attempt to direct democracy

 Chapter
attempt to direct democracy and plan ways to use their private capital, politicians, not only his own trouble in the blind, but also in any case can not arrogate to itself one kind of peace of mind and the Senate delegation to the power of the Privy Council ; by a foolish and arbitrary to the illusion that he is the person for the exercise of this power to grasp it, is another dangerous than this.
mm Adam. Smith
all the common features of the collective capitalist system, can use a the various schools of music than non-socialists are tired of words, described as a social goal for a clear and carefully constructed social workers organization. critics of socialism in today's society is one of the main accused, we today community lacks a single goal that the toward individual freedom and collective elements of the conflict between. all kinds of collectivism, such as communism, fascism, etc., the difference between them is that they want to guide efforts to achieve the target properties to be different. but them with liberalism and individualism are different, that they want to organize the whole community and its resources to achieve this single goal, and refused to recognize the supremacy of the self-field of personal goals. In short, they are totalitarian the true meaning of new words The totalitarian; we use this new word is to illustrate the theory we call collectivism unexpected but inevitable natural phenomena.
whom organized society the ; or to determine the significance of the specific course of action. the welfare and happiness of millions of people simply can not scale to measure an amount. A nation's welfare, as a person's happiness depends on many things, these things are countless out to form combinations. it can not be adequately expressed as a single goal, but only the expression level for a variety of targets, a person's every need of each of which occupy a place in the overall scale of values. based on a single Planning all of our activities to presuppose that our every need in a value sequence occupies one level, the value of the sequence to be very complete, enough to make the scheme must be chosen in the various different approaches in may make a decision. In short, it presupposes the existence of a complete code of ethics, which human values are suitable for a variety of obtaining the position.
a complete code of ethics is a strange concept, it needs Imagine trying to figure out its meaning. We are not used to imagine a moral code more or less complete things. We always value in a different election to choose between going without a defined community how we should choose criteria, this fact is not surprising to us, for we do not mean that our moral code is incomplete. In our society, people do not need no reason in this case should be doing on a common point of view. However, people use all the means are community property, and is based on a single plan to be used on behalf of the local community, people should do one on such a world, then we will find that our code of ethics is full of flaws.
Here, we are not related to whether it is worthwhile so a complete code of ethics. There can only say that so far as civilization development of individual action in the range bound by the conventions continue to be reduced. constitute our common moral code regulations, amounting to less and less and is more common in nature. primitive in almost every daily life are covered by a the shackles of complicated rituals, taboos by no limit to count, almost can not imagine you can follow a different manner. From the primitive man, the moral has been an increasing tendency to become only the scope of personal whim restrictions. the adoption of a single broad enough to determine a common economic program code of ethics, runs counter to this trend will mean.
For us, the fundamental point is that this simply does not exist a complete code of ethics. plan under the guidance of a single variety of economic activities, such attempts will cause numerous problems, answers to these questions can only be provided by a moral regulations, and existing simply can not answer these questions of moral Moreover, people should do nothing of the fundamental there is no consensus. the people on these issues, or do not have a clear view, or there is conflicting views, because we live in a free society, there is no need to consider these issues, but no need for this form common opinion.
***
we did not make this all-encompassing measure of value, but also in terms of any talented, wise men, to understand the resources available to compete for endless different people with different needs and a certain the light and heavy, would not be possible. For us the question, any person concerned about whether the target includes only his own personal needs, or even close, including his estranged partner needs mm means that these words are usually sense, he is an egoist or an altruist mm is insignificant. a very important thing is the fundamental fact that no one can examine a limited area, limited understanding of the urgency of demand. whether he interest to use his material needs as the center, or interested in everyone he knew the welfare of the many goals he can care for the needs of all people, the mere drop in the ocean only.
this is the whole philosophy of individualism The basic facts are based. It is not as often as people claim, assuming that person is or should be self-serving or selfish. it only from the undisputed facts, that limits our imagination, so we only Our measure of value can include some of the needs of the whole society, and, strictly speaking, the measure of value only in the individual mind, in addition to the value of all the local scale, there is nothing else, and inevitably to these values scale different and often contradictory. Thus, individualists concluded that a limited range, should be allowed to follow their own personal values rather than others and preferences, and, in these areas, the individual target system should not succumb to the supreme command of others. It is this individual the final decision as its target those who recognize the individual as far as possible the intent of dominating their own belief in their own operation, form the essence of individualism position. < br> Of course, this view does not preclude the recognition of social objectives, or more precisely, the consistency of the recognition of personal goals, this consistency makes people together in pursuit of the goal as something desirable. However, This joint action is limited to those individuals on a case-minded; this regard, the so-called willing to contribute to help the kind of goal. Thus, the joint action confined to one common goal agreed on those areas. taken for granted, these common goals will not be the individual's ultimate goal, but it means different people can be used in a different intent. In fact, it is not a common goal of ultimate goal but a means of intentions can be used for a variety of places, people most likely to reach a consensus on joint action.
When people unite together to achieve their shared goals, they formed the organization of this intention, such as national, was the goal of giving their own system and the means. However, the formation of any organization that other organizations are still in the ; part limit depends on the individual targets to be determined the extent of agreement; and they agree on a specific course of action possible, with the expansion of the scope such action is reduced. in the exercise of the functions of some countries, citizens will reach the middle of practice consistent; while some functions will be most people's consent, and so on, we will achieve this position, that although each country may want to act a certain way, but the Government should do in De issue, is almost the number of different people, there are many different views.
limited to acts of state exists only in the range of consensus, we can rely on the voluntary consent of its guidance. but not only in the absence of this kinds of agreement between the State to exercise direct control, personal freedom must be suppressed before. Unfortunately, we can not infinitely expand the field of public action and still allow the individual in its own free area. once the state controls all means of public is greater than a certain percentage of the overall state behavior will dominate the whole system. Although the state has direct control only on the most desirable use of resources, but it's making the rest of the economy, the impact is so great that indirectly in control of almost everything. For example, as early as 1928 the German case, as the direct control of the central and local authorities for more than half of national income (according to the German official estimates, 53%) use, they Indirect control of almost the entire economic life of the country. So, almost no personal goals can be achieved independent of national action, and guide the acts of state
start a program when the principle of democracy, but its implementation requires more than the actual existence of consistent, easy to see the inevitable consequences. People may have agreed to adopt a guide based economic system, because they believe it will have a tremendous boom. in the discussion led to the decision, the project aims will be known as the the means to be used in the existence of consensus. However, this is a common goal can only be the means used. When the executive power must be a single program requirements will be converted to the requirements of a specific plan, it all activities tend to generate the precise objectives. reason that would see, on the need to plan for consensus on this point, the service plan has not been the unanimous view of the target support. It was agreed that there must be A central goal of the plan are not in agreement, and the consequences very similar to a group of people decided to travel together, and in the place to go to reach agreement on a no result, all of them may have conducted most of them do not want to be travel. plans to create such a scenario, so we have to agree with the number of far more than we have become accustomed to the topic, but in a planning system, we can not be limited to collective action are the tasks that we can agree on, and for any action can be fully implemented, we are compelled to reach a consensus in the upper part of everything. This is the most help to determine the nature of the features of the planning system.
agreed that such people may wish that Parliament should develop a non- The economic plan is not included, however, whether the people or their representatives, are not so bound to any specific plan in the upper reach agreement. democratic legislature in the implementation of a clear mandate appears to be the people's powerlessness, will inevitably lead to dissatisfaction with the democratic system. Parliament has gradually been regarded as a political separation , has been nearly half a century. more recent number, Professor Laski elaborated this view:
is not suitable for the existing institutions of Congress quickly passed a large number of complex rules, this is commonplace. even the coalition government the implementation of economic and tariff measures, not detailed by the House debate, but the system through a set of enabling legislation, which essentially has admitted this. In my opinion, this Labour government would set a precedent by extension . It will be limited to the lower house of two of its functions can be handled: let off steam and discuss the general principles of government initiatives. It will take a bill to grant broad powers to the departments concerned in the form of General; these powers will be exercised by the Privy Council in Royal Decree , but this decree is available when the House is willing to cast the negative vote of no confidence in the way by the impeachment. Recently, Duonuomoer Committee also emphatically reiterated the necessity and value of the enabling legislation; and, if not the process of socialization recognized by the existing parliamentary procedures the proper way to filibuster damaged, then the expansion of delegated legislation in the offing.
to the socialist government will not allow itself to be subject to the democratic process too, said that clear, Professor Laski also the end of the same article, that ***
a country when it comes to the detailed management of economic affairs, acknowledged that the Council clarify the reasons for low efficiency is important. trouble is that neither individual Members, nor the parliamentary institution itself, but in the Parliament tasks undertaken by internal contradictions. they have not been asked to do the things they can agree, but everything that was asked of the overall management of national resources mm mm have achieved consensus. But for such a task, system of the majority decision is not appropriate. in a limited way to choose, most will still come to find; I believe everything must have a majority view, that is superstition. If positive action when a large number of possible ways , there is no reason to have a one way therein in favor of the majority of the. Legislative Assembly each member, may feel that a particular management plan relative to economic activity in terms of no plan better than nothing, however, does not seem a plan Most people will prefer it rather than feel absolutely no plan.
a coherent plan can not be divided into several parts and to vote on specific issues, but can be achieved. a democratic parliament, like the discussion as general motion on a comprehensive economic plan to vote and modified by section, it is meaningless. a real economic plan, there must be a single concept. Even if the Council can proceed step by step to reach agreement on a particular program, it certainly can not ultimately make anyone satisfied. A must be very carefully the various parts of the complex as a whole to adapt to each other and can not view the conflict through compromise and reach. to develop an economic plan in this way, even more than through democratic procedures, such as the successful planning a military campaign The instance of the class, less likely. as the same military strategy, the task will inevitably be delegated to experts.
However, the difference is a battle of the general fiduciary responsibility is a single target, continuing the war During all the means under his control must be completely dedicated to this goal; and those granted to the economic plan but they can not have such a single objective, to lend him the means to have no similar restrictions. generals do not weigh a variety of mutually exclusive The goal of independence; for him there is only one supreme goal. However, an economic plan or any part of its goals, out of a specific plan can not be determined. to develop an economic plan, is bound to each other in various conflicts and competing objectives mm mm different needs of different people to choose between, this is the real economic problems. However, such a conflict which objectives, target what we want to achieve other goals must be sacrificed, in short, which is We must choose the way, only those who know all these people will know the actual situation; and a variety of objectives for which the option should be given priority, and only they can do these experts before the decision is in position. Inevitably, They will choose their scale of whom plan imposed on them collectively.
This is not always be clear to people, but usually only as authorized by the technical characteristics of this task only makes sense. But this does not mean authorized only with the technical details, it does not mean that Congress has not the ability to understand the technical details is difficult to root. (1) changes in the structure of civil law, as opposed to understand all the connotations of these changes, the technical is not worse , the difficulty is not greater; but did not have some serious recommendations, should the legislative power granted to an expert body. In fact in these areas, the legislation does not exceed the true majority vote can be reached outside of the General; In the management of economic activities, the need to mediate the stakes are so divided, so that in a democratic parliamentary consensus to reach this truly is impossible.
, however, should be recognized that the grant itself is not a legislative This should be against! against the authority itself is not against the cause against the symptoms, but may be other causes, in its inevitable consequences, to ignore the seriousness of cases. As long as the powers conferred by the general rule is to develop the power, it can be very good reason that such rules should be by local authorities and not by the central authorities to develop. worth against the phenomenon is the reason for resorting to authority, because things can not be addressed by the General to prescribe, but only on specific camera case discretion. In these circumstances, authorize means giving some of the authorities the power to use legal force to make essentially arbitrary decision (usually as grant agencies the technical task, though it is a normal phenomenon, but only embarked on the path of democracy programs moving away from the first step in the process of its powers. authorizing such an expedient can not really make a comprehensive plan to eliminate the advocates of democracy cause of incompetence is so unbearable. the specific powers granted to the various agencies, for the achievement of a single coordinated plan for creating a new obstacle. even if this expedient, a democracy, all economic life in the planned part successful, it still must face these plans were consolidated into a single whole problem. Many projects were planned did not form a whole mm Indeed, planners should first recognize that they may be better than no plan mm even bad. but democratic legislative bodies to give up the really big issues long-term when making decisions hesitated, but only do so, it will make anyone else can not go to develop a comprehensive plan. However, the plan is necessary of consensus and democratic parliament's inability to produce a plan, will arouse more and more strongly request that the power given to governments or individuals to enable them to do his duty. If you want something, then the responsible authorities have to get rid of the fetters of the democratic process, this belief has become increasingly popular.
dictator but as an economic plan called for turning movement is a unique stage, not known for this country. A few years ago , the most sensitive one of the foreign British researchers, the late Elie. Alie Wei pointed out: . Cripps Sir according to a photo, I think you'll find such a common face of mm you will find that they will say in unison: l We are living in economic chaos, only in a dictatorial leadership, we can get rid of this confusion. r > In Germany, even before Hitler came to power, this movement has been progress very far. in 1933, some time ago, Germany had already reached an essentially dictatorial rule stage, it is important to remember De. then no one would doubt that democracy has been insolvent at the time, such as Br��ning genuine democrats, and no longer ��ʩ3Ъ�� or von. Pakistan to democratic rule, the better. Hitler not destroy the democracy; he just used the decline of democracy, in a pinch to obtain the support of many of these people, although they hate Hitler, but he is still the only one strong enough to make a difference people.
* **
planners usually try to make our development consistent with this argument is that, as long as democracy remains the ultimate control, the essence of democracy will not be affected. Karl. Mannheim wrote:
a planned community and the only 19th century society [sic] difference is that more and more areas of social life, and ultimately every aspect of these areas and listen with respect, are subservient to the control of the State . However, if the supreme power of Parliament to be able to prevent some control, then it can also, in many ways to do this hh, in a democratic country, the country's supreme power indefinitely through the sole to strengthen democracy without giving up control.
This belief ignores the critical difference. in Parliament the first to reach agreement on the goal and only the powers granted to the Department to resolve the details of the Parliament of course, can give clear guidance in place to control task execution. When authorization on the grounds that there was no agreement as to the target, when the agency responsible for planning awareness in the legislature had not the conflict between the various objectives of choice, and when at best it can do is to provide a comprehensive only comprehensive plan to accept or reject the time, the situation is completely different. criticism can and may have in; but because of an alternative plan can not achieve the consent of the majority, but some opposition and almost be said as an essential part of the whole, to criticize still null and void. parliamentary discussion can be retained as a useful safety valve, and even blamed for the dissemination of the official reply to the convenience of a variety of media. It can even prevent the notorious disadvantages of impeccable and effectively insist correct some shortcomings. but it can not be guided, at best, in fact it can only elect those who have absolute power. The whole system will tend to kind of referendum on dictatorship, in which system, the head of government by the people to vote again and again to consolidate his position, so that it can ensure that the vote will go in the direction he would like to be.
the possibility of conscious control is limited to the field there is a real consistent, and in some areas have allowed things to go, this is the price of democracy. but in a centrally planned to exercise its functions dependent on the society, will not allow this kind of control can be achieved depends on the majority of the same; to a weak to impose the will of the minority People, this is often necessary, because this will be among the people of a small number of controversial issues can be the biggest collective agreement. As long as the functions of government according to a widely accepted belief, the majority of people who can qualify through free discussion in the to areas of agreement, the democratic government can effectively run; free creed biggest advantage is that it is necessary to agree on the scope of the problem, reduced to a free society of the problems that may exist in the same range. now It is often said that democracy will not tolerate possible, is extremely important. When the system dominated by a collectivist creed, democracy will inevitably destroy itself.
***
However, we do not intend for the gods of democracy. Indeed , our generation may be for democracy and think about too much, while the value of the services we talk about democracy and to the large and small. Democracy can not be properly discussed, as Lord Acton put it freedom, is a means to a higher political goals. is a means, a guarantee domestic stability and practical means of personal freedom. It is by no means consistent in itself is no doubt correct and reliable. We must not forget that more often than under an authoritarian rule under a democratic system in some more cultural and spiritual freedom mm might at least want to see, in a very uniform dogmatic majority government and a democratic government under the rule of democracy and the worst may be the same brutal dictatorial regime. However, our point with a dictatorship must inevitably destroy the freedom, rather the plan results in dictatorship, because dictatorship is the imposition of the ideals of the most effective tool, and, to a large extent focused on plans to become possible, dictatorship itself is essential. planning and the causes of the conflict between democracy but in the fact that required for the management of economic activity in the suppression of freedom, the latter is an obstacle. But as long as democracy is no longer the protection of individual freedom, then it may be still exist in some form under the totalitarian regime. a true destruction of personal freedom.
threat to democracy as the mainstream value, and concentrate on the prevalence of this practice is not without risk. It is in large part false and ridiculous for this belief is responsible for this kinds of belief is, as long as the ultimate source of power is the will of the majority, this power would not be arbitrary. Many people in this faith to get this false assurance that the danger we face is a general lack of awareness important reasons. no reason to believe, as long as I believe the power is granted through the democratic process, it can not be arbitrary; and this is also incorrect to say the opposite, namely to prevent the arbitrary power is not its source but its limitations . democratic control = = prevent power may become arbitrary, but not the mere existence of democratic control can do this. If the democratic system determines that a task, and this task must be used and can not be based on the set the power of the guidance, it will become arbitrary power.
attempt to direct private ways politicians use their capital, not only his own trouble in the blind, but also in any case can not arrogate to itself a kind of peace of mind to authorize the power of the Privy Council and the Senate; by a foolish and arbitrary to the illusion that they are suitable for people who exercise this power to grasp it, is another dangerous than this.
mm Adam. Smith
all collectivism common feature of the system, you can use a different school than non-socialists are tired of words music, described as a social goal for a clear and carefully constructed social workers organization. today's society, the main critics of socialism One accusation is that we lack in today's society that a single goal of argument is very clear, and immediately leads us to individual freedom and collective elements of the conflict between. all kinds of collectivism, such as communism, fascism, etc., the difference between them is that they want to guide public efforts to the different nature of achieving the objectives. But they and liberalism and individualism are different, that they want to organize the whole community and its resources to achieve this single goal, and refused to recognize the supremacy of the self-field of personal goals. In short, they are Totalitarian true sense of the word of this new totalitarian; we use to illustrate this new word is collectivism in theory we call the unexpected but inevitable natural phenomena.
social worth organized see, these words do not sufficiently clear to determine the significance of the specific course of action. the welfare and happiness of millions of people not simply a scale to measure the amount. A nation's welfare, as a person's happiness depends on many things, these things are available in countless combinations to come out. It can not be adequately expressed as a single goal, but only the expression level for a variety of targets, a person's every need of each of them a place in the overall scale of values. under a single plan all the activities that guide us to presuppose that we need for each of the value in a sequence occupies one level, the value of the sequence to be very complete, enough to make the scheme must be selected in the a variety of different approaches are likely to make a decision. In short, it presupposes the existence of a complete code of ethics, which human values are suitable for a variety of obtaining the position.
a complete code of ethics The concept is unfamiliar, it takes imagination to try to figure out its meaning. We are not used to imagine a moral code more or less complete things. we always choose between different values to choose to go without How should we choose a defined social norms, this fact is not surprising to us, for we do not mean that our moral code is incomplete. In our society, people do not need no reason in this case should be doing under a common point of view. However, people use all the means are community property, and is based on a single plan to be used on behalf of the local community, a people should do about the perspective must guide all decisions. In such a world, then we will find that our code of ethics is full of flaws.
Here, we are not related to whether it is worthwhile so a complete code of ethics. This can only point out So far, with the development of civilization, individual actions bound by the conventions of the range of constantly shrinking. constitute our common moral code of regulations, amounting to less and less and is more common in nature. primitive in almost every Parts daily lives are bound by a complex ritual, taboo subject no limit to count, almost can not imagine you can follow a different manner. from primitive man, the moral has been an increasing tendency be only limited scope of personal whim. to adopt a broad enough to determine a single common code of ethics economic plan would mean that contrary to this trend.
For us, the fundamental point is simply not the existence of such a complete code of ethics. under a single planning guidance range of economic activities, such attempts will cause numerous problems, answers to these questions can only be provided by a moral regulations, and existing simply can not answer these questions of moral Moreover, nothing should be done on people does not exist a consensus. people on these issues, or do not have a clear view, or some conflicting views is because we live in a free society, there is no need to consider these problem, but no need to form a common opinion on this.
***
we did not make this all-encompassing measure of value, but also in terms of any talented, wise men, to understand the different resources available to compete for people's endless endless different needs, and the severity of a certain ...