Sunday, May 20, 2012
Iron law of oligarchy
The iron law of oligarchy is a political theory, first developed by the German syndicalist sociologist Robert Michels in his 1911 book, Political Parties.[1] It claims that rule by an elite - or "oligarchy" is inevitable as an "iron law" within any organization as part of the "tactical and technical necessities" of organization.[2] Michels particularly addressed the application of this law to democracy, and stated: "It is organization which gives birth to the dominion of the elected over the electors, of the mandataries over the mandators, of the delegates over the delegators. Who says organization, says oligarchy".[3] He went on to state that "Historical evolution mocks all the prophylactic measures that have been adopted for the prevention of oligarchy."[4] Michels stated that the official goal of democracy of eliminating elite rule was impossible, that democracy is a façade legitimizing the rule of a particular elite, and that elite rule, that he refers to as oligarchy, is inevitable.[5]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_law_of_oligarchy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_law_of_oligarchy
Friday, May 18, 2012
Monday, May 14, 2012
Sunday, May 13, 2012
What is a "right"?
What is a "right"?
...as in:
"I have a "-right-" to have physical access to my child or children..." is something someone might say who is involved in a custody dispute.
What does this person mean when he or she states that they have a "right" to something? In this case the person or persons states that they have a right to visit with and share experiences with their offspring.
What is a right and why do "rights" apply to some situations ?
A "right" is some ideal* we (as in we in society) would like-to-be-the-case IRL. A right is not something that "is" just b/c we humans think it *should* (be a given ((even and esp. a given to other human beings))), that is to say a right(s) is not something which exists prior to human existence.
So a right is some condition that we sweet little people would like to "prevail" in the affairs of our sweet human-being-ness if and when and where possible.
Persons who claim they have a "right" to visit with their children and so on probably mean by extension that this "right" is some ideal** condition that should be enforced by the state, if necessary. By enforce from the state, they mean that it, the state, should, insofar as it is capable and it is reasonably within it's power to do so, create the necessary conditions for this "ideal" condition to "prevail."***
From this we must ask a further series of questions. For example why can said people not enforce their ideal situation? Why do they need a state to accomplish this task?
***
*adj. right·er, right·est
[Middle English, from Old English riht; see reg- in Indo-European roots. N., sense 3, from the fact that conservatives sit on the right side of the legislative chamber in various assemblies.]
...as in:
"I have a "-right-" to have physical access to my child or children..." is something someone might say who is involved in a custody dispute.
What does this person mean when he or she states that they have a "right" to something? In this case the person or persons states that they have a right to visit with and share experiences with their offspring.
What is a right and why do "rights" apply to some situations ?
A "right" is some ideal* we (as in we in society) would like-to-be-the-case IRL. A right is not something that "is" just b/c we humans think it *should* (be a given ((even and esp. a given to other human beings))), that is to say a right(s) is not something which exists prior to human existence.
So a right is some condition that we sweet little people would like to "prevail" in the affairs of our sweet human-being-ness if and when and where possible.
Persons who claim they have a "right" to visit with their children and so on probably mean by extension that this "right" is some ideal** condition that should be enforced by the state, if necessary. By enforce from the state, they mean that it, the state, should, insofar as it is capable and it is reasonably within it's power to do so, create the necessary conditions for this "ideal" condition to "prevail."***
From this we must ask a further series of questions. For example why can said people not enforce their ideal situation? Why do they need a state to accomplish this task?
***
Definition of PREVAIL
intransitive verb
1
: to gain ascendancy through strength or superiority : triumph
2
: to be or become effective or effectual
3
: to use persuasion successfully <prevailed on him to sing>
4
: to be frequent : predominate <the west winds that prevail in the mountains>
5
: to be or continue in use or fashion : persist <a custom that still prevails>
See See prevail defined for kids »
** Definition of IDEAL
1
: existing as an archetypal idea
2
a : existing as a mental image or in fancy or imagination only;broadly : lacking practicalityb : relating to or constituting mental images, ideas, or conceptions
1. Conforming with or conformable to justice, law, or morality: do the right thing and confess.
2. In accordance with fact, reason, or truth; correct: the right answer.
3. Fitting, proper, or appropriate: It is not right to leave the party without saying goodbye.
4. Most favorable, desirable, or convenient: the right time to act.
5. In or into a satisfactory state or condition: put things right.
6. In good mental or physical health or order.
7. Intended to be worn or positioned facing outward or toward an observer: the right side of the dress; made sure that the right side of the fabric was visible.
8.
a. Of, belonging to, located on, or being the side of the body to the south when the subject is facing east.
b. Of, relating to, directed toward, or located on the right side.
c. Located on the right side of a person facing downstream: the right bank of a river.
9. often Right Of or belonging to the political or intellectual right.
10. Mathematics
a. Formed by or in reference to a line or plane that is perpendicular to another line or plane.
b. Having the axis perpendicular to the base: right cone.
c. Having a right angle: a right triangle.
11. Straight; uncurved; direct: a right line.
12. Archaic Not spurious; genuine.
n.
1. That which is just, morally good, legal, proper, or fitting.
2.
a. The direction or position on the right side.
b. The right side.
c. The right hand.
d. A turn in the direction of the right hand or side.
3. often Right
a. The people and groups who advocate the adoption of conservative or reactionary measures, especially in government and politics. Also called right wing.
b. The opinion of those advocating such measures.
4. Sports A blow delivered by a boxer's right hand.
5. Baseball Right field.
6.
a. Something that is due to a person or governmental body by law, tradition, or nature.
b. Something, especially humane treatment, claimed to be due to animals by moral principle.
7. A just or legal claim or title.
8.
a. A stockholder's privilege of buying additional stock in a corporation at a special price, usually at par or at a price below the current market value.
b. The negotiable certificate on which this privilege is indicated.
c. A privilege of subscribing for a particular stock or bond. Often used in the plural.
adv.
1. Toward or on the right.
2. In a straight line; directly: went right to school.
3. In the proper or desired manner; well: The jacket doesn't fit right.
4. Exactly; just: The accident happened right over there.
5. Immediately: called me right after dinner.
6. Completely; quite: The icy wind blew right through me.
7. According to law, morality, or justice.
8. Accurately; correctly: answered the question right.
9. Chiefly Southern U.S. Considerably; very: They have a right nice place.
10. Used as an intensive: kept right on going.
11. Used in titles: The Right Reverend Jane Smith.
v. right·ed, right·ing, rights
v.tr.
1. To put in or restore to an upright or proper position: They righted their boat.
2. To put in order or set right; correct: measures designed to right generations of unfair labor practices.
3. To make reparation or amends for; redress: right a wrong.
v.intr.
Idioms:
To regain an upright or proper position.
by rights
In a just or proper manner; justly.
in (one's) own right
Through the force of one's own skills or qualifications.
right and left
From all directions or on every side: criticism coming right and left; questions raised from right and left.
right away/off
Immediately; at once; without delay.
right on
Slang Used as an exclamation of encouragement, support, or enthusiastic agreement.
to rights
In a satisfactory or orderly condition: set the place to rights.
[Middle English, from Old English riht; see reg- in Indo-European roots. N., sense 3, from the fact that conservatives sit on the right side of the legislative chamber in various assemblies.]
Wednesday, May 9, 2012
On the priorities of this society...
Driving back from the grocery store today I witnessed a young mother with a young child in the front seat of her ragged-out car. The (presumptive) mother was casually smoking a cigarette and blowing smoke out of the window.
Now, a rolled down window is hardly a remedy to the dangers and harm caused by second hand smoke. I felt bad for the young child. If a parent of a young child is going to smoke in a vehicle with his or her offspring, it seems likely that they smoke inside their home as well. Unfortunately, we also infer that such a parent routinely smokes with their child present in the vehicle.
Such scenes are a sad and tragically all-too common part of life in Arkansas. What is instructive, however, regarding such instances of child abuse?
I direct our reader's attention to ARKANSAS CODE OF 1987 ANNOTATED TITLE 9. FAMILY LAW SUBTITLE 2. DOMESTIC RELATIONS CHAPTER 9. ADOPTION
The tragedy of the Arkansas uniform adoption act is, for example, allowing heartless, corrupt judges like Christopher Williams to "terminate" parental rights without just cause. In that it (potentially) punishes biological parents for poverty and unemployment is a consideration that is not examined or allowed to be valid defense in argument, even though it clearly is a (potentially) valid defense (exigency of circumstance, pressure from having to deal with the state w/o sufficient financial credits/resources/fiat dollars, etc).
When I see parents who are abusing their children by, for example, exposing them to second hand smoke, I am struck by the cruel irony and hypocrisy of Arkansas family law.
Now, a rolled down window is hardly a remedy to the dangers and harm caused by second hand smoke. I felt bad for the young child. If a parent of a young child is going to smoke in a vehicle with his or her offspring, it seems likely that they smoke inside their home as well. Unfortunately, we also infer that such a parent routinely smokes with their child present in the vehicle.
Such scenes are a sad and tragically all-too common part of life in Arkansas. What is instructive, however, regarding such instances of child abuse?
I direct our reader's attention to ARKANSAS CODE OF 1987 ANNOTATED TITLE 9. FAMILY LAW SUBTITLE 2. DOMESTIC RELATIONS CHAPTER 9. ADOPTION
SUBCHAPTER 2. REVISED UNIFORM ADOPTION ACT
" (3) The court may terminate parental rights of the non-custodial parent upon a showing that:
(i) Child support payments have not been made for one (1) year "
The tragedy of the Arkansas uniform adoption act is, for example, allowing heartless, corrupt judges like Christopher Williams to "terminate" parental rights without just cause. In that it (potentially) punishes biological parents for poverty and unemployment is a consideration that is not examined or allowed to be valid defense in argument, even though it clearly is a (potentially) valid defense (exigency of circumstance, pressure from having to deal with the state w/o sufficient financial credits/resources/fiat dollars, etc).
When I see parents who are abusing their children by, for example, exposing them to second hand smoke, I am struck by the cruel irony and hypocrisy of Arkansas family law.
From a medical stand point parents who expose their children to second hand smoke are committing de facto child abuse. Nevertheless, they retain the right to be parents which the state will honor and even defend.
Arkansas society has it's head in the sane and it's priorities all wrong. An employed parent who is addicted to tobacco and actively exposing their offspring to second hand smoke is certainly a worse parent than an unemployed parent who does no such things (all else being equal).
If you are like me and have grown up in the south, sadly, then you have probably witnessed the tragedy of the [employed] parent's abuse of their offspring by exposing the latter to second hand smoke. This [abuse/violence/neglect] not only harms the child, but also society at large as has been well documented.
Yet despite this egregious mistreatment of children and Arkansas society at large [externality] there is no effort on the part of the legislature, the judiciary, or any element of government to protect children from second hand smoke exposure in the home, and only very weak laws lacking sufficient enforcement to protect young children from second hand smoke exposure in vehicles.
It is the height of hypocrisy that Arkansas adoption and child support law allows judges to terminate a parent's relationship with their child often for no other reason than unemployment in a bad economy. Whenever we wittiness parent(s) who expose their child(ren) to second hand smoke are we not seeing a parent who is actually deserving of severe punishment, if not termination?
Arkansas state's relative silence on the issue of children's exposure to second hand smoke is none other than duplicity with child abusers. That the legislative and judicial apparatus of Arkansas explicitly states poverty and unemployment as grounds for termination of parental rights while very often doing nothing about real child abusers is a sadness we as society must address.
As a parent who is suffering at the hands of judicial corruption it is very difficult to wittiness such a bad parent as before me today. There are many parents in the state of Arkansas whose relationship and "rights" to their children should-be-but-is-not-terminated-by-the-state.
The remedy to this tragic state of affairs comes in the form of rational laws that protect children from negligent and abusive parents. Arkansas legal code needs to ccriminalize the exposure of children to second hand smoke. An amending of the uniform adoption code of Arkansas is also desperately needed, and on that note we shall blog further.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)