Philosophy Discussion Forums

Wilson wrote:

Mark1955 wrote: Their advantage [our problem] might be that even big government in a Scandinavian country is smaller, more personal, probably less stupidly bureaucratic than a state government in the US because these countries are all small in terms of population. My prime reason to vote for Brexit was that the EU is too large. Big, to me, equals mindless one size fits all rules, rigidly enforced by jobsworth little tin Hitlers, or not actually enforced because there are so many rules no one can be bothered. To me the solution in the US would be devolve everything but defence to the States and think very hard whether you really want one currency.

The solution, as always in nature, is competition. The larger the governing entity, the greater the bargaining power on the world stage on the entity's behalf and the greater the economies of scale and reduction of duplication. Therefore smaller devolved states will tend to be out-competed and ultimately, pushed around, on the global stage by larger, functionally united, entities.

Grotto19 wrote:The Greeks who founded Democracy understood the importance of civic involvement. They used to shame people heavily for being uninformed or not voting. Being politically informed was a duty of all Greek men. In our democracies now we still hang on the notion the people should vote but forgot about the being informed portion.... So no Democracy is no longer the highest form of enlightened governance. We are going to need a new solution, or we will drown/starve/ be irradiated in our ignorance.

Criticism is easy, now what's the alternative.

Mark1955 wrote:

Grotto19 wrote:The Greeks who founded Democracy understood the importance of civic involvement. They used to shame people heavily for being uninformed or not voting. Being politically informed was a duty of all Greek men. In our democracies now we still hang on the notion the people should vote but forgot about the being informed portion.... So no Democracy is no longer the highest form of enlightened governance. We are going to need a new solution, or we will drown/starve/ be irradiated in our ignorance.

Criticism is easy, now what's the alternative.

My answer to that is simple, Geniocracy. But it will never sell, particularly to the Jersey shore masses. So do not blame me for being a critic without a solution, instead blame me for being a critic without enough firepower to ram it down the gullets of the masses. And I do mean firepower because that is the only way lasting political change is made. But yeah I do have an answer, I am not a pontificating blathering ****. I just need a few more smart people and a lot of idiots with guns behind me.

-- Updated May 20th, 2017, 4:04 am to add the following --

And before ego come into question if I did manage it the first order of buisness would be putting somone much more intelegent than me in charge.

-- Updated May 20th, 2017, 4:07 am to add the following --

But being intelligent would be a must have before even being considered that and well educated in multiple disciplines. At least for the highest office running the most powerful nation in the world. One would think this was common sence until lately.

Grotto19 wrote:

Mark1955 wrote: (Nested quote removed.)

Criticism is easy, now what's the alternative.

My answer to that is simple, Geniocracy. But it will never sell, particularly to the Jersey shore masses. So do not blame me for being a critic without a solution, instead blame me for being a critic without enough firepower to ram it down the gullets of the masses. And I do mean firepower because that is the only way lasting political change is made. But yeah I do have an answer, I am not a pontificating blathering ****. I just need a few more smart people and a lot of idiots with guns behind me.

-- Updated May 20th, 2017, 4:04 am to add the following --

And before ego come into question if I did manage it the first order of buisness would be putting somone much more intelegent than me in charge.

-- Updated May 20th, 2017, 4:07 am to add the following --

But being intelligent would be a must have before even being considered that and well educated in multiple disciplines. At least for the highest office running the most powerful nation in the world. One would think this was common sence until lately.

First a question. Who gets to define intelligence and set the exam. All tests are set by people with biases and those biases will infect the questions and answers [at it's simplest a marxist setting the test will require answers to agree about the inevitable decline of capitalism].

Then an observation, if you need to use a gun you know have a lousy argument.

My neighbour, who was and is a passionate remainer, spoke to me the other day and still feels that the brexit referendum doesnt count because:

1. Cameron only promised an election to get re-elected.
2. It was a close result.
3. Britain wasnt asked to leave the EU and we can still change our minds and stay in the EU if we wish.
4. People who voted to leave the EU didnt know what they were doing.
5. Most people voted to leave as a protest vote, ie it was a vote against the tories and the government, rather than a genuine vote out of the EU (according to my neighbour)
6. The country is going to experience a terrible financial crash because of Brexit.
7. If we were going to leave we should have planned it so that we can create the kinds of employees that employers want.

I personally feel that, the votes of working class and older people shouldn't be dismissed. They are the ones who have lived the realities of the past few decades since joining the EU and seen the effects. The world isn't going to come to an end, and any talk of a big crash is like all the talk of Y2K or the 2008 crash..the world keeps turning and we soon bounce back. We all get up the next day and go to work.

It doesn't make a difference to me why the referendum was called, if it was a 'mistake' or because of Cameron's personal decision. That's politics and that's life. There will always be the element of the personalities involved in history, and an element of chance, as we are only human. Would we have gone to war in Iraq if Blair wasn't so charismatic? With a different prime minister history may have been very different. A close vote is still democratic, and I don't think people who voted remain would be dismissing the result if it had been the other way around. You cant just negate every vote that disagrees with you.

The split will take several years in reality so we do have time to get ready. It may mean better jobs and more skilled labour for working class people. Or it may mean things aren't much different really, we'll lose in some areas and gain in others, swop one set of problems for another. I don't think we can turn around and change our minds now though as that would make us look ludicrous after all this bloody fuss! We'd be a laughing stock and lose all credibility.

Yet nothings set in stone either. We can always change things in the future in a couple of generations, if its not working, maybe when the conditions are more in line with what we want. At the moment there are clearly issues that need to come to the surface and be dealt with. Even if those issues do turn out to be that the education system isn't preparing people to vote and learn critical thinking skills. And the result speaks to deeper issues regarding global social policy, the movement of people, rapid mixing of cultures and the feeling of being run by a homogenising bureaucracy. These things are felt in poorer, working class areas, not by the rich. We cant assume racism was at the heart of the leave vote. There will have been some racists, of course, but not half the country!

I do actually know some upper class people who voted out because they felt that some countries in the EU are bankrupt and we were just paying to carry them and bail them out, instead of keeping the money for ourselves.

I will add that I didn't actually vote myself! I was so on the fence I decided a non vote would be most appropriate, to remain neutral.

Mark1955 wrote:First a question. Who gets to define intelligence and set the exam. All tests are set by people with biases and those biases will infect the questions and answers [at it's simplest a marxist setting the test will require answers to agree about the inevitable decline of capitalism].

Then an observation, if you need to use a gun you know have a lousy argument.

No you are talking about testing Dogma, which is all we ever do with our politicians and leaders. Your mentality isn’t part of the problem it is the problem. Intelligence has little to no relationship to opinions. Communism is a flavor, a choice or preference of belief on how the world should operate. Matters of flavor have no basis in intelligence they are opinions. I love chicken wings…a lot….probably too much. This says nothing about my intellect and if you don’t like them it says nothing about yours.

Matters of measurable quantification, ability and capacity to learn, capability to solve problems these are the metrics of intelligence and they are quite measurable by either a communist or a capitalist. A communist economist can be measured as quite brilliant even when measured by capitalist psychologists. Because we measure knowledge and capacity to learn and adapt not beliefs. So please learn the terms before trying to argue. There are intelligent people in every party, every belief system, and every nation. Matters of morals are not matters of intellect. One can be brilliant and morally bankrupt (Voltaire anyone), and one can also be an idiot but morally without flaw. The two are not related to each other much at all.

And to your last remark if you need a gun… I can only laugh. It is to pitiful to even address. Have you ever cracked a history book? Political change only ever comes from two places. 1 violent men commanded by the new regime. 2. Men who have enough wealth to strangle you into submission. There is no option 3 except maybe Tibet, and we see how that worked out.

Mark1955:

Then an observation, if you need to use a gun you know have a lousy argument.

This raises some interesting questions. In Socratic terms - what does the “stronger argument” mean? There is a connection with the claim that might makes right and the relationship between philosophy and sophistry. There is a double sense of what it means to have the stronger argument. Superior argumentative skills may produce an argument that is stronger in one sense than the others that are offered, but this does not mean, for example, that someone is guilty or innocent because a lawyer persuaded the jury. It may be an example of might makes right - the might of the lawyer’s or sophist’s or philosopher’s rhetorical skills.

Approaching the problem from a different angle, a rigorous logical argument supported by factual evidence may be no better than a lousy argument if one is either incapable of following the argument or one is convinced that he is right despite what anyone who disagrees might say.

Several great posts since I last visited this thread...

I agree with the point raised by Wilson and commented by Mark1955 about the benefit of smaller units of governance, evident in more even distribution of wealth in smaller countries, yet with Greta's valid point that smaller economies usually become dominated by larger economies. The solution to this is to maintain a large federal economy but with much smaller units of governance. I mention in another post "Does Natural Law Theory reach a dead end” that I’m compelled to conceive a new politico-economic social system I’ve named Pluracracy, that is centered around individuals and the inherent human nature.

Pluracracy

The people are the natural owner by birth or Naturalization of the land, air, and water, as well as all the natural resources within.

The people are the governing body represented trough government.

The government of the people is charged with protection of the land (Military) and the natural resources in the corporate relationship of the board of directors (government) and the stock holders (the people)

The people (stock holders) receive equal dividends from the proceeds obtained from the commercial usage of the land and the resources

Separation of the government (people) economy and the free market economy, as Federal Reserve that prints its own two currency system and privatized Central Bank with its own currency

It’s a work in progress to lay down the theoretical framework within basic criteria:

- Human desire for cooperation
- Human desire to belong to a social unit that one can identify with
- Human desire for kinship and acceptance
- Based on simplified human profile of 8 motives that drive human thoughts and actions
- Must be efficient without disenfranchising any individual
- Respects the right to privacy especially for the introverted or reclusive personalities
- Is found on fair wealth distribution (well defined concept of “fair” and “just”)
- Eliminates human suffering and poverty
- Must be entirely voluntary
- Rewords moral behavior in incentive of personal profit with two currency system (economic and social)
- Must be based on the inherent skills of the population
- Corruption of power is circumvented by distributing governance among 7 Factions
- Nationalized Free Healthcare System separate from Private Healthcare System

Federal, State, and Regional Factions as units of political, economic, and social entities charged with:

1. Logistics – Central leaders in charge of coordinating the will of the people and functions of other factions. Collects data on the goals of the society and the labor force available in each faction. If we need more bridges then we need more robust engineer faction.
2. Naturalist - Environmental protection, Agriculture, Healthcare, CDC, FDA, etc.
3. Engineers – Infrastructure development and maintenance, Energy, Housing, Transport, Telecommunication
4. Science – Education and Research
5. Order – Judiciary and Moral law, military and police force
6. Culture – Art, Philosophy, Religion
7. Economic – Negotiates contracts and business with Commercial business and Stock exchange, Currency and interest rates, advertising.

Benefits

1. No one is misrepresented or disenfranchised
2. It’s in the interest of the population to keep population growth at a steady level (increased number of shareholders reduces the stock value)
3. Fair wealth distribution based on labor and moral conduct
4. Elimination of poverty, where the minimum basic needs are ensured by the citizen’s dividends.
5. Efficiency – elimination of unemployment or underemployment. Fair labor competition based on desire for wealth versus skill. In each case both competitors benefit in net profit. Everyone benefits from increase in the overall social wealth from the commercial dividends. Skill proficiency is mentored within the faction based on merit and pragmatism. Cooperation rather than competition is balancing the overall human interests. No more inefficiency in waste of time in search for employment.
6. Elimination of Patent System in free flow of intellectual information shared openly with commercial free market, in symbiotic relationship of commercial growth and profits from dividends
7. Adequacy reflected in the desires of the population
8. Full Health coverage to all citizens
9. Every human action is a potential for wealth, work becomes an archaic concept.
10. War becomes a ridiculous proposition as a waste of resources
11. Modern city design: Green, Functional, with well Integrated smart transportation
12. Elimination of poverty drastically reduces crime

This can be done as a virtual society Pilot Program or actual human Social Project useful in possible future colonization of other planets

Belinda wrote:Working class, undereducated, older or middle aged people are largely those who voted to leave the European union, is probably a fact.

You are wrong right there.

And I can prove it.

Working class, undereducated, older or middle aged people are NOT the only ones, not even largely, who voted to leave the European union.

If they were, then the vote would have been (Leave the union? "Yes, leave, 16%" "no, Don't leave, 80%."

White, middle-aged or older, working class, fat and balding, undereducated males are only 16% of the population.

-----------------------

I hate this across-the-board bashing of all middle-aged or older, undereducated, fat and balding white working class males.

You'd hate it too, if you were one of them. Lucky for you, Belinda, you are a woman. It's fashionable these days to be a woman.

It's also fashionable these days to bash old white fat balding lower-than-middle class losers.

I wish the fashion will pass.

Because, you see, I am one of them.

Fooloso4:

This raises some interesting questions. In Socratic terms - what does the “stronger argument” mean? There is a connection with the claim that might makes right and the relationship between philosophy and sophistry. There is a double sense of what it means to have the stronger argument. Superior argumentative skills may produce an argument that is stronger in one sense than the others that are offered, but this does not mean, for example, that someone is guilty or innocent because a lawyer persuaded the jury. It may be an example of might makes right - the might of the lawyer’s or sophist’s or philosopher’s rhetorical skills.

Approaching the problem from a different angle, a rigorous logical argument supported by factual evidence may be no better than a lousy argument if one is either incapable of following the argument or one is convinced that he is right despite what anyone who disagrees might say.

I guess it's only possible to make any comparison between the merits of arguments if it is assumed, as a prerequisite, that all arguments have been equally well understood. As you seem to have suggested, in arguments about such things as law and politics, argumentative skill is such a big factor that perhaps comparisons are impossible. As opposed to a mathematical argument.

Steve3007 wrote:Fooloso4:

This raises some interesting questions. In Socratic terms - what does the “stronger argument” mean? There is a connection with the claim that might makes right and the relationship between philosophy and sophistry. There is a double sense of what it means to have the stronger argument. Superior argumentative skills may produce an argument that is stronger in one sense than the others that are offered, but this does not mean, for example, that someone is guilty or innocent because a lawyer persuaded the jury. It may be an example of might makes right - the might of the lawyer’s or sophist’s or philosopher’s rhetorical skills.

Approaching the problem from a different angle, a rigorous logical argument supported by factual evidence may be no better than a lousy argument if one is either incapable of following the argument or one is convinced that he is right despite what anyone who disagrees might say.

I guess it's only possible to make any comparison between the merits of arguments if it is assumed, as a prerequisite, that all arguments have been equally well understood. As you seem to have suggested, in arguments about such things as law and politics, argumentative skill is such a big factor that perhaps comparisons are impossible. As opposed to a mathematical argument.

Goes beyond understanding the arguments. The failure or success of a speech in parliament or by a lawyer in court may depend on the personal experiences and ensuing perceptions of the jury. If all twelve had their bicycles stolen the day before the trial began, they may be more inclined to consider the crown's (or DA's) pleas to convict a thief of bicycles to be a stronger argument than those of a hapless lawyer who did not know what hit him (when he found out that his final address to the jury proved to be ineffective.)

I had also been thinking about this idea of "collective groups".
For instance:
I'm sure that most of us realize that the social media is really worthless in value without the people. All the revenue is generated by the content that people create by expressing their thought, Ideas, images etc. That's what generates the "value" or wealth for the company... the people. It was always curious to me how silly the media enterprise really is, not really, people are silly to pay for something such as cable to watch content with commercials... hilarious. All those unemployed, homeless, home bound mothers and fathers could be sitting in front of a computer generating wealth by just talking. It's always some crafty individual or group of individuals that come up with ways to profit of others, where it could be done that everyone profits by having an equal "share" in the social media company, that could become a "self governing" entity. Not difficult to imagine. I wish that I was better at coding java...

Ranvier wrote:I had also been thinking about this idea of "collective groups".
For instance:
I'm sure that most of us realize that the social media is really worthless in value without the people. All the revenue is generated by the content that people create by expressing their thought, Ideas, images etc. That's what generates the "value" or wealth for the company... the people. It was always curious to me how silly the media enterprise really is, not really, people are silly to pay for something such as cable to watch content with commercials... hilarious. All those unemployed, homeless, home bound mothers and fathers could be sitting in front of a computer generating wealth by just talking. It's always some crafty individual or group of individuals that come up with ways to profit of others, where it could be done that everyone profits by having an equal "share" in the social media company, that could become a "self governing" entity. Not difficult to imagine. I wish that I was better at coding java...

Reminds me of the greatest discovery in macroeconomics, which I can't explain, and can't internalize, but have fully accepted as truth: that for a healthy economy the most important thing is for lots of money to change hands for goods and services. I don't know why this is important, and how it works, but it does.

The boom in Japan back in the nineteen eighties was replaced by an economic slump, and no Jap understood why; it's because they, their culture, their entire lifestyle, was into saving, into not spending more than absolutely necessary. So they came to an overproduction crisis domestically. By that time they could not expand internationally, and the domestic market was bismal... they also did not pay very much wages to anyone, across the entire board, from workers to CEOs.

This is now happening in China. The international markets are brimming with Chinese-made stuff, but the domestic consumption got the consumption, and it just would not take off. Again, because of the frugality.

This shew me the that moving money around is very important. Why? How? What the mechanics of it is? I have no understanding of THAT.

It is similar to what you said: unemployed homeless people sitting in their mother's basement, typing crap onto forums, and thereby generating a healthy economy.

-- Updated 2017 August 26th, 10:49 am to add the following --

Forgot to say, that in contrast to the cultural expectations and norms in the far East, in the USA everyone gets paid more than Jap equivalencies in socio-economic stratum, and everyone spends more than even that (more than their income). This is the Western world, by-and-large, not just the USA. The protestant North. And the US economy is weathering very well even the current, which is the largest, overproduction crisis in their history, because of reckless abandon and conspicuous consumption.

This is one reason why some of the most serious mental diseases supply survival advantages to groups. People on bipolar mood disorder spend like crazy when they are in the manic state. This must have pulled more than its share of economies out of the slump.

I'm not an expert in macroeconomics either but it's a valid premise in the benefit for diversification and constant flow of the capital. Any stagnation (in any concept) isn't good. Wealth, especially in the service economy that doesn't produce much in physical goods, must relay on a constant movement of the capital (people) and (money) to drive the "current" for the production of the capital (population) and (money). If you think about what "wealth" or "money" really is, you'll realize that "products" (durable/non durable goods and people) is the will for production. If no one has "will", then you won't produce anything. To drive the "will" we (humans) invented the concept of "money" and "credit" at interest to force the will for the production (labor). Historically, the problem becomes in what is being produced in order to make profit, forcing people to produce what they don't really need (ensured by advertising) so that people can be forced into jobs that they don't want to perform.

What I suggest is to leave commercial interests to the "specialists" and to let the people produce what they enjoy doing

-1- wrote:

Belinda wrote:Working class, undereducated, older or middle aged people are largely those who voted to leave the European union, is probably a fact.

You are wrong right there.

And I can prove it.

Working class, undereducated, older or middle aged people are NOT the only ones, not even largely, who voted to leave the European union.

If they were, then the vote would have been (Leave the union? "Yes, leave, 16%" "no, Don't leave, 80%."

White, middle-aged or older, working class, fat and balding, undereducated males are only 16% of the population.

-----------------------

I hate this across-the-board bashing of all middle-aged or older, undereducated, fat and balding white working class males.



You'd hate it too, if you were one of them. Lucky for you, Belinda, you are a woman. It's fashionable these days to be a woman.

It's also fashionable these days to bash old white fat balding lower-than-middle class losers.

I wish the fashion will pass.

You don't have to be undereducated because you are old, fat, and lower middle class. You are not a loser. I voted Remain, did you?

-- Updated August 27th, 2017, 6:43 pm to add the following --

PS the last line of the above post was Belindi's. The format for quotations is not very obvious.