Peeling liberalism from democracy
After 18 months studying International Relations at Griffith University, I've learnt what the meaning of political science is. However it is in kind to consider politics as a science, I'm still as an undergrad concerned for the truism in this ideal. Politics of course has no phenomenological authority separate of humanity. Humanities order, the governing principles of interactions in war and peace, and the process divulgements and dissolutions, are politics. These are a complex range of principles, theories, and practices, and they may be recorded, and known linguistically with good and rightful authority, but they can't exist independent of us, and we who perceive this politics. This confers to me a substantial problem in describing politics as a science, where in fact what one's referring to is the array of practices in philosophical inquiry, sociological and psychological analysis, and the relative merits of this in ultimate objectivity of power. A power of persuasion that is, a reliance and irrefutable integrity of practices, including fundamentally astrology, and spectronomy, but what, most must say, WHAT IS IT, when I've divested in independent authority?
Having built the product range for Horoscorpio and in applied determination recently established a counter Democratic utility, of similar caliber; I want to share a particular perception, as critical as it might be, I won't detract from my typical socialist persuasion and maintenance of ethical principle, moral value, and just deliberation. The perfect opportunity, and means to achieve successes with these technological products, using the very best in communications technologies, amid the crux of new media, social media, and modern scientific development in computers, the internet, wifi and energy. It is that Institutes are the fundamental and integral purpose in liberalism and the Liberal Democracy of World States requires institutes, and the governments responsible to sustain the essential ones with direct funding. These essential institutes, are grown and born in necessity to comply with demand and functions, and to deliver the ultimate progressive potentials. When potential is constructive it's thus the concentration of my inquiry, and in consideration of the opportunistic developmental projects I've set on the table, figuratively speaking. I would thus propose that institute is primary to the new Democracy app, one which ideally will: Quell the insatiable debate and extraneous stress by politicians in the public, allow the democratic voting public to understand whose representing their region, if policy and it's issue or science affects their interests, and who is their real preference for leader and why. Democracy the Application, will allow the aggregated policy standards to be easily assessable by voters when they vote, and the things that are most important to them, will show them who's their true leader. The ballot box system may be hundreds of years old, but using pen and paper with numbers to indicate ideal leadership, doesn't mean we can't use modern technology to make the choice effective. And with Democracy I aim to ensure, voters have the best and accurate policy comparison data, for candidates and parties, that exists.
Making this new enterprise good, and by what I've learnt with Horoscorpio, is as I stated, a matter of institutional validity, not the privy trends of campaigning. Actually I think it's a backwards way of looking at this, and considering conventional approaches to apps, it's certainly not straight forward. That is, that a government funded institute, concerning the propagation of the government, in continuity, and concerning Liberal Democracy as a progressive standard of governance; is one which pays for presenting the information to the voters. Not like buying advertising space, and once it's done its done, but buying the listing, adding the article and having it placed permanently on the democratic elective policy option, which doesn't keep reeling over like a Facebook or Twitter wall, where catching articles is like fishing. These articles are put up by the public, who get paid to research and post them, by the foundation, and the institute of political scientists. Of course that's all of us, by engaging in De Democracy, and if you find news, or hear something and can prove it matters in policy making and implementation, we have got to show that. So when someone in their electorate goes to the Democracy App, they see the candidate, and see that this is their parties policy, and low and behold, there is the article proving this is exactly what they are going to deliver if you vote for them. We should hope, but do ensure it's not the contrary, and there's nothing worse than a political leader who doubles back on their word, it's unprofessional, and they shouldn't have power, which is something that thus can fluster them, or just change in suddenly emerging in critical importance. So for that which determines the livelihoods of your region, of your state, and your country, would you expect De Democracy to be clear and apparent on policy with a limited appreciation of issues by a limited number of sources in a moderated and authority imbued social platform? Then peeling away liberalism, that's the availability of new or changing forms, the continuity of party politics will benefit its associating politicians, and its the proof of their policy, where actions speak louder than words (and pay better).
Having built the product range for Horoscorpio and in applied determination recently established a counter Democratic utility, of similar caliber; I want to share a particular perception, as critical as it might be, I won't detract from my typical socialist persuasion and maintenance of ethical principle, moral value, and just deliberation. The perfect opportunity, and means to achieve successes with these technological products, using the very best in communications technologies, amid the crux of new media, social media, and modern scientific development in computers, the internet, wifi and energy. It is that Institutes are the fundamental and integral purpose in liberalism and the Liberal Democracy of World States requires institutes, and the governments responsible to sustain the essential ones with direct funding. These essential institutes, are grown and born in necessity to comply with demand and functions, and to deliver the ultimate progressive potentials. When potential is constructive it's thus the concentration of my inquiry, and in consideration of the opportunistic developmental projects I've set on the table, figuratively speaking. I would thus propose that institute is primary to the new Democracy app, one which ideally will: Quell the insatiable debate and extraneous stress by politicians in the public, allow the democratic voting public to understand whose representing their region, if policy and it's issue or science affects their interests, and who is their real preference for leader and why. Democracy the Application, will allow the aggregated policy standards to be easily assessable by voters when they vote, and the things that are most important to them, will show them who's their true leader. The ballot box system may be hundreds of years old, but using pen and paper with numbers to indicate ideal leadership, doesn't mean we can't use modern technology to make the choice effective. And with Democracy I aim to ensure, voters have the best and accurate policy comparison data, for candidates and parties, that exists.
Making this new enterprise good, and by what I've learnt with Horoscorpio, is as I stated, a matter of institutional validity, not the privy trends of campaigning. Actually I think it's a backwards way of looking at this, and considering conventional approaches to apps, it's certainly not straight forward. That is, that a government funded institute, concerning the propagation of the government, in continuity, and concerning Liberal Democracy as a progressive standard of governance; is one which pays for presenting the information to the voters. Not like buying advertising space, and once it's done its done, but buying the listing, adding the article and having it placed permanently on the democratic elective policy option, which doesn't keep reeling over like a Facebook or Twitter wall, where catching articles is like fishing. These articles are put up by the public, who get paid to research and post them, by the foundation, and the institute of political scientists. Of course that's all of us, by engaging in De Democracy, and if you find news, or hear something and can prove it matters in policy making and implementation, we have got to show that. So when someone in their electorate goes to the Democracy App, they see the candidate, and see that this is their parties policy, and low and behold, there is the article proving this is exactly what they are going to deliver if you vote for them. We should hope, but do ensure it's not the contrary, and there's nothing worse than a political leader who doubles back on their word, it's unprofessional, and they shouldn't have power, which is something that thus can fluster them, or just change in suddenly emerging in critical importance. So for that which determines the livelihoods of your region, of your state, and your country, would you expect De Democracy to be clear and apparent on policy with a limited appreciation of issues by a limited number of sources in a moderated and authority imbued social platform? Then peeling away liberalism, that's the availability of new or changing forms, the continuity of party politics will benefit its associating politicians, and its the proof of their policy, where actions speak louder than words (and pay better).
Comments
Post a Comment