Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Naofumi" data-source="post: 47488" data-attributes="member: 39">3.9 LACK OF RESPONSIBILITYThe aspect of the situation that was most thought-provoking to me wasthe manifest lack of any individual responsibility.The parliament takes an action that may have the most devastatingconsequences, and yet nobody bears responsibility for it. No one can becalled to account. Can we call the government responsible if, in the face ofa catastrophe, it simply resigns? Or if the coalition is changed, or even ifparliament is dissolved?Can a fluctuating majority of people ever be truly responsible for anything?Isn&#039;t the idea of responsibility bound to an individual person?Is it even possible to actually hold the parliamentary leadersaccountable for any action that originated in the desires of the mass ofrepresentatives, and was carried out under their direction?Instead of developing constructive ideas and plans, does the truestatesman&#039;s business really consist in the art of making a whole pack ofblockheads understand his projects? Is it really his job to beg and plead sothat they will grant him their generous consent?Is it really an indispensable quality in a statesman that he shouldpossess a gift of persuasion commensurate with his ability to conceive greatpolitical measures, and to carry them through into practice?Does it really prove that a statesman is incompetent if he should fail towin over a majority of votes in an assembly that has been called togetheras the chance result of an electoral system?Has there ever been a case where such an assembly has worthilyappraised a great political concept before that concept was proven asuccess?In this world, isn&#039;t the creative act of genius always a protest againstthe inertia of the mass? And what should the statesman do if he doesn&#039;tsucceed in coaxing the parliamentary mob to give its consent?Should he buy it?Or, when confronted with the obstinate stupidity of his fellow citizens,should he then refrain from pushing forward the vital necessities? Shouldhe resign or remain in power?In such a case, doesn&#039;t a man of character find himself face to face withan insoluble contradiction between knowledge and moral integrity-orbetter, his sense of honesty?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Naofumi, post: 47488, member: 39"] 3.9 LACK OF RESPONSIBILITY The aspect of the situation that was most thought-provoking to me was the manifest lack of any individual responsibility. The parliament takes an action that may have the most devastating consequences, and yet nobody bears responsibility for it. No one can be called to account. Can we call the government responsible if, in the face of a catastrophe, it simply resigns? Or if the coalition is changed, or even if parliament is dissolved? Can a fluctuating majority of people ever be truly responsible for anything? Isn't the idea of responsibility bound to an individual person? Is it even possible to actually hold the parliamentary leaders accountable for any action that originated in the desires of the mass of representatives, and was carried out under their direction? Instead of developing constructive ideas and plans, does the true statesman's business really consist in the art of making a whole pack of blockheads understand his projects? Is it really his job to beg and plead so that they will grant him their generous consent? Is it really an indispensable quality in a statesman that he should possess a gift of persuasion commensurate with his ability to conceive great political measures, and to carry them through into practice? Does it really prove that a statesman is incompetent if he should fail to win over a majority of votes in an assembly that has been called together as the chance result of an electoral system? Has there ever been a case where such an assembly has worthily appraised a great political concept before that concept was proven a success? In this world, isn't the creative act of genius always a protest against the inertia of the mass? And what should the statesman do if he doesn't succeed in coaxing the parliamentary mob to give its consent? Should he buy it? Or, when confronted with the obstinate stupidity of his fellow citizens, should he then refrain from pushing forward the vital necessities? Should he resign or remain in power? In such a case, doesn't a man of character find himself face to face with an insoluble contradiction between knowledge and moral integrity-or better, his sense of honesty? [/QUOTE]

Name

Verification

Layout Options

Color Schemes

Reply to thread