Tuesday, January 28, 2014

Dialogue: A Fundamental Means to a Democratic Society?

File:Dialog ballons icon.svgI've found recently that introducing the ideas of soul and the natural tendencies of human spirit to politically "liberal" persons (those of the democrat party) who mask their socialistic ways and ideas based on force, by fronting with humanism, have 'turned them off' in a sense, so much as to be referred to as stupidity. Through my own personal experiences I've discovered the importance and foundation of a true democratic society. One important element of such is dialogue. Where I feel that I have fallen short through my verbal communication skills I introduce two quotes:
"Dialogue with the people is neither a concession nor a gift, much less a tactic to be used for domination. Dialogue, as the encounter among men to 'name' the world, is a fundamental precondition for their true humanization." (Paulo Friere, Pedagogy of the Opressed)
"A free action can only be one by which a man changes his world and himself ... A positive condition of freedom is the knowledge of the limits of necessity, the awareness of human creative possibilities ... The strugle for a free society is not a struggle for a free society unless through it an even greater degree of individual freedom is created." (Gajo Petrovic, Man and Freedom)
The first refers to the importance of dialogue and how misuse through domination can lead to neglect of that "fundamental precondition". Most people find this ridiculous that other people can think for themselves, and act justly, therefore they abuse our system of maintaining rights (government) and impose their beliefs through force of law.
The second, if I understand correctly, is based on the idea and struggle for a free society. Of which subtly explains cannot be unless a certain degree of individual freedom is not only acknowledged, but created.
Both ideas form a basis on which I believe common modern political views abandon. This in turn negatively affecting their own grounds for argument, and establishing one or more opposing views that could potentially produce the same result as the original intended view. 
For example, most men and women would agree that each individual should be cared for and have the same potential to be healthy. After all, we don't often hear within the general populous that one should be left to die from sickness or ill health. They have a tendency to care for one another. 
Through the lack of trust and certain economical manipulations, the idea which seems to be popular is introduced into law and the agency governing and enforcing the law forces itself upon the citizens, or in this case taxpayers. The citizens, as a result of being mistrusted, return to the agency a mistrust based upon the agency's dictatorial process of which neglects dialogue of the citizens. The ideas of a free society are forgotten and what could be a common idea has been torn apart.