[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: wisdom? Whose?



---------------------------------------------------------------------
[Topics under debate]: GOOD GOVERNANCE
___Help make this manifesto better, or accept it, and propagate it!___
---------------------------------------------------------------------
    Ok, that is the last time I will turn my back on you. :-)  Just kidding.
You have some valid points.  Glad to have you on the debate.

Sincerely,
Vamsi M.

Charu datt wrote:

> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> [Topics under debate]: GOOD GOVERNANCE
> ___Help make this manifesto better, or accept it, and propagate it!___
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> Bhuwan, Vamsi, Sanjeev, & others:
>
> I'm not disputing your points, nor was I saying the 'conventional
> wisdom' was
> right [or wrong]. The point I was trying to make was that what I cited
> as
> conventional wisdom is routinely used as justification for the policies
> that
> perpetuate the existing power structure. If we are to make a convincing
> argument for dismantling those policies we have to address the arguments
> used
> to justify them- and debunk them- in the terms used to justify these
> policies
> in the first place so that we can clearly show that they are wrong: even
> if
> they were right at the time they were instituted then conditions that
> justified them have changed so they need to be reassessed or the
> [seductive]
> arguments used to justify them were specious in the first place.
>
> The justifications of current policies have been around for so long, and
>
> repeated so often that they have become mantras that are no longer
> questioned.
> To present an alternative, they must firsst be debunked, and to debunk
> them I
> believe it is necessary to present the context in which they first arose
> and
> point out why they were wrong to begin with or why are no longer right.
>
> I do not think that terse arguments like
> "....this is not working, we need to scrap it, trust me, try this/my
> way"
> [Vamsi] or
> "...READ AND FOLLOW THE SCRIPTURE OF THE PROPHET ADAM SMITH!" [Sanjeev]
> are likely to win any significant following.
>
> I believe it is an element of human nature that people become
> comfortable with
> the familiar devil they know and internalize arguments given to them to
> justify their beliefs. To make people contemplate change, requires
> convincing
> arguments, not just why the new way is better, but also why the old way
> no
> longer works [or worked badly to begin with, or only works for those
> that
> support it]. Otherwise, we will be either preaching to the converted on
> the
> one hand, and the deaf on the other.
>
> -Charu
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> This is the National Debate on System Reform.       debate@indiapolicy.org
> Rules, Procedures, Archives:            http://www.indiapolicy.org/debate/
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------

--
Sincerely,
Vamsi M.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is the National Debate on System Reform.       debate@indiapolicy.org
Rules, Procedures, Archives:            http://www.indiapolicy.org/debate/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------