This is the continuance of the proposal toward 21st Century View of Politics and good Government. While I had mention Consumerism this was to point out the supporting structure for elected government frameworks for their idealization supported by the vote of the people.
sknguy II:The notion that something is Just is an appeal to the ideas of Justice. And Justice is a personal concept. There is no natural version of the ideas. And Justice isn't a monolithic concept which a particular person or group can recite as being a true version. Every person, and every generation contributes to the evolving ideas of Justice, or what is Just.
The laws we write are a way of institutionalizing the ideas of Justice. And laws are the translation of society's perceptions of what Justice means at some point in time. As our perceptions of Justice changes, our laws change and evolve with it.
So when calling things "Just", as in "just society" or "just government", you're appealing to the notion of what Justice means. If you talk about something as being just, you'll have to accept the fact that it'll also be ever evolving and may be inconsistent from one person to the next. And that what "it" looks like today will likely look quite different years down the road.
Yes I have been thinking about the way you have described Justice. You have spelt it out very well. I must concede as well to the bold emphasis and recognize it will evolve as you have pointed out. I think though that's my point. What will it evolve too in the 21st Century? I am recognizing all that Justice has become to this point, and in this spirit of democratization asking if our laws have failed in recognition of the swing democracy has taken? Has it?
One could contend for sure that all is well and we have come back to what you said about our perceptions of Justice. But the idea then is that such evolution could have contain all the "best of the laws that have been written" have swung in favour of decay and that signs within this interpretation has some value recognized as a foundational truth. Whose Truth?
Although I believe that governance is a personal matter, and that it's the foundation for societal governance, here's the UN's take on "good governance" as a process of decision making:http://www.unescap.org/pdd/prs/ProjectActivities/Ongoing/gg/governance.asp
Edit: I should clarify that the UN article refers to a kind of oligarchy. Or who can control decision making
Ah, yes this is very helpful. Some basis from which to work. I have to think about this some more. To this point it recognized that Justice has reached a plateau, and that "Good Governance" is a result of the Laws written to date? If Good Governance is to evolve along with the laws, then the laws will have to change? This then is what we will see in the 21st Century?
The concept of "governance" is not new. It is as old as human civilization. Simply put "governance" means: the process of decision-making and the process by which decisions are implemented (or not implemented). Governance can be used in several contexts such as corporate governance, international governance, national governance and local governance.See:WHAT IS GOOD GOVERNANCE?
Governments then shall represent the following eight characteristics of Good Governance and if any these Governments show lacking in any of this interpretive representations then we shall see where democracy has been slighted by factors of extreme misuse of democracy?
CONCLUSIONFrom the above discussion it should be clear that good governance is an ideal which is difficult to achieve in its totality.Very few countries and societies have come close to achieving good governance in its totality. However, to ensure sustainable human development, actions must be taken to work towards this ideal with the aim of making it a reality. WHAT IS GOOD GOVERNANCE?
What would ratio and percentage applied to Governments of the World(Provincial jurisdictions) be according to policies of Good Governance based on UN interpretation? This could cause disenfranchisement of it's participants while recognizing the idea about the possible definitions of Justice and values assigned to those eight characteristics?
While one may of exhausted the challenge of a "logic forming apparatus to conclude in law" what becomes "self evident" comes under the "Aristotelean view of logic." What remains then, is to push forward with an "objective look" for a solution. What appeals to my mind after this exhaustion was to now consider the subject of, "lateral movement" which is to produce "new creative moments" toward idea development for this new "21st Century view" in Law??
This was not inconsistent with Plato's Ideal from idea manifestation toward an ideal per say, but brings us much closer to understanding of the relationship Plato had with Aristotle and the view I am pushing toward the future of societies.
In this week's edition of The Interview, Edward de Bono tells Lyse Doucet how he became aware of the failings of conventional thought, how he has championed his new way to business leaders, politicians and children, and why he still wants to realise his dream of establishing a Palace of Thinking to encourage a revolution. See:The Interview
One does not discount the process through deliberation with rigour and analysis to arrive at this shift in perspective? Plato's dialogues serve to propel forward writing in the exchanges toward an ideal Plato himself had, yet this is not to say that the constructs development from such exchange could have not warranted , further examination under historical analysis.
His contention is that just as language has allowed one generation to pass useful knowledge onto the next, it has also allowed dangerous myths and out-of-date ideas to become enshrined. See:Edward de Bono
I understood then the reference to Myths and out of date ideas in reference to previous commenter point on "purely logical or reductionist thinking" related too, the article placed for inspection and relates, Edward_de_Bono-"has set out to challenge the logical, truth-seeking process established by the Greek philosophers 2,400 years ago and cemented in Western culture in the Middle Ages by the church."
It would be interesting then to see what Edward DeBono has to say about "justice as an ideal" and it's relation to current laws of countries in place? This to me would suggest that a future forming perspective according to a timeline from the "past to the future" is an evolutionary one and that such a trend in politics would have to coincide with the development of the laws associated with the governance of that country.
The concept of "governance" is not new. It is as old as human civilization. Simply put "governance" means: the process of decision-making and the process by which decisions are implemented (or not implemented). Governance can be used in several contexts such as corporate governance, international governance, national governance and local governance.
What is the the trademark then of Good Governance?
Logic forming and reductionistic thinking has taken us to this point in time. Then such a request to lateral thinking would have to include all that came before Good Governance in order for Good Governance to evolve to what it is today. What Good Governance shall become in terms of it's laws in the 21st Century??
See:Oligarchy:A Historical Look from Plato's Dialogues
No comments:
Post a Comment