Paul A. Tanner III posted Dec 8, 2012 6:30 AM: > > On Fri, Dec 7, 2012 at 5:49 PM, kirby urner > <email@example.com> wrote: > ... > > Actually it was more a response to GS who was > saying he wasn't willing > > to judge my views in the same harsh light PT was > bringing to bear. > > > > Lets look at the mathematics again. Does "money" > sustain human > > settlements or something more basic: sun energy, > photosynthesis, > ... > > There is no "big government" in this picture > directly responsible for > > the health and welfare of these denizens. > ... > > Do we still care about health care for people who > aren't US citizens? > > > > Paul seems parochially focused on his particular > nation-state > ... > > Paul, on the other hand, is parochially obsessed > with the immorality > > of not helping "American citizens" -- but that need > not everyone's > > principal concern. > > > > When was the last time you saw someone you love lose > her leg because she did not have the money to pay for > that MRI - and did not have someone or something else > like insurance or government pay for that MRI - that > would have caught that infection in time to save her > leg? > I write from a country that has very few (if ANY) medical benefits at all that are provided to citizens at large by society - and that actually kills/cripples a great many of us. It is our responsibility as Indians to bring about an effective equivalent of 'Medicare' or whatever (as it is the responsibility of US citizens to ensure that their Medicare becomes a truly effective and equitable system for all US inhabitants).
But we do have higher priorities - such as bringing about *basically* effective 'governance'; trying to bring about adequate nourishment for all our children; etc, etc.
It does strike me, Paul, that you ARE here, in this post, being unfairly harsh on Kirby's sayings/doings. I don't quite know from where this stems, except that the statement above about someone losing her leg may provide some hint - and it may also stem from a misunderstanding of what he meant when he wrote "There is no 'big government' in this picture directly responsible for the health and welfare of these denizens." > > And you complain about "harsh light"? Please. If > there were no moderator here, you would only then > discover "harsh light". > > Please. Your writings sound like the type of stuff > put forth by some pampered rich kid (think such as > Romney) who has no concept of such things, whose > response to such horror is to "philosophize" while at > the same time promote that people vote for the public > policy of anti-government conservatism to continue > such horror as the above and the agony of the vast > majority of the homeless (and so many others) in the > US who are denied - yes, DENIED - the proper food, > proper shelter, and proper health care they need to > avoid having their significantly lower life > expectancy than the rest of the population. > I observe that Kirby has never to me sounded like "some rich kid".
I generally agree that the US is in some ways *heartless* to its homeless and several less privileged groups. It is up to you citizens in the US to work to fix such inequities (but do remember to give thanks that you are not faced with the inequities we see in India). I'm afraid you will not be able to get a fix on removing such inequities using the conventional means of thinking and discourse (as we see happening all the time right here at Math-teach!) [*I observe in passing that, when I spent a few years in the US several years ago, I was fortunate enough to be very well treated - not at all 'heartlessly'!] > > That's right. This is in the end about the morally of > what we do with the right to vote - whether we vote > and how we vote if we do vote. > To *some extent* there may be some truth in your above claim - but you do need to become aware that the 'right to vote' (and vote freely in fair elections) is just one small step towards achieving democracy, a fair and moral society. The first step towards 'democracy' has to do with effective means of thinking and discourse - which we do not use in the conventional way, by and large. (Witness for instance your unfruitful anger against Kirby). > > Because as I in my prior post > > "Re: WG 13 Announcement: CERME 8 [Turkey]" > http://mathforum.org/kb/message.jspa?messageID=7933893 > > and the prior post to that > > "Re: WG 13 Announcement: CERME 8 [Turkey]" > http://mathforum.org/kb/message.jspa?messageID=7933416 > > and other posts linked to proved via the unavoidable > and inescapable mathematics, in the end in any given > democracy it is the government that voters vote for > that makes or breaks that society over which it > governs, and even makes it so that other people in > other societies benefit or not from what that > government does and does not do in relation to the > rest of the world. > I shall take a long and careful look at your above-noted postings. But, as I remember them: Nope; you've NOT proved you claims. In any case, it's a long, LONG route to getting 'real democracy in governance' - and the 'free voting' is but an initial step in that direction - yes, it does seem to be a crucial step. > > Refusing to prevent preventable evil is itself evil. > I agree. But I don't at all see where Kirby has "*refused* to prevent preventable evil" (any more than you may have done so). He may not have taken certain needed steps; but then so have you failed to take such steps. I can help you to identify those steps, if you/Kirby so desire - though it is always preferable that each person does such identification for him-/her-self. (Not claiming that I can *correctly* identify such steps for anyone other than myself - just that I can help, as I have good knowledge of the needed tools). > > This includes with respect to what one does and does > not do with respect to the power to vote when given > the power to vote. > As noted - the power to vote freely and fairly is but an initial step (though I agree it's a crucial one). > > And this also includes with respect to what we say > and promote with respect to the power to vote and > what to do with that power to vote. > At the same time, we do need to recognise, very clear-sightedly indeed, that just 'free voting' will not give us true democracy (in any society). The 'better levels of democracy' in the Scandinavian societies is NOT only on account of them voting freely.
Democracy in any society depends very strongly on individual citizens relentlessly working towards such a 'blessed' state of societal being - check out the documentation provided in the attachments at my post http://mathforum.org/kb/message.jspa?messageID=7933661 for practical tools that can help very significantly.
I must emphasize that whatever I've provided is only basic 'background' - each individual or group would need to work out for himself/ herself/ themselves just what he/ she/ they may need to do to develop 'democracy' within their own societal systems. I find Kirby's thoughts about 'microdemocracy' as being potentially most fruitful: if two people working together can be truly democratic, then so can more people do so.