Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
It is my place to decide for myself the truths of this world. It is not my place to decide yours or anyone's other than my own. We live in a society that dictates our standard of living but what place do they really hold in deciding what works best for us all. Majority Rule with Minority Rights is a flawed system. Just as much the social contract theory that governs our very society today. When you implement the spoils system into a government and punish those of a lesser standard is it okay. Our government uses these very things to implement a trickle down system that feeds poor who in turn feed the wealthy. But why can we not do for ourselves instead of having someone else to provide for us. When we lose the ability to provide for ourselves we lose our voice in this government and they decide everything for us. We must still possess some ability to do for ourselves or we will lose out on what we desire most: Freedom.
The more questions we ask, the less answers we'll have.
(April 24, 2010 at 8:42 pm)Hopppppppp Wrote: It is my place to decide for myself the truths of this world.
'my place'? Why indeed is it your place? Perhaps it is the society's place? The King's place? Your wife's place? God's place?
What is this 'my place'... and why is it any more your 'place' than the 'place' of society's, a leader's, a 'significant other's, or a God's?
Quote:It is not my place to decide yours or anyone's other than my own.
Or is it? Why is it not as much your place as it is mine?
Quote:We live in a society that dictates our standard of living but what place do they really hold in deciding what works best for us all.
A rather strong place... considering that a society is built up of a large number of individuals. Is that not more important than the single individual you are?
There are a number of different ways to see the world... "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the self"... "the needs of the important few outweigh the the needs of the worthless many, or the selfish self"... "the needs of the self outweigh the needs of those who aren't you". These are three very common (and very distinct ways to view the world. Which are you?
Quote:Majority Rule with Minority Rights is a flawed system.
Not so. It is a very efficient system... if nothing else.
Quote:Just as much the social contract theory that governs our very society today.
See above.
Quote:When you implement the spoils system into a government and punish those of a lesser standard is it okay.
Sure. Why not?
Quote:Our government uses these very things to implement a trickle down system that feeds poor who in turn feed the wealthy.
Which government? Why not equalize the poorest poor and the richest rich if you are concerned that people will starve?
Quote:But why can we not do for ourselves instead of having someone else to provide for us.
Because of a thing called specialization. Are you really qualified to amputate a leg? Are you more qualified than the leg doctor, who has devoted his life to the study of the leg? As you are not... tell me then: would you rather amputate the leg yourself... or let him do it?
There is a second part to this as well. It is called management... it means you will have a specific job (or jobs) to complete so that others can focus on different things... this is very similar to an assembly line, but it encompasses the entire economy. Together, properly managed specialization's among the population will result in 1: more efficiency, 2: more familiarity with jobs (and hence by experience people get can 'better' over time at their job), 3: a social stratification as the more important or difficult jobs are considered worthy of more respect and payment than 'lesser' jobs.
Quote:When we lose the ability to provide for ourselves we lose our voice in this government and they decide everything for us.
We do not. I think your senators (Assuming you are an 'indirect democracy' or 'republic' in some form) are perfect evidence for this in and of themselves. Further, we can make our voices 'heard' perfectly well when we're starving and homeless... ever tried holding up a sign, or writing an email on a public computer at your local library (or the like)?
Quote:We must still possess some ability to do for ourselves or we will lose out on what we desire most: Freedom.
Why would we lose this? Many city dwellers do not in fact have this ability of the moment... are you suggesting that they aren't "free"?
And then... why is this "freedom" so important to you? We are not "free" to rape, pillage, and murder our way through the land. This is a restriction on our freedom. Is that such a bad thing, I wonder?
(April 24, 2010 at 9:58 pm)Saerules Wrote: [quote='Hopppppppp' pid='66497' dateline='1272156161']
It is my place to decide for myself the truths of this world.
'my place'? Why indeed is it your place? Perhaps it is the society's place? The King's place? Your wife's place? God's place?[/quote]
It is up to the individual .....there IS nothing else. Society doesn't get it right. Society is a tribal construct to keep you safe. Thinking is NOT an option.
(April 24, 2010 at 9:58 pm)Saerules Wrote: What is this 'my place'... and why is it any more your 'place' than the 'place' of society's, a leader's, a 'significant other's, or a God's?
Quote:It is not my place to decide yours or anyone's other than my own.
Or is it? Why is it not as much your place as it is mine?
Because YOU are not privy to ALL the facts surrounding the life of EVERY individual. Hence it is up to them as to the decisions and paths they take to live their lives.
(April 24, 2010 at 9:58 pm)Saerules Wrote:
Quote:We live in a society that dictates our standard of living but what place do they really hold in deciding what works best for us all.
A rather strong place... considering that a society is built up of a large number of individuals. Is that not more important than the single individual you are?
Ah yes...dictatorship by consensus Keeping the TRIBE safe and each individual in the place that is made for it.
(April 24, 2010 at 9:58 pm)Saerules Wrote: There are a number of different ways to see the world... "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the self"... "the needs of the important few outweigh the the needs of the worthless many, or the selfish self"... "the needs of the self outweigh the needs of those who aren't you". These are three very common (and very distinct ways to view the world. Which are you?
Quote:Majority Rule with Minority Rights is a flawed system.
Not so. It is a very efficient system... if nothing else.
It is a VERY flawed system but hey! It is the only one we have atm.
(April 24, 2010 at 9:58 pm)Saerules Wrote:
Quote:Just as much the social contract theory that governs our very society today.
See above.
Again it is a social / Tribal system that is designed to keep every individual in the place society has dictated for it. crippling thought ans imagination terrified that someone just might come up with a better idea or just go off and live very well WITHOUT society only to come back and tell others that it is possible. This is why religion is so prevalent within 'primitive' cultures...humans are still held firm by the short and curlies of their superstitions.
(April 24, 2010 at 9:58 pm)Saerules Wrote:
Quote:When you implement the spoils system into a government and punish those of a lesser standard is it okay.
Sure. Why not?
WHY??
(April 24, 2010 at 9:58 pm)Saerules Wrote:
Quote:Our government uses these very things to implement a trickle down system that feeds poor who in turn feed the wealthy.
Which government? Why not equalize the poorest poor and the richest rich if you are concerned that people will starve?]/quote]
Communism will never work mainly because of human nature. All governments use the above system. it's not right nor is it wrong...it IS the system that is currently in play.
Quote:But why can we not do for ourselves instead of having someone else to provide for us.
Because of a thing called specialization. Are you really qualified to amputate a leg? Are you more qualified than the leg doctor, who has devoted his life to the study of the leg? As you are not... tell me then: would you rather amputate the leg yourself... or let him do it?
There is a second part to this as well. It is called management... it means you will have a specific job (or jobs) to complete so that others can focus on different things... this is very similar to an assembly line, but it encompasses the entire economy. Together, properly managed specialization's among the population will result in 1: more efficiency, 2: more familiarity with jobs (and hence by experience people get can 'better' over time at their job), 3: a social stratification as the more important or difficult jobs are considered worthy of more respect and payment than 'lesser' jobs.
All too true BUT it would seem that this system is breaking down. The qualified have essentially risen to the levels of their ineptitude and so much time and money is wasted supporting these so called "qualified persons" with their degrees in specialisation, much to the detriment of their peers in the same fields of specialisation.
(April 24, 2010 at 9:58 pm)Saerules Wrote:
Quote:When we lose the ability to provide for ourselves we lose our voice in this government and they decide everything for us.
We do not. I think your senators (Assuming you are an 'indirect democracy' or 'republic' in some form) are perfect evidence for this in and of themselves. Further, we can make our voices 'heard' perfectly well when we're starving and homeless... ever tried holding up a sign, or writing an email on a public computer at your local library (or the like)?
I doubt very much that that is the case. America does not have a great track record of the people being heard. Neither does any other democracy. But for the most pat it is a system that bumbles along without causing too much in the way of devastation.
(April 24, 2010 at 9:58 pm)Saerules Wrote:
Quote:We must still possess some ability to do for ourselves or we will lose out on what we desire most: Freedom.
Why would we lose this? Many city dwellers do not in fact have this ability of the moment... are you suggesting that they aren't "free"?
Are you suggesting that many city dwellers are cognizant of the fact that milk does NOT come in plastic packaging from the corner store??
(April 24, 2010 at 9:58 pm)Saerules Wrote: And then... why is this "freedom" so important to you? We are not "free" to rape, pillage, and murder our way through the land.
Well of course not...been there done that got the constitution to prove it. Your point??
(April 24, 2010 at 9:58 pm)Saerules Wrote: This is a restriction on our freedom. Is that such a bad thing, I wonder?
Just what 'Freedom' are we talking about?? The childish notion of conquest?? Or the Right to determine ones' own life / Life style/ Life path/ Life end as the individual sees fit??
The assumption the Selfishness, Freedom, Sovereignty, and self Determination ARE BAD stems from the fact that it would threaten the tribe and the tribal power base.
I fail to see what is so wrong or threatening if someone chooses to die, to abort and unwanted foetus or plan. Why should the current system of government be held sacrosanct?? Yes it is pragmatic. But that doesn't mean that it cannot be changed but how are you going to get a change for the better without people 'free' to think the unthinkable?? Mao was one, Hitler was another, 'The Founding Fathers' (Masons I understand) were others.
sorry this reply has gone on for too long....banannas back attcha girl!!
"The Universe is run by the complex interweaving of three elements: energy, matter, and enlightened self-interest." G'Kar-B5
April 25, 2010 at 2:16 am (This post was last modified: April 25, 2010 at 2:19 am by Violet.)
*Disclaimer: I am playing the devil's advocate here and throughout*
*Aerzia has entered Apologist-mode. She gains +700 argument, +800 apathy, +200 need to use the restroom, +3000% post length, +600 annoyance, +485 damage to her Glower Power, and +1 to crick in her neck. She loses 25% sanity, 50% cordiality, 75% colloquially understandable words, and 100% sexiness while she foams at the mouth like a rabid cat*
(April 25, 2010 at 1:04 am)KichigaiNeko Wrote:
(April 24, 2010 at 9:58 pm)Saerules Wrote:
(April 24, 2010 at 8:42 pm)Hopppppppp Wrote: It is my place to decide for myself the truths of this world.
'my place'? Why indeed is it your place? Perhaps it is the society's place? The King's place? Your wife's place? God's place?
It is up to the individual .....there IS nothing else. Society doesn't get it right. Society is a tribal construct to keep you safe. Thinking is NOT an option.
There is an entire society more... 'nothing else' my left ankle. Society is the only thing that keeps most of us alive even now. Thinking is as much an option as is anything else.
Quote:
(April 24, 2010 at 9:58 pm)Saerules Wrote: What is this 'my place'... and why is it any more your 'place' than the 'place' of society's, a leader's, a 'significant other's, or a God's?
Quote:It is not my place to decide yours or anyone's other than my own.
Or is it? Why is it not as much your place as it is mine?
Because YOU are not privy to ALL the facts surrounding the life of EVERY individual. Hence it is up to them as to the decisions and paths they take to live their lives.
Explain to me why I am not privy to such? It is information that may in fact be relevant to me. Again, it is up to a number of things (usually including them, but not always) as to what people do with their lives. In example: in my country (America), children are the legal property of their parents or other guardian. It is considered the responsibility of the parent to to chose the life for their children. This could similarly extend to any governing force (wether that be king, council, aliens, gods, or society itself), or perhaps even more than that, depending on how it is interpreted.
Also: determinism is a fact so far as anything can be a fact.
Quote:
(April 24, 2010 at 9:58 pm)Saerules Wrote:
Quote:We live in a society that dictates our standard of living but what place do they really hold in deciding what works best for us all.
A rather strong place... considering that a society is built up of a large number of individuals. Is that not more important than the single individual you are?
Ah yes...dictatorship by consensus Keeping the TRIBE safe and each individual in the place that is made for it.
It's also known as "mob rule", "democracy", and "socialism". And is there something wrong with that?
Quote:
(April 24, 2010 at 9:58 pm)Saerules Wrote: There are a number of different ways to see the world... "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the self"... "the needs of the important few outweigh the the needs of the worthless many, or the selfish self"... "the needs of the self outweigh the needs of those who aren't you". These are three very common (and very distinct ways to view the world. Which are you?
Quote:Majority Rule with Minority Rights is a flawed system.
Not so. It is a very efficient system... if nothing else.
It is a VERY flawed system but hey! It is the only one we have atm.
Pray tell how is it "flawed"? It is wonderfully efficient (again, if nothing else).
Quote:
(April 24, 2010 at 9:58 pm)Saerules Wrote:
Quote:Just as much the social contract theory that governs our very society today.
See above.
Again it is a social / Tribal system that is designed to keep every individual in the place society has dictated for it. crippling thought ans imagination terrified that someone just might come up with a better idea or just go off and live very well WITHOUT society only to come back and tell others that it is possible. This is why religion is so prevalent within 'primitive' cultures...humans are still held firm by the short and curlies of their superstitions.
Life without society is only possible when one is entirely isolated from any other living thing. What is this 'society-less' thing you dream of? And again, it is beautifully efficient... like well-oiled cogs in a clock. Little upkeep costs, no revolts, no possibility of being disagreed with... very attractive to an authoritarian government (and you will notice that many such governments are designed in such a way).
Quote:
(April 24, 2010 at 9:58 pm)Saerules Wrote:
Quote:When you implement the spoils system into a government and punish those of a lesser standard is it okay.
Sure. Why not?
WHY??
For the same reason that everything that happens is "okay". "Right" and "wrong" things are from there decided by things that can attribute those kinds of values (ie: us)... but the basis of all things is neutrality. This means that any consideration of why it would not be "okay" is extremely subjective and subject to drastic changes between people.
As is, I see no reason why it would not be "okay", or even "bad". I suppose it depends on how we are defining "Spoils system" and "lesser standard". It can definitely be good, as we can see below: Hoppip gave the example that our government keeps poor people alive via this system. Is it "bad" to keep poor people alive now?
Quote:
(April 24, 2010 at 9:58 pm)Saerules Wrote:
Quote:Our government uses these very things to implement a trickle down system that feeds poor who in turn feed the wealthy.
Which government? Why not equalize the poorest poor and the richest rich if you are concerned that people will starve?]/quote]
Communism will never work mainly because of human nature. All governments use the above system. it's not right nor is it wrong...it IS the system that is currently in play.
Communism can easily work for "hive-mind" setups. I do not know what "human nature" you are referring to... everything about us can be changed... all the more so once we have sufficiently advanced technology. Why do you suggest all systems use such a system? That seems to be a very arrogant proclamation... indeed not a proclamation that applies to a robotic future.
Quote:
(April 24, 2010 at 9:58 pm)Saerules Wrote: [quote]But why can we not do for ourselves instead of having someone else to provide for us.
Because of a thing called specialization. Are you really qualified to amputate a leg? Are you more qualified than the leg doctor, who has devoted his life to the study of the leg? As you are not... tell me then: would you rather amputate the leg yourself... or let him do it?
There is a second part to this as well. It is called management... it means you will have a specific job (or jobs) to complete so that others can focus on different things... this is very similar to an assembly line, but it encompasses the entire economy. Together, properly managed specialization's among the population will result in 1: more efficiency, 2: more familiarity with jobs (and hence by experience people get can 'better' over time at their job), 3: a social stratification as the more important or difficult jobs are considered worthy of more respect and payment than 'lesser' jobs.
All too true BUT it would seem that this system is breaking down. The qualified have essentially risen to the levels of their ineptitude and so much time and money is wasted supporting these so called "qualified persons" with their degrees in specialisation, much to the detriment of their peers in the same fields of specialisation.
Once the qualified becomes inept, they become reputed as inept, and are soon pushed to the sidelines of the qualified and capable. I do not understand which instance you refer to in any case... perhaps you could define?
Quote:
(April 24, 2010 at 9:58 pm)Saerules Wrote:
Quote:When we lose the ability to provide for ourselves we lose our voice in this government and they decide everything for us.
We do not. I think your senators (Assuming you are an 'indirect democracy' or 'republic' in some form) are perfect evidence for this in and of themselves. Further, we can make our voices 'heard' perfectly well when we're starving and homeless... ever tried holding up a sign, or writing an email on a public computer at your local library (or the like)?
I doubt very much that that is the case. America does not have a great track record of the people being heard. Neither does any other democracy. But for the most pat it is a system that bumbles along without causing too much in the way of devastation.
You can send an email directly to the white house. If you have something important enough to say... then it will reach the right ears. If what you say is believed to be ultimately pointless: it will be regarded as ultimately pointless. This is the case in america.
It's actually very easy to communicate in a democracy... how many North Koreans do you see on atheist forum boards after all? You have freedom of speech and press (to an extent of course... though i fully disagree with censorship beyond private data designed to be private), and a number of other very nice freedoms. People like to be free, so mob rule eventually dissolves into anarchy. Which then evolves into an authoritarian government to get everything back under control. Which then evolves into a republic because people want rights. Which then either becomes mob rule or an authoritarian government.
Isn't it beautiful?
Quote:
(April 24, 2010 at 9:58 pm)Saerules Wrote:
Quote:We must still possess some ability to do for ourselves or we will lose out on what we desire most: Freedom.
Why would we lose this? Many city dwellers do not in fact have this ability of the moment... are you suggesting that they aren't "free"?
Are you suggesting that many city dwellers are cognizant of the fact that milk does NOT come in plastic packaging from the corner store??
Are you suggesting that many city dwellers have cows from which to get milk... or understand that milk is very unhealthy?
Quote:
(April 24, 2010 at 9:58 pm)Saerules Wrote: And then... why is this "freedom" so important to you? We are not "free" to rape, pillage, and murder our way through the land.
Well of course not...been there done that got the constitution to prove it. Your point??
My point is that we are not entirely free. Freedom is a limited commodity.
Quote:
(April 24, 2010 at 9:58 pm)Saerules Wrote: This is a restriction on our freedom. Is that such a bad thing, I wonder?
Just what 'Freedom' are we talking about?? The childish notion of conquest?? Or the Right to determine ones' own life / Life style/ Life path/ Life end as the individual sees fit??
Dictionary Wrote:freedom |ˈfrēdəm|
noun
the power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants without hindrance or restraint
That is word for word what I mean by freedom. It is only possible where there are no laws, regulations, rules, or rather repercussions for acting, speaking, thinking, whatever.
Quote:The assumption the Selfishness, Freedom, Sovereignty, and self Determination ARE BAD stems from the fact that it would threaten the tribe and the tribal power base.
It would indeed threaten everyone. This is why anarchy only works in a utopia that knows no evils.
Quote:I fail to see what is so wrong or threatening if someone chooses to die, to abort and unwanted foetus or plan. Why should the current system of government be held sacrosanct?? Yes it is pragmatic. But that doesn't mean that it cannot be changed but how are you going to get a change for the better without people 'free' to think the unthinkable?? Mao was one, Hitler was another, 'The Founding Fathers' (Masons I understand) were others.
I don't see anything wrong with it either, but for purpose of being devils advocate:
If they choose to die then they no longer benefit a society. Why would a society want to waste its resources by letting them kill themselves? How would we feel if every cow, chicken, turkey, pig, goat, <animalanimalanimalanimalanimalanimalanimalanimalanimalanimalanimal that we eat> were all to commit suicide right now? It's an extreme example... but if even one commits suicide (and there death is not useful, ie: old, young, diseased, suffers malnutrition, etc): it has damaged the society by losing the collective work of that individual.
As for abortion (which I am more than all for): how unfair is that to the fetus? It's alive too. <insert common ridiculous argument by anti-abortionists>
Why shouldn't it be held sacrosanct? It is very pragmatic. People are free to think whatever they like here. They aren't necessarily allowed to voice it, but we do not have 'thought police' as of now. You also by definition cannot think the unthinkable... as by doing so it would not be unthinkable.
What do you mean by those names?
Quote:sorry this reply has gone on for too long....banannas back attcha girl!!
/end apologist
Your bananas are all belong to me, now
edit: putting it in hide tags and will reduce vortexing next time.
(April 25, 2010 at 2:16 am)Saerules Wrote: *Disclaimer: I am playing the devil's advocate here and throughout*
*Aerzia has entered Apologist-mode. She gains +700 argument, +800 apathy, +200 need to use the restroom, +3000% post length, +600 annoyance, +485 damage to her Glower Power, and +1 to crick in her neck. She loses 25% sanity, 50% cordiality, 75% colloquially understandable words, and 100% sexiness while she foams at the mouth like a rabid cat*
/end apologist
Your bananas are all belong to me, now
lol Thanks for proving my point!!
What we have now is NOT the best that we (societaly nor as individuals) can do. But, hey it's the best of what we have. Yeah, Australians can email the shack in the nullanulla but the inept STILL don't listen and are more interested in popularity contests. Mind you I have been struggling for 30 years to get ASIO to remember that I prefer WHITE underwear...do they listen?? NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!
Freedom is something YOU take. "I'm going to end my life cos of mitigating circumstances" (i.e. I have a terminal illness and living a half life is untenable to me-is one example)
Freedom is also a state of mind. The thing that bothers me most is that we have gummints the world over instigating laws to 'make us safe' when all that seems to be happening is that otherwise inoffensive persons are being persecuted. the REAL culprits go on committing their rights to "freedom" (a minority group to be sure) while the rest of us a restricted in our movements and our options.
Best if you don't come to Queensland then....Aussies are rather fond of our banannas....(Bananna Republic here we come?? lol)
"The Universe is run by the complex interweaving of three elements: energy, matter, and enlightened self-interest." G'Kar-B5
1. Jeremy Bentham (100%)
2. Aquinas (94%)
3. John Stuart Mill (86%)
4. Aristotle (77%)
5. Jean-Paul Sartre (70%)
6. Epicureans (67%)
7. Thomas Hobbes (67%)
8. Nel Noddings (53%)
9. Plato (53%)
10. Kant (52%)
11. Ayn Rand (50%)
12. Nietzsche (46%)
13. Prescriptivism (46%)
14. David Hume (41%)
15. Cynics (40%)
16. Spinoza (32%)
17. St. Augustine (32%)
18. Ockham (31%)
19. Stoics (20%)
Some odd choices up there. Had anyone heard of Nel Hoddings?
'We must respect the other fellow's religion, but only in the sense and to the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children smart.' H.L. Mencken
'False religion' is the ultimate tautology.
'It is just like man's vanity and impertinence to call an animal dumb because it is dumb to his dull perceptions.' Mark Twain
'I care not much for a man's religion whose dog and cat are not the better for it.' Abraham Lincoln
![[Image: mybannerglitter06eee094.gif]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=i118.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fo112%2Fpussinboots_photos%2FBikes%2Fmybannerglitter06eee094.gif)
You have freedom of speech and press (to an extent of course... though i fully disagree with censorship beyond private data designed to be private), and a number of other very nice freedoms. People like to be free, so mob rule eventually dissolves into anarchy. Which then evolves into an authoritarian government to get everything back under control. Which then evolves into a republic because people want rights. Which then either becomes mob rule or an authoritarian government. 
