Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Buddhist Politics
ajani_mgo
Veteran
If the average Buddhist had to advocate an average political system one day - what would it be?
Personally I believe in democracy - but isn't the average Buddhist supposed to not care so much about something, like the government, when everytime, it seems to disappoint you?
Personally I believe in democracy - but isn't the average Buddhist supposed to not care so much about something, like the government, when everytime, it seems to disappoint you?
0
Comments
Though I am not a Buddhist,I have a feeling Buddhist will not be ruled over by a leader.Or the best person as the head should be the Dalai Lama.
And to Ajani,chill with the formalities:tonguec:
Ar.Aid
-bf
After the Buddha entered paranirvana there was no leader in Buddhism, just the Dharma, and it is still so today. Perhaps we could have a pernament, "read-only" (Dios, a computer geek!) globalized Constitution and could it then be possible that we would have no need for a leader?
Well maybe we will need a Coordinator of some sort (like in Issac Asimov's novels) [Dios, an AI lover too!] but his powers should be curtailed till he is only a real coordinator, not a CEO of the planet.
Dude, political science sucks. :doh:
As people walked in the would say: "Don't forget to vote for..."
The party got 98% of the votes.
How does Democracy not work?
Margret Thatcher
Then, look at some dictators, the British Royal Family. People loved Proncess Diana. Sometimes democracy isn't the best option. Sometimes. Not often, but sometimes - there is another way.
Communism was a perfect ideology, until it was corrupted.
Democracy is a perfect ideology, which 90% of the time was misused by the leaders.
Do you study about the Swiss too? And one useful tip for history, NEVER BELIEVE WHAT THE TEXTBOOK SAYS. Always check with external sources, and listen to accounts. (Note that it does not apply to the incident you cited, since it's a open case)
As is said in Johnny English: "There is more power in those tiny white gloves than in any other head of state in world."
The Queen is probably the 2nd (1st being George Bush) most powerful person in the entire world, she just chooses not to use her powers. She is, remember, a sweet old lady.
People Power ousted dictators all around, Gandhi and the British, Aquino and Marcos etc. etc.
No single person, no matter how much power he or she may hold, can compare to the people in terms of strength.
People Power is represented by democracy, the system it works an bases itself on.
People are just told they have power. Generally so they'll go to sleep.
If three-quarters of UK stand up and ask for something, do you think you have power?
And, be dammed happy, while you can have full freedom of expression and assembly.
How does it NOT work, Freddie? Is that the question? I have one simple answer for you...
BUSH.
-bf
Again, I say to you, "BUSH".
I believe he is the only president we've had who was not democratically voted into office.
-bf
George Bush is not the most powerful person in the world. He is a puppet. The top spot is held by Dick Cheney and his neo-con Project for a New American Century.
As far as I'm concerned, Buddhism should only be directly involved in politics if it can avoid the condition that Christianity fell into, in that the majority of Evengelical Protestants are now hardcore "conservative", and the majority of Catholics are now "liberals". Creates to much of an "Us vs. Them" mentality.
Personally (sorry for being very pro-Swiss, that's how I am - Swiss lover) I think the best democracy is the one of Switzerland. The rest of the democracies are more of a democracy in philosophy (freedom of belief etc.) and not one of government (continual reference to the people), they are autocracies if nicely put or authoritarian if directly put. But I was a little shocked when I learnt that even female suffrage had to be voted in Switzerland, I always thought that was something guranteed under the Constitution of any country (supposedly democractic).
The US (the educated leaders thereof) have never made a direct claim that the GOVERNMENT was a democracy, only that we are a democratic people. The US is a Democratic Republic.
Actually how hard'd it be if governments never existed?
Pure Democracies have a poor track record. Constitutional Republics, like what we have in the US, can deliver/protect more individual freedom than any other political system if its constitution is good and its powers are balanced. Our system was designed to preserve the rights of the few from the anarchy of tyrants and mob rule of the masses. And the later is exactly what a pure democracy is.
The failure of our system (and nation) will only come from a people who value self more than selflessness. Our founding fathers even warned of this very thing.
As far as the question posed in the opening post... I have no idea. But when it comes to political parties, I think Buddhists make good libertarians though
IF is a huge word, isn't it....?
And it would be good, if only more Buddhists found themselves in positions of influence.....
I'm sorry... what country are you talking about?
I can't think of a more selfish (and gluttonous) country than the US, right off the top of my head.
Oh... by the way, welcome Hunt4life!
-bf
Please explain.
People are constantly saying, "if only more Buddhists..." or "if only more women..." or "if only more [insert personal affiliation here]..."
Everyone thinks the world will be better if only their guy (or girl) gets into power.
The US, of course.
We are a gluttonous nation. But I disagree that we are the most selfish. The US gives a lot to the world. But even so, we get bashed a lot. My fear is the American people will get tired of the "no win" situation eventually and just hold up a middle finger to the world. That would end the billions and billions of American aid dollars to people and countries that need it from this "most selfish country."
Thanks for welcome. I doubt I'll stay long since I came here to discuss and explore things from a Buddhist perspective but the drift here is toward politics and expressing political angst. Not what I was looking for.
But who knows, I can argue politics with the best of them...
You might like to check other threads, such as 'The Heart of the Buddha's teaching' Book thread, or the eightfold path thread... many of the posts in the Lotus lounge are sheer trivia, and I think that even discussing other religions, we're pretty open and unbiased....
take a while to explore further. We're just a varied and diverse bunch of easy-going people most of the time!
Sorry if you got the impression we're a bit political and militant!
This too shall pass - !!
I don't know - pure democracies again have to get their powers balanced don't you think so?
Pure democracy is 50.000001% of the people deciding what the other 49.999999% do. It's mob rule, there is no balance of power.
A constitutional republic like the USA's is a balanced as it can be, I think. First there is a constitution that respects and ensures people basic rights and then there is a balance of power through separation of power Re: Three branches of government...
The Executive branch (the president, VP and his cabinet or "Administration") The President being elected not democratically, but through an electoral college. And the President picking the people who work for him. He cannot make law. He leads the country and is responsible for making government agencies run well.
The legislative branch (Representatives from each state democratically elected by the citizens of each state) is the branch that can make law. The people must, including the President and all legislators must follow the law. The President can try to get laws passed (just like an citizen can) but unless the the legislative branch votes to accept a law, it will not become law. There is the balance and control of the president and his actions. The legislative branch can tell the President what to do in many situations. They can even fire him! And since the legislative branch is to represent the people of their respective states, the people can fire the president or any other elected official.
The Judicial Branch (Appointed for life terms by the President and only placed if approved by the Legislative branch) are to enforce constitutional law - Decide if the laws passed are constitutional, rule on cases where citizens believe their constitutional rights have been violated and rule whether someone (including the president) has violated the rule of law/constitution.
All power for the Executive and Legislative branches come from the people. The rule of Constitutional law is the business of the Judicial branch.
Now, while most Americans have no idea how this all works anymore, it is the best system I can imagine to ensure self rule (of and by the people) and as much freedom and liberty as can be had in a society.
Now, as far as what a libertarian is...
Basically it is a a political party that wants to follow the constitution and always ensure that people have as much individual freedom and liberty (libertarian) as possible. Its a "live and let live" party. I'll do what I want as long as what I do doesn't unduly infringe on your rights - One person's rights (freedom to do as he wishes) only ends where another's begins. They believe is small government (little intrusion in to the lives of citizens) and self ownership Re: not owned by the government or the populace - Personally responsible for their own actions.
Some quotes from libertarians that might help you understand their beliefs...
Libertarians believe that each person owns his own life and property, and has the right to make his own choices as to how he lives his life -- as long as he simply respects the same right of others to do the same. -- Sharon Harris
Strictly speaking, a libertarian is one who rejects the idea of using violence or the threat of violence -- legal or illegal -- to impose his will or viewpoint upon any peaceful person. Generally speaking, a libertarian is one who wants to be governed far less than he is today. -- Dean Russell
Libertarianism is America's heritage of liberty, patriotism, and honest work to build a future for your family. It's the idea that being free and independent is a great way to live. That each of us is a unique individual, with great potential. That you own yourself, and that you have the right to decide what's best for you. -- David Bergland
Libertarianism holds that human happiness and prosperity are maximized to the extent that individuals are allowed to make their own decisions about how to live and what to believe. Individuals should be free to follow their own consciences and inspirations, to choose their own values, and to decide for themselves as much as possible their occupations, undertakings, pastimes, and transactions. Libertarianism is self-determination. It is thinking for yourself. -- Michael S. Wolf
A person can only afford to be governed less when he or she has the economic security to do so. Therefore the state must have a responsibility to all citizens in a civilised society. To be governed less will ensure less of safety net for the have nots. Health care is a obvious issue.....The have's have to pay a little extract to help their community slipping into poverty. It's called social responsiblity.
Who else can manage health or education other than goverment. It cannot be business be health is a bottom less pit and neither can it be insurance companies because they have already failed.
It must be goverment. Forgive me but the above statement is very middle class.
America has safety nets on top of safety nets, the result has been to create a large class of people dependant on government - Some government help is needed for the truly [temporarily] needy and those who cannot (not will not) take care of themselves. I believe libertarians would allow for this.
But back on topic, the topic being Buddhism and specifically Buddhist politics
Personally, I believe the Buddhist path transcends politics, but for we less enlightened ones tend to ponder such things
So, I have wondered whether socialism would be more "Buddhist" than a US structured constitutional republic with libertarian outlook. But I don't think the Socialist system, which forces the "haves" into servitude of the "have nots", matches as well as the libertarian view that one has the freedom to be what he wants and make his own choices (even if selfish) and the responsibility to be a good neighbor, to be socially responsible and promote and engage in private (voluntary) acts of charity.
I mean, can you visualize a Buddhist forcing someone to give to others? What would be the enforcement technique? Fines, jail...?? I can't see it.
Btw, here is the Libertarian stance on reforming welfare (Welfare and Poverty) in the US:
"We should not pretend that reforming our welfare system will be easy or painless. In particular it will be difficult for those people who currently use welfare the way it was intended -- as a temporary support mechanism during hard times. However, these people remain on welfare for short periods of time. A compassionate society will find other ways to help people who need temporary assistance. But our current government-run welfare system is costly to taxpayers and cruel to the children born into a cycle of welfare dependency and hopelessness.
The Libertarian Party offers a positive alternative to the failed welfare state. We offer a vision of a society based on work, individual responsibility, and private charity. It is a society based on opportunity and genuine compassion It is a society built on liberty.
The suggestion is that this particular set of tenets and practices would be 'better' or 'worse' at the business of government. It ignores the truth that Tom Paine tried to teach:
To ask what a Buddhist would do in politics is about as useful as wondering whether Christians or Buddhists have the better dress sense! I notice that, as with dress sense, politicians tend, as they get older in their chosen profession, towards the compromise of their original stance.
Nice!
When it comes to general government and religion ponderings, I enjoy TP very much.
Good God we have red necks on here as well. So you want to dismantle the exsisting so called safety net in favour of "other ways"?
Wake up to your humanity and your American citizenship. You have a duty not to the people who already comfortable but to those who are disenfranchised and earn minimum wage. To the sick, the poor who have to swallow more than their pride on a day to day existance.
You talk of individual responsiblity, the only way any family can act individually with choice is by having the freedom health,education and housing.
In Europe you will find that the above are not considered Socialist evils. In fact most european states with political representation from Neo Conseratives accept state education,welfare and housing as civilised.
I believe Southern India also accepts the burden of social responsability as the only way forward. It has the biggest biggest literacy rates in the world, which was brought on by have more than a passing interest in Buddhist , Hindu scriptures and that dirty un-American word Socialism.
In the United States alone, one in seven persons (i.e., over 40 million people) can barely read a job offer or utility bill, which arguably makes them functionally illiterate in a developed country such as the US. In 2003 the National Assessment of Adult Literacy (NAAL), conducted by the US Department of Education, found that fourteen percent of American adults scored at this “below basic” level in prose literacy. More than half of these persons did not have a high-school diploma or GED. Thirty-nine percent of persons at this level were Hispanic; twenty percent were Black; and thirty-seven percent were White. In comparison with the previous NAAL study in 1992, overall literacy had declined by 2003, with men doing more poorly than women (and with a widening gap between the sexes), Blacks improving (slightly less than one in four at the “below basic” level in 2003), and Hispanics substantially declining in literacy (nearly half of Hispanics in the US were at the “below basic” level in 2003).
Show your compassion not your class.Safety nets upon safety nets..... go tell that to the Hispanics or the black community catch up in Hurricane Rita.
Next thing you will be telling us is that its your democratic Libertarian right to carry an AK 47 "cause that's how the west was won".
How impressive to think that Clint is also on your website,well I guess I was right about your right to blow me away with a AK 47.
Why am I thinking dueling banjo's ?........Don't mention family values please.