A very basic and typical problem with democracy is its vulnerability to the influence of money, whether from a foreign state, from corporations (many of them with no loyalty to any state), and from well-heeled individuals.
That nowhere is truth more vulnerable than in the "democratic" USA was pointed out long ago by Alexis de Tocqueville ('Democracy in America'), because money controls media and media dominates public opinion.
I am writing from the Hawaiian Island in the Hawaiian Kingdom in continuity. Here we have in a nutshell all the consequences of European/US imperialism that thrives until today on pitting different peoples/cultures against each other. Now karmically the chickens are coming home to roost, and how are we, in Hawaiian called "haole", meaning "without divine breath" dealing with that? With the typical German post-war guilt complex implemented by relentless US/Zionist propaganda, I first wanted to immigrate to West Africa like my lifetime role model Susanne Wenger. Google her, she was very interesting, and meeting her and having her explain her work on-site was one of my lifetime peak experiences. But then I ended up here drawn by the voice of Israel Kamakawiwo'ole, especially the song "Hawai'i 78". (https://youtu.be/qyQGn6E3Lcg?si=-1xc4EjrmI-regS0) The Hawaiian lines in that song mean "The life of the land is perpetuated in righteousness", and for me the beginning of our modern ecological movement, that this song sprang from starting in Kaho'olawe (https://youtu.be/0OpOm6m3SVU?si=UVtmMtU2mvHPd6Xs).
Walter and Loretta Ritte, shown in this historic footage, are still alive and politically very active and would be some of the top go-to people here for introducing your/Steiner's theories and ideals. But I also can connect you with others who now work more theoretically than the Rittes on the UN level.
How can we, raised with slogans like "think global, act local" amend and rectify the misdeeds of our ancestors without committing new cultural patronizing? How can the rebels in Myanmar be reached with Rudolf Steiner's theories?
Hey Susanne - thanks for writing. As I think you're pointing to (simply through your willingness to connect me with folks in Hawaii), it very often takes relationships to get new ideas out into the world. It's true that some people will just "happen" upon my articles online, but often someone will have already first mentioned my work to them or posted it somewhere, or maybe just mentioned threefolding to them.
I'm definitely happy to connect with folks who are interested in acting on these insights - whether that's in Hawaii or Myanmar - but my feeling is that they have to have made a real connection to the ideas out of themselves. I can't spend a lot of time trying to convince people who aren't really interested. But if someone has read my work and wants to talk about these things, I'm all about it.
Two things Ebert says come *this* close to the views you give us here. Agreed - untangling state from nation would clear up so much bad social weather.
00:50:01: The phenomenology of freedom vs prohibitions on language. The Left can correct attrition to the Right immediately via loosening linguistic prohibitions.
00:53:36: “I would propose that the authentic creation of new concepts has to be processed through the open sieve of contradiction, as opposed to a prohibition and a creation ex nihilo of new concepts.”
If I recall correctly, Steiner explained that it is essential to discern what types of issues concerning which it is proper to have a popular vote on. There is a tendency to want to overreach with government power, not leaving it up to individuals to guide themselves (de Tocqueville's 'tyranny of the majority).
I think the more technical, the less likely a given issue is appropriate to vote about, and must be left to the decision-making of individuals who are directly involved, though sometimes this means a crisis point is reached.
I suppose when legitimate to vote, that means usually for a defined, limited group. For example, say a question of aerial spraying a zone against mosquitoes is at issue: the spraying enterprise must have its say; and a limited group of concerned citizens, not citizens of the entire country. "States" or "states within states", right down to municipalities or zones thereof, need definitions to decide who to include in voting. (I cannot grasp usefulness of the borderless idea.) Much of politics is about luring popular support to use the power of government to impose a particular will upon others.
In addition, when it comes to who should be included in voting, I think it depends on what the issue is. If the issue only pertains to a specific group, then that's the group that should vote - if people are choosing their own representatives than that should just include those people who will ultimately be represented. It's interesting to think about how interconnected the world is though. If people are spraying chemicals on the land for instance, that will get in the water supply and affect things downstream. Also, if a community uses all their natural resources, then it means they might have to leave and move somewhere else in a number of years, and other communities will have to shoulder the burden. So I'm not sure about things like an individual community having absolute rights over the resources of its land. It might make sense to have higher level laws that impose some restrictions.
Hey Zeb - I think you've got the gist of Steiner's take on voting. Basically, his insight is that democratic voting processes should only include those issues that everyone can decide on by virtue of being an adult member of the community. Should everyone have access to healthcare and education? Should there be limits to how long people have to work and under what conditions? These are very general, interpersonal questions that apply to everyone equally and everyone is equal to judge. But then there are other questions that require knowledge and expertise that no everyone has: What kind of healthcare should a person choose? What kind of education is best for a child? How much grain should be grown, and how much should be imported this year? These issues should be left to people who have the requisite expertise, whether that's economic or cultural in nature. For the political community to vote on these things is to make a mockery of democracy because it pretends that we're all equal in knowledge and expertise, which we're not. So yeah, these areas are more technical, as you describe, and the government certainly has a tendency to overreach into them!
A very basic and typical problem with democracy is its vulnerability to the influence of money, whether from a foreign state, from corporations (many of them with no loyalty to any state), and from well-heeled individuals.
That nowhere is truth more vulnerable than in the "democratic" USA was pointed out long ago by Alexis de Tocqueville ('Democracy in America'), because money controls media and media dominates public opinion.
Aloha Seth,
I am writing from the Hawaiian Island in the Hawaiian Kingdom in continuity. Here we have in a nutshell all the consequences of European/US imperialism that thrives until today on pitting different peoples/cultures against each other. Now karmically the chickens are coming home to roost, and how are we, in Hawaiian called "haole", meaning "without divine breath" dealing with that? With the typical German post-war guilt complex implemented by relentless US/Zionist propaganda, I first wanted to immigrate to West Africa like my lifetime role model Susanne Wenger. Google her, she was very interesting, and meeting her and having her explain her work on-site was one of my lifetime peak experiences. But then I ended up here drawn by the voice of Israel Kamakawiwo'ole, especially the song "Hawai'i 78". (https://youtu.be/qyQGn6E3Lcg?si=-1xc4EjrmI-regS0) The Hawaiian lines in that song mean "The life of the land is perpetuated in righteousness", and for me the beginning of our modern ecological movement, that this song sprang from starting in Kaho'olawe (https://youtu.be/0OpOm6m3SVU?si=UVtmMtU2mvHPd6Xs).
Walter and Loretta Ritte, shown in this historic footage, are still alive and politically very active and would be some of the top go-to people here for introducing your/Steiner's theories and ideals. But I also can connect you with others who now work more theoretically than the Rittes on the UN level.
How can we, raised with slogans like "think global, act local" amend and rectify the misdeeds of our ancestors without committing new cultural patronizing? How can the rebels in Myanmar be reached with Rudolf Steiner's theories?
It can become quite awkward, as those Anthroposophists playing important educational roles demonstrate:
https://youtu.be/0Lk7A8B9n6k?si=WlRVmEDULJBDXC5Y
Hey Susanne - thanks for writing. As I think you're pointing to (simply through your willingness to connect me with folks in Hawaii), it very often takes relationships to get new ideas out into the world. It's true that some people will just "happen" upon my articles online, but often someone will have already first mentioned my work to them or posted it somewhere, or maybe just mentioned threefolding to them.
I'm definitely happy to connect with folks who are interested in acting on these insights - whether that's in Hawaii or Myanmar - but my feeling is that they have to have made a real connection to the ideas out of themselves. I can't spend a lot of time trying to convince people who aren't really interested. But if someone has read my work and wants to talk about these things, I'm all about it.
Thanks again for reaching out! - Seth
Thanks, Seth, for speaking up about current events in the light of threefolding principles.
Thanks for reading!
I read you today after watching Transgressive Disequilibrium and Bad Bitches: Alex Ebert in conversation with Cadell Last around Hegel's Philosophy of Right. https://badguru.substack.com/p/transgressive-disequilibrium-and?initial_medium=video
Two things Ebert says come *this* close to the views you give us here. Agreed - untangling state from nation would clear up so much bad social weather.
00:50:01: The phenomenology of freedom vs prohibitions on language. The Left can correct attrition to the Right immediately via loosening linguistic prohibitions.
00:53:36: “I would propose that the authentic creation of new concepts has to be processed through the open sieve of contradiction, as opposed to a prohibition and a creation ex nihilo of new concepts.”
Interesting. Thanks for sharing, Joan. I'll take a look!
If I recall correctly, Steiner explained that it is essential to discern what types of issues concerning which it is proper to have a popular vote on. There is a tendency to want to overreach with government power, not leaving it up to individuals to guide themselves (de Tocqueville's 'tyranny of the majority).
I think the more technical, the less likely a given issue is appropriate to vote about, and must be left to the decision-making of individuals who are directly involved, though sometimes this means a crisis point is reached.
I suppose when legitimate to vote, that means usually for a defined, limited group. For example, say a question of aerial spraying a zone against mosquitoes is at issue: the spraying enterprise must have its say; and a limited group of concerned citizens, not citizens of the entire country. "States" or "states within states", right down to municipalities or zones thereof, need definitions to decide who to include in voting. (I cannot grasp usefulness of the borderless idea.) Much of politics is about luring popular support to use the power of government to impose a particular will upon others.
In addition, when it comes to who should be included in voting, I think it depends on what the issue is. If the issue only pertains to a specific group, then that's the group that should vote - if people are choosing their own representatives than that should just include those people who will ultimately be represented. It's interesting to think about how interconnected the world is though. If people are spraying chemicals on the land for instance, that will get in the water supply and affect things downstream. Also, if a community uses all their natural resources, then it means they might have to leave and move somewhere else in a number of years, and other communities will have to shoulder the burden. So I'm not sure about things like an individual community having absolute rights over the resources of its land. It might make sense to have higher level laws that impose some restrictions.
Hey Zeb - I think you've got the gist of Steiner's take on voting. Basically, his insight is that democratic voting processes should only include those issues that everyone can decide on by virtue of being an adult member of the community. Should everyone have access to healthcare and education? Should there be limits to how long people have to work and under what conditions? These are very general, interpersonal questions that apply to everyone equally and everyone is equal to judge. But then there are other questions that require knowledge and expertise that no everyone has: What kind of healthcare should a person choose? What kind of education is best for a child? How much grain should be grown, and how much should be imported this year? These issues should be left to people who have the requisite expertise, whether that's economic or cultural in nature. For the political community to vote on these things is to make a mockery of democracy because it pretends that we're all equal in knowledge and expertise, which we're not. So yeah, these areas are more technical, as you describe, and the government certainly has a tendency to overreach into them!
Thank you for helping me to see the bigger picture more clearly!