores artesanales los que ganen, sino una combinación de los dos, con comida preparada rediseñada para ser más saludable y menos dañina para el medio ambiente.

     

6. Los refugiados sirios de hoy, directores ejecutivos de 2030. Los refugiados sirios con un alto nivel de educación habrán alcanzado la mayoría de edad en 2030, lo que abogará por la integración económica de aquellos que se han visto obligados a huir del conflicto. El mundo necesita estar mejor preparado para las poblaciones en movimiento, escribe Lorna Solis, fundadora y directora ejecutiva de la ONG Blue Rose Compass, ya que el cambio climático habrá desplazado a mil millones de personas.

 

7. Los valores que construyeron Occidente se habrán puesto a prueba hasta el límite. Olvidamos los controles y equilibrios que refuerzan nuestras democracias bajo nuestro propio riesgo, escribe Kenneth Roth, director ejecutivo de Human Rights Watch.

 

      

8. "Para la década de 2030, estaremos listos para llevar a los humanos hacia el Planeta Rojo". Es más, una vez que lleguemos allí, probablemente descubriremos evidencia de vida extraterrestre, escribe Ellen Stofan, científica jefe de la NASA. La gran ciencia nos ayudará a responder grandes preguntas sobre la vida en la tierra, así como a abrir aplicaciones prácticas para la tecnología espacial.

 

En punto 1-

* ((agrietado?destrozado? = 'cracked' original English))

Agenda 2030

 

Agenda 2030

 

Topic by Sara

Essay by Lawrence

 

There is scepticism, experience, and we’ve been here before!

 

I would classify Agenda 2030 as something nice to have but we’ve been here before. There are many documents on the internet outlining what Agenda 2030 is all about, but basically it is an initiative of 17 sustainable goals signed up by most countries to protect and improve human rights, peace, prosperity, and the planet including the fight against global warming.

 

We have already covered many of the topics involved in Agenda 2030, but this is how the Swiss Confederation lists these 17 Sustainable Development Goals ( https://www.eda.admin.ch/agenda2030/en/home/agenda-2030/die-17-ziele-fuer-eine-nachhaltige-entwicklung.html ):

 

01 - End poverty in all its forms everywhere

02 - End hunger, achieve food security and improved nutrition and promote sustainable agriculture

03 - Ensure healthy lives and promote well-being for all at all ages

04 - Ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning opportunities for all

05 - Achieve gender equality and empower all women and girls

06 - Ensure availability and sustainable management of water and sanitation for all

07 - Ensure access to affordable, reliable, sustainable and modern energy for all

08 - Promote sustained, inclusive and sustainable economic growth, full and productive employment and decent work for all

09 - Build resilient infrastructure, promote inclusive and sustainable industrialization and foster innovation

10 - Reduce inequality within and among countries

11 - Make cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable

12 - Ensure sustainable consumption and production patterns

13 - Take urgent action to combat climate change and its impacts

14 - Conserve and sustainably use the oceans, seas and marine resources for sustainable development

15 - Protect, restore and promote sustainable use of terrestrial ecosystems, sustainably manage forests, combat desertification, and halt and reverse land degradation and halt biodiversity loss

16 - Promote peaceful and inclusive societies for sustainable development, provide access to justice for all and build effective, accountable and inclusive institutions at all levels

17 - Strengthen the means of implementation and revitalize the global partnership for sustainable development

 

The list is ambitious and the content actions are well overdue, but what is of concern is why did it take so long to come up with such a list? At face value, at least, most countries seem to agree that the seventeen goals are important. But my concern is twofold.

 

The first is that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was proclaimed on the 10th December 1948 in Paris but very few people today enjoy the full list of these rights. The second concern are such maps as those found at the “Our World in Data” website under Human Rights ( https://ourworldindata.org/human-rights ) that show that most countries in Asia and Africa have low respect for human rights.

 

There are, however, some positive factors that might improve the situation somewhat as identified by Agenda 2030. The first is that technology might help solve some problems in communications, global warming, sustainability and information sharing. Today it is much easier to learn about human rights abuse because of the internet where information can bypass the main stream media many of whom have an agenda or two.

 

The second and most important factor is President Biden’s initiative on taxing multinationals and limiting their scope of channelling their profits through tax havens (Factbox: Key elements of Biden's corporate tax-hike plan – Reuters - https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-biden-taxes-factbox-idUSKBN2BN3NU). As we know the problem is not companies making profits but rather companies not paying taxes on those profits. Taxes are way for businesses to return money into a society that helped create those profits in the first place. Unfortunately, it seems that for many countries find it many easier to allow tax evasion rather than introduce equitable tax systems: politics of envy never worked.

 

The Covid pandemic can be seen as a test run for this ideal world envisioned under Agenda 2030. And although technology and science have created opportunities by understanding the virus and creating vaccines, politicians have proved to be a hindrance to the fight against the virus. Indeed when we have five obnoxious governments in Europe (Poland, Hungary, United Kingdom, Russia and Belarus) in the twenty first century, I do not see much prospect of Agenda 2030 coming to fruition.

 

Best Lawrence

 

 

 telephone/WhatsApp: 606081813

 Email: philomadrid@gmail.com

 http://www.philomadrid.com