Psychopaths lack empathy towards others in general, resulting in tactlessness, insensitivity, and contemptuousness. All of this belies their tendency to make a good, likable first impression. Psychopaths have a superficial charm about them, enabled by a willingness to say anything without concern for accuracy or truth. This extends into their pathological lying and willingness to con and manipulate others for personal gain or amusement. The prototypical psychopath's emotions are described as a shallow affect, meaning their overall way of relating is characterized by mere displays of friendliness and other emotion for personal gain; the displayed emotion need not correlate with felt emotion, in other words like this video:
In an indirect democracy leaders are more likely to be chosen by capabilities and for a deranged figure it would most likely be much harder to reach the top of a political party.
Yeah sure, absolutely.. but that's not what the vids or your quote are about. I didn't read the whole article though. Still.. it's an interesting topic.
In an indirect democracy leaders are more likely to be chosen by capabilities and for a deranged figure it would most likely be much harder to reach the top of a political party.
And a direct democracy would somehow magically solve all our problems?
In an indirect democracy leaders are more likely to be chosen by capabilities and for a deranged figure it would most likely be much harder to reach the top of a political party.
Oh, then yes I agree totally.
The US is the worst example of ppl who should not be allowed to affect national, state or local policies.
Don't misunderstand, Canada has its share of fuckin morons who deserve to be taken out back and shot.
But what can we do...its the world we live in. Society as a whole has to get some balls. If we all banded together, nationally and globally, we could get anything we want. But our 'leader's' are influenced solely by big corporations....
Anyway, we could get into a huge discussion about this but let just leave it at this.
In an indirect democracy leaders are more likely to be chosen by capabilities and for a deranged figure it would most likely be much harder to reach the top of a political party.
And a direct democracy would somehow magically solve all our problems?
No. Who said it would? What a childish question.. Anyway, what we shouldn't do is blindly accept the reality of today and stop looking for ways to improve society.
In an indirect democracy leaders are more likely to be chosen by capabilities and for a deranged figure it would most likely be much harder to reach the top of a political party.
And a direct democracy would somehow magically solve all our problems?
No. Who said it would? What a childish question.. Anyway, what we shouldn't do is blindly accept the reality of today and stop looking for ways to improve society.
The point is that it gets a bit tiring hearing this stuff when you don't provide any reasonable fixes/solutions. We have the system we have because it is an even balance. It would be quite hard doing better unless everyone would start thinking the same way, and wanting the same things. They don't.
How is more democracy even remotely dependant on people thinking the same way? If anything it encourages diversity!
I think you missed the point.
The entire reason it exsists is because of what you just mentioned. People think differently.
It is because of this reason there aren't many better solutions. If at all.
You will never have peace on Earth, and you will never have a government that everyone is happy with unless everyone thinks the same way. It is that simple.
Of course, Anarchy boy will come in here claiming different; He is completely blind to the fact that his idea relies on double plus good thinking as well.
As for the US; I don't see what the problem is. The people voted, and the people get what they want. (Minus the electoral college bullshit) Are you saying people like Bush shouldn't be able to run? Sorry. That is a democracy. An ex-alcoholic crack using failiure of life can even be president. That is the system working at the finest degree. If you say one person can't vote/hold office then you've completely lost what a democracy is and should be. The US people are to blame for the fools they vote in. No one else.
Of course, this brings up the point that the US should be split IMO. In my opinion, if the North split from the South again it would solve a lot of the current problems. The vast majority in the South will get what they want, and the vast majority in the North will get what they want. The HUGE diversity in the US is part of the reason why it has so many problems.
Last edited by Mchart on Wed, 12th Jan 2011 05:23; edited 4 times in total
How is more democracy even remotely dependant on people thinking the same way? If anything it encourages diversity!
Diversity in some things but in some ways, everyone thinking the same would be a giant step forward in human development.
One example would be hunger. The US spent like 1.2 TRILLION on the Bailout. for 3 billion they could have provided food and medicine for ALL of African. For an extra say 2 billion more, shelter could be provided. Running water, cooking stuff etc
How is more democracy even remotely dependant on people thinking the same way? If anything it encourages diversity!
I think you missed the point.
The entire reason it exsists is because of what you just mentioned. People think differently.
It is because of this reason there aren't many better solutions. If at all.
You will never have peace on Earth, and you will never have a government that everyone is happy with unless everyone thinks the same way. It is that simple.
Of course, Anarchy boy will come in here claiming different. Of course, he is completely blind to the fact that his idea relies on double plus good thinking.
As for the US; I don't see what the problem is. The people voted, and the people get what they want. (Minus the electoral college bullshit) Are you saying people like Bush shouldn't be able to run? Sorry. That is a democracy. An ex-alcoholic crack using failiure of life can even be president. That is the system working at the finest degree. If you say one person can't vote/hold office then you've completely lost what a democracy is and should be. The US people are to blame for the fools they vote in. No one else.
Of course, this brings up the point that the US should be split IMO. In my opinion, if the North split from the South again it would solve a lot of the current problems. The vast majority in the South will get what they want, and the vast majority in the North will get what they want. The HUGE diversity in the US is part of the reason why it has so many problems.
Your last paragraph outlines a great step towards a more direct democracy. Decentralisation is essential for us to have a chance of really, really, being able to influence the goings on in our daily lives. I don't think you should stop with north/south though. Disbanding the federal government and making each state sovereign (not only in name, but in reality) would be a great step forward for democracy in the US. Also, fuck the EU!
SycoShaman wrote:
helvete wrote:
How is more democracy even remotely dependant on people thinking the same way? If anything it encourages diversity!
Diversity in some things but in some ways, everyone thinking the same would be a giant step forward in human development.
One example would be hunger. The US spent like 1.2 TRILLION on the Bailout. for 3 billion they could have provided food and medicine for ALL of African. For an extra say 2 billion more, shelter could be provided. Running water, cooking stuff etc
It pisses me off
A more direct democracy would force you to take more responsibility for your actions (as in votes). You wouldn't be able to say "oh it's just the way it is" in regards to world hunger. You'd be faced with the choice of doing something about it, or not. Directly.
How is more democracy even remotely dependant on people thinking the same way? If anything it encourages diversity!
I think you missed the point.
The entire reason it exsists is because of what you just mentioned. People think differently.
It is because of this reason there aren't many better solutions. If at all.
You will never have peace on Earth, and you will never have a government that everyone is happy with unless everyone thinks the same way. It is that simple.
Of course, Anarchy boy will come in here claiming different. Of course, he is completely blind to the fact that his idea relies on double plus good thinking.
As for the US; I don't see what the problem is. The people voted, and the people get what they want. (Minus the electoral college bullshit) Are you saying people like Bush shouldn't be able to run? Sorry. That is a democracy. An ex-alcoholic crack using failiure of life can even be president. That is the system working at the finest degree. If you say one person can't vote/hold office then you've completely lost what a democracy is and should be. The US people are to blame for the fools they vote in. No one else.
Of course, this brings up the point that the US should be split IMO. In my opinion, if the North split from the South again it would solve a lot of the current problems. The vast majority in the South will get what they want, and the vast majority in the North will get what they want. The HUGE diversity in the US is part of the reason why it has so many problems.
Your last paragraph outlines a great step towards a more direct democracy. Decentralisation is essential for us to have a chance of really, really, being able to influence the goings on in our daily lives. I don't think you should stop with north/south though. Disbanding the federal government and making each state sovereign (not only in name, but in reality) would be a great step forward for democracy in the US. Also, fuck the EU!
Well, it sounds like a great idea using that logic. You aren't taking into account part of what has allowed the US to do so many great things though. It would be good in some ways, and equally bad in other ways. I don't think it would be a proper solution. When the people of the US come together and WANT something we get it fucking done and if you split all that up it just wouldn't be the same.
IMO, I think the best thing that the world governments could do is make some shit up somehow. Say we were being attacked by Aliens. That way, everyone would work together towards amazing stuff. Of course, someone would find out and make a fit about it. Honestly, I think humanity needs to have another great war before we move on. It is going to hapen. But at the end of the huge amount of death and suffering everyone finally might 'get it'. (Until their lazy grand kids ruin everything again)
That's the most totalitarian outlook I've ever seen on this board. What's "amazing" and what's not is highly subjective. Your "best" world would demand a state right out of 1984.
In an indirect democracy leaders are more likely to be chosen by capabilities and for a deranged figure it would most likely be much harder to reach the top of a political party.
And a direct democracy would somehow magically solve all our problems?
No. Who said it would? What a childish question.. Anyway, what we shouldn't do is blindly accept the reality of today and stop looking for ways to improve society.
I don't blindly accept the direct democracy I live in: California. Read up on our history a bit to see where direct democracy has gotten us.
Just because something is "different" does not make it better than the existing system. Something many people on this board fail to grasp.
That's the most totalitarian outlook I've ever seen on this board. What's "amazing" and what's not is highly subjective. Your "best" world would demand a state right out of 1984.
For suggesting that war is what brings drastic change to humanity?
Yes, i've read 1984 and i'm fully aware of the fake state of war. I'm not suggesting that, and you are missing the fact that I never once suggested a totalitarian government. You seemed to assume this from my statement though.
It is simple history. Humanity doesn't pull together for shit unless there is war. Hopefully, the next time we do it we develop technology enough to the point where it won't be an issue again. (I think Star Trek has it spot fucking on to be frank. Humanity will always disagree, but if we have free energy, and thus the elimination of people wanting *stuff* then most of our bickering will end.)
Of course I don't want to live in a world like that. I'm simply stating the fact that -
A.) It is going to happen again.
B.) When it does happen the result is that we will be even further technologically developed then we are now.
Hopefully, the next time we do it we develop technology enough to the point where it won't be an issue again. (I think Star Trek has it spot fucking on to be frank. Humanity will always disagree, but if we have free energy, and thus the elimination of people wanting *stuff* then most of our bickering will end.)
Now this I wholeheartedly agree with. We mustn't be afraid to dream and to work toward goals no matter how unatainable they seem! And we mustn't trust those who have everything to gain by keeping the status quo, and claim it's impossible. I think we can do whatever the fuck we please if only we realise it.
Mchart wrote:
Of course I don't want to live in a world like that. I'm simply stating the fact that -
....
With every passing day I tend to agree with Ronhrins point of view. No you don't need government to function, it's just that you've being told that you need the government to run things.
Maybe in the past it was a necessary step for survival, but we have made much progress, scientifically and socially.
"Quantum mechanics is actually, contrary to it's reputation, unbeliveably simple, once you take the physics out."
Scott Aaronson
chiv wrote:
thats true you know. newton didnt discover gravity. the apple told him about it, and then he killed it. the core was never found.
Hmm I think I put to many subjects in one topic:
- Is Bush a criminal/psychopath?
- The correlation between politicians and psychopathy.
- The effects of direct democracy.
@nouse: You can just focus on the article and see if perhaps the writer has some valid points. IMO he has although I can't agree with his views on Obama. Or better said I can't read Obama while Bush was an open book for me.
@dingo_d: As I understood it Ronhrin is in favour of direct democracy but perhaps he should comment on that himself. Humanity IMO has not made great progress intellectually. Some individuals have but the majority of people is still stupid, ill-informed and needs guiding.
With every passing day I tend to agree with Ronhrins point of view. No you don't need government to function, it's just that you've being told that you need the government to run things.
Maybe in the past it was a necessary step for survival, but we have made much progress, scientifically and socially.
So how would you like to function ? Everybody off for themselves ?
I'm just curious, it is easy to cry wolf..
"Zipfero is the biggest fucking golddigger ever" - Mutantius
An overwhelming percentage of high positioned people (bosses, CEO's etc.) have several psychopathic traits. You might say that the highest positions in businesses tend to favor people with a lack of empathy and other psychopathic traits.
With every passing day I tend to agree with Ronhrins point of view. No you don't need government to function, it's just that you've being told that you need the government to run things.
Maybe in the past it was a necessary step for survival, but we have made much progress, scientifically and socially.
So how would you like to function ? Everybody off for themselves ?
I'm just curious, it is easy to cry wolf..
It's hard to imagine when you are so dependent of the system, and the system (the government has indoctrinated you).
First of all, you need to educate ppl. And that will take thousands of years I reckon. If you educate ppl and maybe the most important thing, if you raise your child and not let the government raise it for you (and these days I see that too often), you can teach ppl of peace, with that you can easily come to peaceful solutions in which all can have benefits.
Not only that, with education you can increase the technology advancement, so that all the work is done automatically (that way you loose the dependence of man to be paid for his work). You can easily reach the state in which all ppl have enough.
By educating ppl, and raising them not to hate, raising them not to be greedy, and to live in harmony you really lose any need of control.
This way government is controlling ppl to go out of bounds, but is also leaching us for it's own purpose (more power, and even more control).
I said 1000 yrs, because change is something that comes gradually. Violent change always fail.
"Quantum mechanics is actually, contrary to it's reputation, unbeliveably simple, once you take the physics out."
Scott Aaronson
chiv wrote:
thats true you know. newton didnt discover gravity. the apple told him about it, and then he killed it. the core was never found.
With every passing day I tend to agree with Ronhrins point of view. No you don't need government to function, it's just that you've being told that you need the government to run things.
Maybe in the past it was a necessary step for survival, but we have made much progress, scientifically and socially.
So how would you like to function ? Everybody off for themselves ?
I'm just curious, it is easy to cry wolf..
It's hard to imagine when you are so dependent of the system, and the system (the government has indoctrinated you).
First of all, you need to educate ppl. And that will take thousands of years I reckon. If you educate ppl and maybe the most important thing, if you raise your child and not let the government raise it for you (and these days I see that too often), you can teach ppl of peace, with that you can easily come to peaceful solutions in which all can have benefits.
Not only that, with education you can increase the technology advancement, so that all the work is done automatically (that way you loose the dependence of man to be paid for his work). You can easily reach the state in which all ppl have enough.
By educating ppl, and raising them not to hate, raising them not to be greedy, and to live in harmony you really lose any need of control.
This way government is controlling ppl to go out of bounds, but is also leaching us for it's own purpose (more power, and even more control).
I said 1000 yrs, because change is something that comes gradually. Violent change always fail.
First off I agree on education, I believe education of the masses (so to speak) is one of the most important things! And luckily for me, Denmark has one if not the highest acces to general education. ( http://www.economist.com/blogs/dailychart/2011/01/social_justice )
That being said, that government indoctrinates you is just such an oversimplified claim. Which government are you talking about ? China, yeah sure there the government does control huge amount of what goes on, in media, economics, military etc. Denmark is another story, UK another and USA a whole other.
Making a claim that a 1000 years from now we might have tech that could support a society without government is just bogus, sorry but it is. Talk about something that we can relate to, and if you wanna complain about the current way government regulates thing, then at least come with some alternatives or anything I, we, can use now. Leave the speculating of the future to distant philosophers.
And it seems to me that people are more and more relying on the government to take care and raise their children. Lets take Denmark as an example, here people are relatively free, and we, danish citizens enjoy loads of freedoms, but still parents are putting more and more of the burden of raising their children on institutions, instead of themselves. Are you saying thats not their choice, that the government is doing that ?
About government controlling people and leeching us for their own purpose. Look at it from this angle. America generally wants minimum government input on their affairs (lets keep the manipulation from the media to another discussion), they want the government to have less power. Well at least from my understanding thats what a lot of the political debate is about over there. In Denmark it is almost vice versa. And we do need some government control of people, and most important of economic/and firm policies. Adam Smith says that the "invisible hand" guides the most efficient allocation of resources, and all though I do whole heartedly agree with him. I also have to admit that we need some form of government to sometimes make sure that the allocation of resources is divided so to maximize the most social benefit of all, where as it otherwise often times wouldn't be the case.
"Zipfero is the biggest fucking golddigger ever" - Mutantius
Every government is the same. They set the rules and regulations which you must follow. If you brake them, you get punished.
But you can't question your government. You have no control over what the government is doing with your money.
America as an example. Millions are not satisfied with the war on terror thing, billions are spent (of the taxpayers money) on it and ppl can't do a single thing about it!
It's not oversimplified to say that government indoctrinates you. You are sent to public schools, ministry of education is choosing what you'll learn, they are pushing ppl into the mold that suits their needs.
I see it every day here. Finish your studies quickly so you could get some kind of job so you can pay taxes (and when government becomes greedy and corrupted like in Croatia, you get even worse case - high unemployment rate, etc.).
The ppl are not ready for a 'paradigm shift', either a direct democracy or anarchism, because one would fall under corruption, and the second would probably lead to violence - all coming from lack of education, and not just formal education where they make you learn how to do things their way, but the education where you learn how to think!
You think that you are enjoying freedoms, but they aren't really freedoms. If you were to stop paying taxes, you would go to jail. If you wouldn't pay your medical insurance you would be left to die, or at least poorly patch up and then left to die.
Government just want to create the illusion of freedom. State is the ultimate evil, because it institutionalize ppl in these virtual casts.
You say about the 'invisible hand' that guides the most efficient allocation of resources. But how do you know what are the most efficient allocation of resources? The problem is that ppl, today, are corrupt, and they will do what they have the most benefits from.
A perfect government doesn't exist, and cannot exist. You would have to make all ppl happy and today it just can't be made. That's why I said, in 1000 yrs (estimate, based on a hunch) maybe we'll evolve enough (unless we wipe out everything), and be ready for real freedom (utopia if you will).
"Quantum mechanics is actually, contrary to it's reputation, unbeliveably simple, once you take the physics out."
Scott Aaronson
chiv wrote:
thats true you know. newton didnt discover gravity. the apple told him about it, and then he killed it. the core was never found.
Every government is the same. They set the rules and regulations which you must follow. If you brake them, you get punished.
Agreed, some like the rules and are brought up by the social institutions to make well of for them selves. The people with jobs, and they enjoy a lot of freedoms. People who don't like them are brought up in the almost same social institutions, but done adhere to them as well and they are looked down upon by society as a result. Or punished.
Quote:
But you can't question your government. You have no control over what the government is doing with your money.
Of course you can question your government, some might be killed for it though, or put to jail. In other countries nobody probably just want to listen to you. Or in other countries government listen and they play the politics game and just talk about useless stuff that is happening now, and that can put themselves in a position of power.
Quote:
America as an example. Millions are not satisfied with the war on terror thing, billions are spent (of the taxpayers money) on it and ppl can't do a single thing about it!
I bet millions of Americans are satisfied with it as well. And them that are satisfied with it are probably dissatisfied with money being spent on health care.
Quote:
It's not oversimplified to say that government indoctrinates you. You are sent to public schools, ministry of education is choosing what you'll learn, they are pushing ppl into the mold that suits their needs.
Private school ? University in a lot of different countries you pay for your selves, and choose your own subject to write or learn about.
Besides that I would say that education is an institution that make us ready, give us the right tool, to survive, compete and make a living in the world we live in. Government or not, its the societies that make those rules, not the government.
Quote:
I see it every day here. Finish your studies quickly so you could get some kind of job so you can pay taxes (and when government becomes greedy and corrupted like in Croatia, you get even worse case - high unemployment rate, etc.).
Don't get me started on corruption. Yes it is bad when to much of it happens, but corruption serves it purpose as well, it make ways around the system. You can say it sometimes make a system work better. And if all people were properly educated a lot of these corruption cases would be better investigated and maybe a new system set up to fix it, or properly allocate it.
Quote:
The ppl are not ready for a 'paradigm shift', either a direct democracy or anarchism, because one would fall under corruption, and the second would probably lead to violence - all coming from lack of education, and not just formal education where they make you learn how to do things their way, but the education where you learn how to think!
You could educate me and all the people from here till the end of day, and you would not relive the world of violence. Educated people are just as capable do to violence, if not better capable then non-educated. Though we most likely, from my own assumptions, we see a fall in violence.
Quote:
You think that you are enjoying freedoms, but they aren't really freedoms. If you were to stop paying taxes, you would go to jail. If you wouldn't pay your medical insurance you would be left to die, or at least poorly patch up and then left to die.
Let me quote Aristotle "Taxes are what we pay for civilized society".
Without taxes we wouldn't have government that could regulate the inaccuracies that would otherwise make certain we couldn´'t enjoy other freedoms. What about murders or educated people that conduct fraud ?
Quote:
Government just want to create the illusion of freedom. State is the ultimate evil, because it institutionalize ppl in these virtual casts.
So government is more evil than a dictatorship ?
And saying it institutionalized people in different virtual casts are just wrong. It goes for many places around the world, but a lot of countries government give people the access to education and through education possibility to enter another caste then the one they were "born" into. Or go the other way down the ladder.
Quote:
You say about the 'invisible hand' that guides the most efficient allocation of resources. But how do you know what are the most efficient allocation of resources? The problem is that ppl, today, are corrupt, and they will do what they have the most benefits from.
And no government would change people being corrupt how exactly ?
It makes sure that resources go to people that want it the most. That production, consumption and distribution are allocated between people in the most efficient way. Now there are many different ways of looking how the most efficient allocation of resources is, two big ones are Keynes and Hayek. I my self agree with a lot of what Keynes, but generally I just adore Hayek and his laissez-fraire. (Which is were transactions are free from state intervention. Minimum government control, and in this case the "invisible hand" would take charge. Which is what I assume you would get with anarchy)
Quote:
A perfect government doesn't exist, and cannot exist. You would have to make all ppl happy and today it just can't be made. That's why I said, in 1000 yrs (estimate, based on a hunch) maybe we'll evolve enough (unless we wipe out everything), and be ready for real freedom (utopia if you will).
Yes exactly, it can never happen. People will always come from different end of a stick, and want something else, nothing will change this. I just think democracy makes the dead-weight loss at a minimum, and if you have other alternatives that can be used now, by all means feel free to tell me about it
(might be typos and other stuff, but this is by far my longest post and I don't want to go over it again just for typos. I'm sure you get the idea anyhow and if you don't, just ask )
"Zipfero is the biggest fucking golddigger ever" - Mutantius
Of course you can question your government, some might be killed for it though, or put to jail.
But that's exactly the thing - you can't question it, or what it's doing with your money. You can't control it, and it controls you. If you think that elections are making the difference you're wrong.
Government is the same - the components may have changed, but it's still the same machine.
fraich3 wrote:
Private school ? University in a lot of different countries you pay for your selves, and choose your own subject to write or learn about.
Besides that I would say that education is an institution that make us ready, give us the right tool, to survive, compete and make a living in the world we live in. Government or not, its the societies that make those rules, not the government.
The thing is, private or not, I had to go to university to meet the right ppl who would make me think. Actually think. Before that I learned stuff, but had no real, or really few benefits from.
Nobody is learning ppl how to think, because then ppl can see the uselesness of the system that's wanting obedient ppl.
fraich3 wrote:
...but corruption serves it purpose as well, it make ways around the system. You can say it sometimes make a system work better.
O_o You are saying corruption is good? You are saying that one person who's enjoing full benefits of this system, and more, while others have nothing to eat, is a good thing? Sorry but I can't see your reasoning on this one.
fraich3 wrote:
You could educate me and all the people from here till the end of day, and you would not relive the world of violence.
Not true. If you raise your kids right, in a good enviroment (I'm talking about global thing here), raising a child to be good is generally a good thing, but if the enviroment around him is hostile, his goodnes won't matter much (which is sadly what we have today).
But if all would raise their kids in a loving enviroment, where you encourage your children to prosper as individuals, respect other, think critically, they would grow up to do the same thing, and would treat others kindly (this is not some hippy blabber, it's real).
fraich3 wrote:
Let me quote Aristotle "Taxes are what we pay for civilized society".
Without taxes we wouldn't have government that could regulate the inaccuracies that would otherwise make certain we couldn´'t enjoy other freedoms. What about murders or educated people that conduct fraud ?
You are always relying on the goodnes of this system, and I'm saying it's wrong (the system). Sure it might be best in current situation, but it's not the apsolute best.
fraich3 wrote:
So government is more evil than a dictatorship ?
Well government is like a silent dictatorship. It works so well, and it makes ppl think that they are happy: if they work, have some money, buy some things (because that's the essence of capitalism - buying things, possesing, which is absolutely loudacris imo - ppl shouldn't need stuff to make them happy).
And sure you can progress in the system, but rarely you'll see ppl outside that will become ritch and have influence on others. In the end they are just being 'bread' to continue the existence of the state.
fraich3 wrote:
It makes sure that resources go to people that want it the most. That production, consumption and distribution are allocated between people in the most efficient way.
Not true! Again, USA spent billions if not trillions on war. And the benefit of that is? Not only could they use it for helping others, they could invest that in their own betterment - scientific advancement that leads to an increase in overall life standard.
Other countries are also spending billions on arming themselves, and if that went to food and education and infrastructure I think that would be better spent money (and better resource allocation).
My country for instance spent millions on various places, and most of that resources and money were spent on few ppl who were in the top of the government - most efficient allocation of money? I don't think so. You really believe that the government is doing things for the benefit of all?
fraich3 on a perfect government wrote:
Yes exactly, it can never happen. People will always come from different end of a stick, and want something else, nothing will change this
Again, with making ppl think we can change this corrupt system. But it takes time. First step could be direct democracy. But for it to work you need honesty, you would need ppl who can think and who have sight on general benefits.
"Quantum mechanics is actually, contrary to it's reputation, unbeliveably simple, once you take the physics out."
Scott Aaronson
chiv wrote:
thats true you know. newton didnt discover gravity. the apple told him about it, and then he killed it. the core was never found.
But that's exactly the thing - you can't question it, or what it's doing with your money. You can't control it, and it controls you. If you think that elections are making the difference you're wrong.
Government is the same - the components may have changed, but it's still the same machine.
How am I wrong ?
Right now, an I take my example from Denmark where I live cause that is the closet to my memory at the moment, we are going to have an election in approximately a year. And that the biggest difference the different parties are running on, is exactly the allocation of resources for public goods and how much should go to running different brands of government. We are talking school, health care, and other things that are government controlled in Denmark. Explain to my how my vote and the votes of others are not making a difference towards how we individually wants our society to be run. How we individually want to allocate our precious resources that we all pay through tax ? I'm curios here.
Quote:
The thing is, private or not, I had to go to university to meet the right ppl who would make me think. Actually think. Before that I learned stuff, but had no real, or really few benefits from.
Nobody is learning ppl how to think, because then ppl can see the uselesness of the system that's wanting obedient ppl.
We just have a different opinion of education then I guess. In my view the first 12-13 years you spend in school is not all about learning, it is about socializing and learning how to respectfully work with other people/students. Beside learning really basic stuff.
And what are you talking about nobody is learning people how to think?
In University, and so far through school what you learn and how you learn is so vitally connected to your individual teacher. Even in Uni they often set the pen-sum and reading list, and not some super evil government.
And you still have free press, you wanna buy and read a book about anarchism do it man, nobody is stopping you. You wanna hold lecture or make a study group about it, again go right ahead champ, I'll be there. Not because I'm a fan, I just love discussions.
But don't try and blame some evil government education conspiracy, where you are not free to learn or read what you want, when few people show up.
Quote:
O_o You are saying corruption is good? You are saying that one person who's enjoying full benefits of this system, and more, while others have nothing to eat, is a good thing? Sorry but I can't see your reasoning on this one.
It finds loopholes in the system, weed is an example jumping to mind. You should love this, since you apparently hate government ?
Besides, you eating food and people starving in Africa has nothing to do with corruption (or at least not the kind I'm talking about)
Quote:
Not true. If you raise your kids right, in a good enviroment (I'm talking about global thing here), raising a child to be good is generally a good thing, but if the enviroment around him is hostile, his goodnes won't matter much (which is sadly what we have today).
But if all would raise their kids in a loving enviroment, where you encourage your children to prosper as individuals, respect other, think critically, they would grow up to do the same thing, and would treat others kindly (this is not some hippy blabber, it's real).
Define good enviorment ? What is good for you might not be good for the person next door right ?
And for all the love and care in the world, people would still defend to their death their children. It is an never ending story.
Quote:
You are always relying on the goodnes of this system, and I'm saying it's wrong (the system). Sure it might be best in current situation, but it's not the apsolute best.
No, I'm not ignorant. I do however, again here in Denmark, rely on the government to give me tools so that I can take care of my self in this society that I live in. Even in this global world that I love being a part of.
Quote:
Well government is like a silent dictatorship. It works so well, and it makes ppl think that they are happy: if they work, have some money, buy some things (because that's the essence of capitalism - buying things, possesing, which is absolutely loudacris imo - ppl shouldn't need stuff to make them happy).
First off, you have misunderstood the definition of dictator. Which I will not go into detail with here, you are an educated man your self it seems, I'm sure you can find the right definition.
If you wanna talk about that, people being happy and all, then we are more on moral ethics. Again what makes people happy ? And if 85% of the population are happy, then who are you to tell them any different. Why should you way be any better in providing happiness to people ?
Plus I think it is a gross oversimplification of people, that capitalism makes them happy. Obviously that is not the truth, and again it is different from person to person.
And I agree with you, owning stuff shouldn't make people happy, in my case and that I know from others, experiences, travel or otherwise is what makes people happy.
Quote:
And sure you can progress in the system, but rarely you'll see ppl outside that will become ritch and have influence on others. In the end they are just being 'bread' to continue the existence of the state.
The richest man in Denmark was the son of a merchant, not especially rich.
Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, perhaps the most well like politician in Brazil and one to lead it into great progress, started off in humble beginnings.
My point here is that it does happen, and that people have the opportunity to do so and make it happen. Reason for it doesn't happen more often might just as well being that some people are inept or to lazy, but not that the system doesn't provide the opportunity.
Quote:
Not true! Again, USA spent billions if not trillions on war. And the benefit of that is? Not only could they use it for helping others, they could invest that in their own betterment - scientific advancement that leads to an increase in overall life standard.
Other countries are also spending billions on arming themselves, and if that went to food and education and infrastructure I think that would be better spent money (and better resource allocation).
My country for instance spent millions on various places, and most of that resources and money were spent on few ppl who were in the top of the government - most efficient allocation of money? I don't think so. You really believe that the government is doing things for the benefit of all?
I'm sure it benefited a lot of people in thinking that they are now more safe..
Besides, it was talking about markets and how the market allocates resources. Maybe I should have clarified that.
And I agree on that money spent on education and infrastructure would be better spent money and better allocated for the greater social benefit. But without some sort of government, maybe not the current, how can we secure this ?
Quote:
Again, with making ppl think we can change this corrupt system. But it takes time. First step could be direct democracy. But for it to work you need honesty, you would need ppl who can think and who have sight on general benefits.
I think education is key, but on the other hand I also think that you can have to much education. Not all people wanna spend 5-8 years in a University, some people want to travel, other go out and work right after high-school. And they should be able to do just that.
"Zipfero is the biggest fucking golddigger ever" - Mutantius
- All your arguments are based on your belief that government is doing the thing it does so that you could have benefits. So that you could be happy and free. But that's not freedom.
You are given a choice to choose ppl who will run the government, but the government is still the government - one to tell you what you need to do.
- I believe that education shouldn't be just for getting information on how to get by. You said that you learn how to socialise and work with others, that's true, in a sense you are in a group having interactions with others. But you can get that through a debate, an open conversation, you don't need school for that. If you could inspire the children to ask, inquire, actually think, and make valid logical conclusions, you could as well organise
debates in the open, the socialising effect would be achieved, and even more beneficial.
In schools you are graded. If you know sth that is in the curriculum then all is great. But nobody will ask your opinion on a matter. They are just filling you up with stuff. Not encouraging you to think, debate and get conclusions. That, if you are lucky and you can afford it, will happen later if you go to university or you have an open mind.
- About corruption. I don't think that you can justify it just to find loopholes in the system. That in itselves is admitting that the system is flawed (my point). Corruption has widespread effects. By acquiring a wealth and not sharing it (I'm talking about ppl in government in top positions for example), better not sharing, but just not taking what's not yours, but common good, you are damaging the society.
- Good environment is a peaceful one. Peace is beneficial to all (you really cannot deny that, and don't go and say: but war can benefit some in the means of getting ppl to work in the factories etc. that's just pure bullshit. No one can benefit from war. In war there really is no winning side).
In a peaceful environment you wouldn't get the need to attack, or worry that your child will be in a harms way.
- You really think that there are many ppl who control the government? This is not conspiracy theory, but only few men (women) have actual power. Prime minister and ministers control everything that goes on in the state. You have the division of power (executive, legislature and judiciary), but the real power is among few men who decide 'what is good' for ppl. And that is just dictatorship. They won't openly oppress you, but they are restrciting you with laws. And not to mention the never ending story of corruption.
You think that ppl are happy, just because they don't ask questions. They don't think because it's easier, it's easier to watch tv and turn off, then actually ask your self some philosophical questions (you need to have some experience to do that, will). I for instance love to think about things. It's cool to see where my mind can get me.
- System provides opportunity for getting rich or get in power, but that's not my point, the point is they will become the part of the system.
- How can state of war make ppl think they are safe? All it can do is make more scared and paranoid that they'll get attacked. So no, spending money on that is not a good thing. War is never a good thing.
- In the end it's the ppl who are a part of the government. If you wouldn't have greed, corruption, if you would have a peaceful environment people would naturally distribute the resources where they think it's the most important (direct democracy). You don't need one big giant system to do that. Sure the state wouldn't exist in todays terms, but that's the point! You would get small organized structure that can take care of itself. With the proper education you can do everything. And you don't need to stay in school for 10 yrs. We learn all our lives. If you had the freedom to learn what you want, without being pressured to do that in a short amount of time, I'm sure you'd do well just as if you'd gone to the uni.
I don't want to quote everything, this debate alone is massive so i just put - at each paragraph that would approximately refer to your responses
"Quantum mechanics is actually, contrary to it's reputation, unbeliveably simple, once you take the physics out."
Scott Aaronson
chiv wrote:
thats true you know. newton didnt discover gravity. the apple told him about it, and then he killed it. the core was never found.
Signature/Avatar nuking: none (can be changed in your profile)
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
)
so i just put - at each paragraph that would approximately refer to your responses 
