there was another referendum carried out in Greece, in 2015, to decide whether Greece should accept the bailout conditions in the country's government-debt crisis proposed jointly by the European Commission. Well, 61% of the Greeks voted against. Yet, nothing changed ... The bailout conditions were accepted nevertheless!! So, this proved to be a useless referendum! — Alkis Piskas

Well, at least you voted against something. Here our governors just applied whatever the European Commision said regarding debt crisis. This context is quite similar to Covid issues and "next generation funds". Yes, it is true we are receiving a large quantity of money but this only means that the EU lobbies would have more power in my country and would erode our sovereignty.
The European Commission and European Central Bank play with us like puppets. But it is true that I perceive they tend to be "germanic" I mean, they promulgate laws so called "Directives" rooting in favour of German interests.

On the other hand, check Denmark and Ireland. Also Non-EU Issues for Latvia, Lithuania and Sweden. all northern countries! — Alkis Piskas

Yes, they have more custom on make a lot of referendums in whatever topics or issues. Nordics are known for being true representative democracies. It surprises me Ireland. I never expected they pose a big number of referendums. Well I guess it could be related to historical issues. They got the independence thanks to a referendum.

I had no idea about Ireland either.
Anyway, what I want to stress, and that's why I brought in this table, is that referendums are the main indicative feature of Democracy. I cannot think of anything else that is comparable.
Indeed, how else can one determine how much democratic a country is? Powerful unions and syndicates? They have their own interests and they don't represent the whole country. This might be a good subject for discussion. I don't know however if it fits in here. (Political philosophy?)

Government is an instrument of force, and thus inherently ethically flawed and unsuited to apply a system of ethics.

In my opinion, governments can only justify their existence by preventing a more forceful system from taking over, and should therefore be chiefly concerned with exercising no more power than is strictly necessary.

Every right a government ascribes to its citizens needs to be weighed carefully, because it will inherently require the exercise of force to provide this right.

Every right for citizens to be provided with things necessarily requires other citizens to be forced to provide those things.

We have enough resources and wealth to provide for everyone. We choose not to.

Why? Because those who benefit from massive wealth inequality don’t want it. Then the millions they’ve brainwashed over decades rise to defend their positions.

What anyone who complains about government leaves out is their commitment to private tyranny and plutocracy.

No reason why we can’t have a new bill of rights tomorrow — except for the above.

No reason why we can’t have a new bill of rights tomorrow — except for the above. — Xtrix

Because most of the citizens (future voters) do not understand the issue or do not care at all. As you said in one of the paragraphs the politicians tend to brainwashed to defend their own position. It is very difficult to fix something which is so broken.
It is true, the political structure is so complex that I don't even know how really works. But what I really feel is the fact of how far away is from the citizens

Thank you, Dr. Katz, for the links. I have downloaded "The Structure Of Ethics" PDF, and will read through it now. I am definitely open to learning more about this line of thinking. So, I appreciate your guidance on doing just that. — Bret Bernhoft

Thank you for your constructive response! You are a scholar and a gentleman. Please get back to us with some feedback after you have studied the suggested manuscript. Let us know what you thought of it. Since the kindle edition of it got some very-fine reviews, I believe it was worth the effort to scribble it out. If even one high-school Ethics instructor (or college professor) adopts ideas from it for his/her class, then it will have reached its intended audience.

p.s. I like your attitude. It is positive; and is an indication that you will go far in life, get results of which one may be proud, and you will be happy and a success -- both.

wrote:
— Xtrix

We have enough resources and wealth to provide for everyone. We choose not to.

Why? Because those who benefit from massive wealth inequality don’t want it. Then the millions they’ve brainwashed over decades rise to defend their positions.

What anyone who complains about government leaves out is their commitment to private tyranny and plutocracy.

I couldn't agree more. You have a good mind, and even better: you have great values, and a clear understanding of facts.

Finland, in its constitution, guarantees every citizen the right to a job. If they can't find work that will pay them an adequate and reasonable living income, then the government says it will do the responsible thing and give them useful work. Why can't all the other countries do the same? You argue that "we get in our own way" by the extreme inequality we permit to endure. Lately, the Dems with their Inflaction Reduction Act, have raised slightly the tax that the super-wealthy have to pay (as a way for the legislation to be eventually budget neutral. ally, Thatt is some progress. Thus they are complying with the definition of 'good government.'

We could also learn a lot from the Danes, and the Norwegians. When I visited Denmark the welll-to-do complainedloudly about the 'high taxes,' but when asked if they wanted to live anywhere else they reacted: with a definite "No!!"

Thank you Mr. Katz, I appreciate that feedback and well-wishing. I feel I am on a positive course in my life, which is the result of being open to comments and work(s) such as yours.

There is a great book on New Human Rights, that I suggest.

https://amzn.to/3wX3Cci

Now is the time for all good persons to come to the aid of their human species! Let’s all make some progress together. Let us co-operate and collaborate on building an ethical world!

[quote="Josh Alfred;735808
https://amzn.to/3wX3Cci[/quote]


Josh Alfred: Thank you for bringing me up-to-date on what Peter Joseph has been doing lately. He has been involved, constructively, in bringing us all closer to living in a world in which Ethics is applied ...especially in the realm of Economics and a sane distribution (allocation) of resources. He was quite active in what used to be known as 'the zeitgeist movement.' I will definitely get his book, and may write a review of it. I invite the rest of you to do the same. The book's title is The New Human Rights Movement. Happy reading folks!
Once again, thanks, Josh, for the lead ...when you suggest we peruse this book. Let's trust that it inspires some readers to join that movement, to put it into action.

After you have read, or better yet, studied, my modest scribbles -- that STRUCTURE OF ETHICS paper -- I would appreciate your giving me your impressions, thereby providing the author with some feedback.
Yes, study it, take notes, and if you find something quotable or memorable, spread the word to your friends and contacts in re the concepts you liked.


Yours for ethics, Dr. Katz.

Earlier, Josh Alfred called our attention to a visionary book by Peter Joseph.

From what I've been able to gather so far, these are some of the proposals that author Joseph offers for us to consider ...and if you care, help implement into actuality: he suggests
More open-source developments;
evolving to what he calls "a sharing-successes economy";'
learning from the U.B.I. experiments that are already working out well;
more Access;
more Localization;
use of networked digital feedback, and
a much-fuller use of Automation ....until eventually all unpleasant work will be done by robots!!!

Of course - let's not kid ourselves - people today will not immediately discard their profit-driven ways to embrace this vision - nor that of an Ethical World, of which I speak -- without lots of prior education [and maybe even some programmed literature availability, designed for instruction.] They won't rush to gain the benefits Mr. Joseph outlines ...an economy which reduces waste to a minimum ...until they have a deeper understanding, and are inspired by the insight.
https://amzn.to/3wX3Cci

So - everyone - where do you stand on these topics? Can you buy into it? Would you advocate, campaign, or in some way work for it?
Let's hear your views.

In the previous post just above, why did I write "campaign or work for it"?

Because as Kant once said: "Theory without practice" [without applying the theory to life, without experience, or putting the theory into action] "is mere intellectual play."

In light of what I learned from Bret Bernhoft I want to modify the definition of "a good government." This definition is an application of the framework entitled a Unified Theory of Ethics. The upgrade reads as follows:
A good government is one that continuously improves the quality of life of its citizens by enabling them to upgrade voluntarily the life of those around them. It will offer the opportunity for people to vote by referendum on all important matters. It will quickly adopt life-enhancing policies that are working well elsewhere."

Earlier I wrote about what the United States could learn from Finland. Its Constitution has a provision that provides for the government to be an Employer of Lat Resort if a citizen cannot find work in the private sector that offers better pay and more benefits. Then the government will offer the citizen a job.

We also can learn from the way Norway conducts its penal system. We can adopt the best ideas from how Finland conducts its Education system; and how the state of Hawaii encourages electric cars by having lots of charging stations readily available. The concept of "success-sharing" is Ethics applied. Let us all now take the wise step of making this concept as one of our personal Moral Principles: "I am devoted to success-sharing."
We would add this to "Do no harm" and to "Respect others as much as I possibly can." and to "Be kind and considerate; be ready to be helpful." Etc. See the list of suggested moral standards offered in Chapter Three, "What is Morality" in the essay titled THE STRUCTURE OF ETHICS. Here is a link to it:
http://www.myqol.com/wadeharvey/PDFs/THE%20STRUCTURE%20OF%20ETHICS.pdf