Home of the Free [Archive] - RPGWatch Forums

Prime Junta

August 31st, 2007, 10:56

Something Squeak said got me thinking. America is called the Land or Home of the Free ( I can't remember which at my age :) ), but this applies to many countries. In what ways are 'we' free? We don't really have freedom of speech, libel and slander laws, not to mention political correctness etc. destroy that.

"Land of the free, home of the brave" is the phrase you're looking for, I believe.

Freedom is not an absolute. It's relative. Freedom is always constrained, either by force or by social convention. However, the degree to which it is constrained varies greatly between countries, periods, and situations. For example, compare a Roman slave working the quarries of Mons Claudianus in Egypt, a "kolkhoznik" in Stalin's Soviet Union, a contemporary Saudi Arabian woman, a Parisian office worker, and a Montanan rancher. I think most people would agree that the Montanan is a lot freer than the Roman slave, even if they might disagree about whether the Parisian is freer than the Montanan, or vice versa.

I believe this is the best way I can answer your question of "in what sense are we free."

Plus where is freedom of speech when Americans can't pray in schools or read the Bible because of so called separation of church and state?

That's not true. Americans are perfectly free to pray in schools, in or out of class. However, schools are not allowed to organize prayers -- for example, a teacher leading the Lord's Prayer in front of class.

Second, there are different restrictions to freedom in different contexts. For example, a pupil is not free to get up and leave class, and you're not free to start singing Waltzing Matilda at the top of your lungs at church during that Lord's Prayer. Moreover, children do not enjoy the same freedoms as adults.

IOW, there are two fallacies in your question: one, the premise is incorrect, and two, it equivocates between restrictions to freedom at school and restrictions to freedom in general. Therefore, I can't answer it.

There are many other examples of where people are not free, so what are your thoughts on the topic of freedom?!

That could fill a bunch of books, actually. I've thought about it a quite a lot. I don't know if anyone would want to read them, though.

In a small nutshell, I believe that a society should be as free as it can be without falling into anarchy. This is necessarily a quite a bit less free than "absolute freedom," because restrictions to freedom -- the social contract -- is what enables cooperation and the benefits of a society.

PS. Why not anarchy? Because it's not a stable system, at least not until we reach a level of production that totally eliminates all scarcity. Every anarchic society larger than a "band" unit to date has pretty quickly devolved into mob or strongman rule. Until someone convincingly demonstrates a way around this, I'm not buying that brand of Kool-Aid.

PPS. If someone brings up medieval Iceland, I would suggest they do a bit of research into how it really worked, rather than the romanticized depictions of anarchist writers. Like, slavery, whoever comes to the Allthing with the biggest group of armed men gets the vote, that sort of thing.

Prime Junta

August 31st, 2007, 10:57

It's the "land of the free and home of the brave." (From the american national anthem)

We are free to do as we are told. :)

Or, as someone put it, free to stay at the Waldorf Astoria or sleep under a bridge.

Korplem

August 31st, 2007, 11:20

I think this is the first time I totally agree with you, PJ.

Prime Junta

August 31st, 2007, 12:16

I think this is the first time I totally agree with you, PJ.

That's... worrying. If it goes on, I'll risk getting kicked out of the International Contrarian Fraternity...

Squeek

August 31st, 2007, 18:13

The issue about school prayer pertains solely to public schools, and that's because those are funded by taxes, Corwin. Everyone pays them, but not everyone shares the same religious views. It's an issue because it's a free society, not despite it. Courts have ruled against organized prayer, but kids are still free to pray when they want to or read books like the Bible.

I travel, and everywhere I go folks seem to have their own perceptions of the world and of the US in particular. I have to admit they always seem a little odd to me at first. Sometimes I end up finding them insightful and valuable. Other times I decide they really are just odd.

Once I was in Tokyo with a client and close friend, a wealthy businessman. He was being "wined and dined" by a pair of young Japanese, and I was along for the ride. I had never experienced anything like that. We could have had just about anything we wanted. All we had to do was ask.

We wound up in a Sushi bar late that night, and I made a comment about having to stop drinking or I'd end up in The Betty Ford Clinic. My friend cautioned me. "They think we do drugs every day," he said with total seriousness. That struck me as crazy, and I turned to them with a doubting expression on my face. "It's ok...it's ok,” they said over and over, nodding up and down vigorously, assuring me that they had no problem with our American drug addictions.

In the US, and especially here in California, folks visit from all over the world, including plenty from Japan. None have that particular perception. But they all tend to say the same thing: They don't understand the US back home. The perspective is different there. If they were to come here and experienced it for themselves, then they would understand.

Gallifrey

September 1st, 2007, 01:32

I concur exactly with PJ, his thoughts echo mine on the matter of freedom. Freedom is not absolute by any means, and that is not what the term implies. If there were absolute freedom, it would very quickly disappear as the freedoms of some would utterly destroy (by fear, by persecution, etc) the freedoms of others.

To me, a free society essentially means the ability to live my life as I see fit as long as it is in accordance with the laws (what PJ nicely called the social contract). Largely, laws are there to balance freedoms, to make sure that such freedom is as wide spread across the population as is possible, while not tipping the scales into either anarchy or totalitarianism.

We absolutely have freedom of speech, just as people offended, insulted or damaged by that speech have the freedom to pursue legal recourse against you, just by way of one example.

I believe that we in North America, Europe, Australia and other democratic nations are extremely free. Boundaries are necessary and I'm very glad they are there, so I don't really have much to complain about in terms of my own freedoms.

Corwin

September 1st, 2007, 03:11

mudsling3

September 1st, 2007, 05:23

you are old, you certainly have the freedom to "offend" someone, but prepare to suffer the consequence, whatever that maybe. Just like you are "free" to steal, but once get cought... Freedom doesn't mean there is no consequence.

By this definition, almost everyone is a slave, not just kidding
A serious documentry done by Aaron Russo, a must-see
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1656880303867390173&q=America%3A+Freedom+to+Fascism&total=797&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0

Pladio

September 1st, 2007, 05:54

It goes both ways. Freedom to choose those laws made it acceptable to kill Tutsis in Rwanda and Jews, Gypsies and Homosexuals in Europe. Total freedom leads to anarchy while no freedom leads to slavery. Almost every country is in there between, some closer to one side and some closer to another side.

curiously undead

September 1st, 2007, 09:07

@corwin- yes and its why the "golden" rule in many ways is a good target but ultimately its nothing but pyrite. yet only when peoples/societies views and goals converge is freedom more than just a bumper sticker.

Gallifrey

September 1st, 2007, 14:56

So what you're saying is we have limited freedom which is close to an oxymoron. Yes total freedom would be a frightening proposition, but who determines those limits and why should THEY have that right. Often it's not the 'so called' elected officials, but those with agendas behind them. I have 'freedom' of speech, so long as I don't offend anyone, but who decides what is offensive? What I find offensive might be 'normal' speech for someone else!!

Who decides and writes the laws and how they get to that position differs depending on which country you live in. But people are either put there by elected officials, or by result of direct elections by the populace. So these people, elected or placed there by those elected, must serve the best interests of the general populace, and, in writing laws, their own interests as well. They must have demonstrated experience, knowledge, understanding, comprehension and so on in order to be given the trust placed in them.
Corrupt, less-free governments will of course be more manipulative and agenda-backed than those in a more democratic society.

You absolutely have freedom of speech and to offend. To paraphrase somebody who's name I cannot remember "I may not agree with what you say, but I'll fight for your right to say it.", this holds very true. You can say what you want, but others can respond accordingly. Being offended is unavoidable, many people offend me and those same people are often given money from perfectly legitimate sources to allow them to say what they want in bigger and far-reaching ways.

As for who decides what it offensive, it depends on the offense. If it's damaging, the courts decide and allow the proper course of actions to be taken. If it just pisses you off, well, that's part of life.

Ubereil

September 1st, 2007, 16:37

There's a big debate in the local newspaper about freedom of speech for the moment. The trigger was an article about the Lars Viik cartoons (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy) where the writer claimed that freedom of religion goes hand in hand with freedom to insult that religion. The "controvercy" (once again) was that one of the cartoons (one where the prophet Muhammed was painted as a roundabout dog (a common thing to do in Sweden is for private persons to make a model of a dog and place it in the middle of a roundabout, hence the expression)). The local muslim comunity had a small demostration outside of the newspaper's main bulding demanding an apology. And somewhere in some far away muslim country some local yahoos burned a green and yellow swedish flag (http://www.sweden.se/upload/Sweden_se/english/Theme%20sites/Celebrating/Nationaldagen_flagga.jpg) (note how... blue the real flag is ;)). The debate from the newspapers side after that was that they weren't backing down just because the muslims said they should, since they had the right to print the pictures (which they had).

The most usuall point made in the debate (IMO) though was made by a local polititian (from the major swedish party, the Social Democrats). I said that he didn't challenge their right to print the picture, but he still think they did wrong to post them. Because as a member of the Swedish society (and any society. Or as a human being if you like) you have a responsibility towards other pepole. That's too often lost in the debate, since pepole seem to whine a lot about their rights while forgetting their responsibilities (quite naturally, rights are often funnier than responsibilities :D).

Übereil

Squeek

September 1st, 2007, 20:48

Liberated people are free to say and do things they sometimes really shouldn't say or do, and that can cause problems. Thankfully, those situations tend to be obvious, and most people have the good sense to avoid them.

We all know that some folks are smarter than others and that we all make mistakes from time to time -- no big deal. It becomes difficult, though, when ideologists take the wrong stands.

Ralph Nader is a perfect example of that. Bush was originally elected in 2000 after Nader insisted on running as a third-party candidate to promote his ideology. He was warned that his candidacy might draw enough supporters from the Democrats to hand Bush the election, but he insisted it was worth it.

Does anyone remember the ideology Nader was promoting? Does anyone think it was worth it?

Gallifrey

September 1st, 2007, 23:29

Ralph Nader is a perfect example of that. Bush was originally elected in 2000 after Nader insisted on running as a third-party candidate to promote his ideology. He was warned that his candidacy might draw enough supporters from the Democrats to hand Bush the election, but he insisted it was worth it.

Does anyone remember the ideology Nader was promoting? Does anyone think it was worth it?

Well, it was worth it because it maintained the proper structure of a democratic voting system. Nader had every right to run, and every right to not listen to people saying don't run because Bush will get elected. It's up to the people who to vote for, after all.
What would happen if America were strictly limited to a two-party system, would that be considered free? I don't think so.
Unfortunately it's also true that in such a situation, the rights of those running for office to run do turn in counterproductive results, at least for the short term.

In Canada, we have three main political parties - Conservatives (currently in power as a minority government), Liberals and New Democratic Party. Quebec has the Parti Quebecois added into the mix, and there's a "fringe" party gaining momentum, The Green Party.
Now, what's happened is that the Conservatives are in with a minority government because they did not get enough votes to form a majority. However, because they are the only right-of-centre party, they attract all those votes (save for the loons who vote for the hardcore Christian parties). The left-of-centre vote is split between Liberal and NDP, and now the Greens are siphoning votes from there. We had similar claims last election that the NDP would hand the Conservatives leadership - collectively Canada votes more towards the left, but that vote is split. If you look at the numbers, a vast majority of the left-of-centre vote outweighs the smaller right, yet here we are with a Conservative government. But that's no reason to say they cannot and should not present themselves as a valid political choice.
Parties and their ideologies last longer than one politician, so those parties have every right to build themselves up. In the long run it's better to have choices than no choice at all.

Squeek

September 2nd, 2007, 01:26

I'm not questioning Nader's rights -- I'm questioning his judgement. His reasons for staying in the race were purely ideological, by his own admission. In hindsight, I think he was foolish to have taken that particular stand.

Prime Junta

September 2nd, 2007, 01:29

So what you're saying is we have limited freedom which is close to an oxymoron.

No more so than for any characteristic. There are precious few things in this world that are absolutes, and most of those live in the realm of concepts rather than concrete objects. Consider "power," for example: most people would agree that the Emperor Hadrian was more powerful than my hypothetical slave in Mons Claudianus, yet Hadrian's power was limited as well -- he could not prevent the suicide of Antinous, nor thoroughly defeat the Picts, for example. Is "limited power" an oxymoron too?

Yes total freedom would be a frightening proposition, but who determines those limits and why should THEY have that right. Often it's not the 'so called' elected officials, but those with agendas behind them. I have 'freedom' of speech, so long as I don't offend anyone, but who decides what is offensive? What I find offensive might be 'normal' speech for someone else!!

Are you familiar with the term "intersubjectivity?" It describes a process of arriving at a (dynamic) consensus over whatever is being discussed. It doesn't presuppose perfect agreement about everything; the idea is that if people bang heads together about hairy topics like this one, they can find areas where most of them agree enough about some fuzzy concept to turn it into a social norm. Because the discussion is continuous, the norms end up being fluid -- things that were acceptable before may turn out not to be, and vice versa.

Of course, different people have varying amounts of influence in this intersubjective process; finding out these details is a big part of sociological study.

In a nutshell, "they" don't make the rules: we all do. We're making them now, in a small way, as we're discussing the topic.

Pladio

September 2nd, 2007, 05:03

Except that our influence is too small to be noticed by anyone outside this forum, I could even say just this topic.

Corwin

September 2nd, 2007, 08:09

Prime Junta

September 2nd, 2007, 11:49

Except that our influence is too small to be noticed by anyone outside this forum, I could even say just this topic.

But that's true of almost everyone. Social consensus consists of lots and lots of very very small bits. In most societies, there are very few people who are powerful enough to make a noticeable impact on social mores purely by themselves.

Second, the influence isn't as small as you might think: while this topic will certainly be forgotten, the people who participated in it will have thought some things through a little bit more, they will have been subtly changed, and these changes will be reflected in their words and actions in the future.

Prime Junta

September 2nd, 2007, 11:52

Perhaps, but really so called democracy is a farce. Parties pre-select potential politicians and then offer us a limited alternative; vote for one of these 3+ political hacks, whoever gets elected will do precisely what the party tells them to, and you mug voters can believe that they are actually 'representing' your wishes!! Ha!!!!

First off, just because *your* democracy may be dysfunctional, it doesn't mean *all* democracies are.

Second, if you compare your democracy to the alternatives, you'll very likely find that most of them are much worse.

(My take on democracy is that it's a pretty poor system for hiring competent managers, but it's a fairly good system for firing incompetent ones. Things only get really difficult if this part of the system breaks down.)

Corwin

September 2nd, 2007, 11:54

OK then, which democracies aren't dysfunctional? I can easily lump Australia, USA, UK, NZ and Canada into the same bucket!!

Prime Junta

September 2nd, 2007, 12:09

You know what's interesting about all those democracies? They all have the Anglo-Saxon "winner takes all" electoral system. IMO it's rigged to create a situation where you have a "duopoly of power" and politics that emphasize division and antagonism instead of coalition-building, cooperation, and consensus-seeking. Perhaps you might want to take a look at a few systems with proportional representation? The Scandinavian countries (Sweden, Finland, Denmark, Norway) are the textbook examples. The Netherlands is another, similar system. Slovenia is a very interesting case; they have a system that's "pure parliamentary" (they have no separate executive branch at all), yet it seems to work very well.

It's interesting, though, that you lump New Zealand and Canada into the same bucket -- they're generally regarded as rather well functioning states. Could you elaborate a bit about what, in your view, makes for a "dysfunctional democracy?"

Fenris

September 2nd, 2007, 15:23

It's funny in Germany... you can vote what you want, but since the two biggest partys are like old chums, they can do what they want without attention to the people ... and the smaller partys are all kind of nuts.

IMO the swiss have the only real democracy, where people can meet at the marketplace and vote about their daily buisness. At least this sounds very cool 8)

Pladio

September 2nd, 2007, 15:55

Well, Belgium might be a case apart, but that multi-party system seems to be killing the country. For almost 180 years consensuses have been formed, but now we've been without a government for three months. The elections were held in June and since no party has a majority they have to find a way to create majority. The Christian-democrats which is the biggest party in the Flanders region needs to work with at least two other parties to form a government, but they don't have the same ideas as one of the two second largest parties, so they need to find two other parties to work with and then they can't find anyone. Well, it's a mess and I'm not a politician nor an expert in Belgian politics, but Belgium doesn't have a government for the moment.
Multi-party system can crumble as well.

Prime Junta

September 2nd, 2007, 17:40

Proportional representation/multi-party systems certainly have their problems too. In particular, it won't work well without a fairly deep consensus about the basic framework for society. If there isn't enough common ground to be found to create a functioning government, then obviously it won't work out. In such a situation, the danger is that power will drop in the lap of a strong executive, leading towards an authoritarian system.

Governmental structures need a social and cultural basis that's compatible with them if you want them to work. As long as there are different cultures, there won't be a one-size-fits-all political system either.

Squeek

September 2nd, 2007, 17:44

Edit: I trolled and thought better of it afterwards. It's awfully tempting! But I think I'd be better off not participating in these political discussions.

mudsling3

September 2nd, 2007, 22:50

Greater the freedom, greater the responsibility... Moving out of your parents house means you have to pick up all the responsibilities of being independent.

Corwin

September 3rd, 2007, 01:07

Pladio

September 3rd, 2007, 03:05

Just to understand... What are the Kiwis and the Canucks ?

Corwin

September 3rd, 2007, 03:25

Kiwis are people from New Zealand, while Canucks is a slang term for Canadians, similar to calling Americans, Yanks!!

Gallifrey

September 3rd, 2007, 03:28

Kiwis are New Zealanders and Canucks are Canadians.

In Canada, proportional representation is a bit of an issue, with the different provinces not really being equally represented by the number of ridings and associated representatives. What happens then is that certain provinces become more important than others, because they have more ridings and thus other provinces are rendered irrelevant and ignored by politicians.
The smaller parties, notably the NDP, have been pushing for improved proportional representation for a while now, but not surprisingly no headway is made.

Prime Junta

September 3rd, 2007, 12:35

Ah, but there are so many cultural differences in the modern multi-cultural society. Name a culture and Australia will have a significant proportion of it, as do many other countries, such as the USA. We don't all agree and personally, I think proportional representation would be a disaster here. We sort of have it with our senate and it's usually deadlocked!! I'll let the Kiwis and Canucks comment on their own systems, but having grown up in Canada, it doesn't work too well!!

So what, then, do you think would work? In your book, is there a non-dysfunctional democracy in existence anywhere? If so, what are its characteristics? If not, what, in your book, would make for a non-dysfunctional democracy?

Corwin

September 3rd, 2007, 13:14

You're begging the question here!! I have not suggested that I approve of a democratic form of government!! I don't think the system works. At least not in the form it currently takes in most so called democratic countries. I really dislike 'party politics'!!

Prime Junta

September 3rd, 2007, 13:21

@Corwin, what form of government do you think would work better than any form of democracy that's currently in existence? Or are you just in general curmudgeon mode?

Pladio

September 3rd, 2007, 14:30

Prime Junta

September 3rd, 2007, 16:30

A general democracy, I believe is what Corwin supports. If I'm totally mistaken please correct me.
A democracy where no parties are involved, but individuals. Where politics as a dirty business doesn't exist, where one's individual ideas are respected. Where everyone votes on what he or she thinks is right. Not democracy as we know it, to elect officials to do it for us, but we have to vote. That's the point of democracy, to have a voice in all matters concerning us and our surroundings.

Can you give an example of such a democracy? Otherwise it's just cloud castles.

Personally, I'd love to live in an anarcho-Communist utopia with unlimited means of production, work only if you want to, and no environmental degradation. There's just the little matter of actually getting unlimited means of production with no environmental degradation.

Pladio

September 3rd, 2007, 17:39

Prime Junta

September 3rd, 2007, 18:07

Just to repeat that this might NOT at all be Corwin's view on the matter but just a supposition of mine.

There isn't any at present, but it shouldn't be that hard to develop a system where everyone would go and vote in a central building on issues... It would just take away the power of the politicians... (and they won't be pleased with that)

Oh, it wouldn't. The hard part would be to develop such a system that would not very quickly be co-opted by some people more ambitious and less scrupulous than most.

For starters, you can't get everyone to vote on every single issue that needs to be decided -- that would be a full-time job. So, you'll quickly have a situation where the people will vote to delegate responsibility to someone.

And there we go again...

dteowner

September 4th, 2007, 19:23

Fun discussion. I think the real disconnect is the belief that government actually works for the good of the people. Even if we put aside our tinfoil hats when it comes to Big Brother, I think it's safe to say that, at its best, government only works for the happiness of the people. There's a big difference there.

Pladio

September 4th, 2007, 20:22

Prime Junta

September 4th, 2007, 22:21

PJ, it would be possible, since every issue would be over a lot quicker. Put it on the table, discuss it and vote. There won't be any whipping for votes I think it's called in English. And people who don't want to vote shouldn't, but then it would really matter. The vote matters with that system. Now people don't see that their vote matters, with that system it would.

(1) How do you get people to participate? I'm a member of the board of the organization that owns the building in which I have a flat. It's damn hard to find people willing to participate even in that -- and it's something that has a huge impact on the quality of life of everyone in the building, as well as having a direct effect on the value of the single largest piece of property most people are likely to own. Hell, *I* find it tedious to go to those meetings and vote on stuff.

(2) How do you avoid the problem of the "tyranny of the majority?"

(3) Who decides what gets tabled?

(4) Who decides how long the discussions are?

...and so on. Seriously, what you're proposing isn't the least bit original; it's been proposed lots of times, it's even been tried in practice lots of times (look up anarchist communes)... and it doesn't work. Not for long, anyway.

txa1265

September 4th, 2007, 22:41

Crap, go to one Town Meeting in a town run by Selectmen and you will never suggest such an idea again :D

Corwin

September 5th, 2007, 05:56

While I like Pladio's idea and would support it, if it were practical, I don't think it will work on a large scale. Call me a romantic, but a benign oligarchy in the Periclean mode might be the most efficient!! :)

Prime Junta

September 5th, 2007, 10:02

The problem is that oligarchies don't tend to stay benign. That's why the Romans put a time limit on a dictatorship -- and why the time limit ended up not holding, which gave us the Roman empire. And there's the little question of picking who gets to be oligarch.

Power corrupts, you see. Perhaps there is no better solution to this than a mechanism that lets the rest of us kick 'em out once they're corrupt enough.

txa1265

September 5th, 2007, 11:22

Power corrupts, you see. Perhaps there is no better solution to this than a mechanism that lets the rest of us kick 'em out once they're corrupt enough.
But it tends to be a more slippery slope, though ... and you hardly know where corruption is until it has spread like an epidemic. Imagine how long it would have taken to realize the extent of Bush's corruption if he hadn't chosen to parade i on such a grand stage ...

Corwin

September 5th, 2007, 13:12

How about after 10 years we execute ALL politicians and leaders who have been in power for that long. Therefore, only those who truly care about the people will serve!! :biggrin:

dteowner

September 5th, 2007, 16:36

Well, it was originally designed as a poorly paid hobby for gentleman farmers. Since only the rich (OK, sweeping generalization, but I think the point stands) were properly educated back in those days and only the rich had the ability to go off-reservation for years at a time, it's only to be expected that the folks that ran the country came from those social circles. Today, politics is a profession rather than a hobby, but the pool of applicants is much the same. Today's rich got rich in some manner and that will certainly color their decisions. That's why I always love when the Democrats trot out their "party of the people" nonsense. Let's face it- no politician on either side of the aisle is "of the people" anymore.

Pladio

September 5th, 2007, 17:06

(1) How do you get people to participate? I'm a member of the board of the organization that owns the building in which I have a flat. It's damn hard to find people willing to participate even in that -- and it's something that has a huge impact on the quality of life of everyone in the building, as well as having a direct effect on the value of the single largest piece of property most people are likely to own. Hell, *I* find it tedious to go to those meetings and vote on stuff.

(2) How do you avoid the problem of the "tyranny of the majority?"

(3) Who decides what gets tabled?

(4) Who decides how long the discussions are?

...and so on. Seriously, what you're proposing isn't the least bit original; it's been proposed lots of times, it's even been tried in practice lots of times (look up anarchist communes)... and it doesn't work. Not for long, anyway.

1. They don't have to participate if they don't want to, that's the whole idea. If you want a voice in how things are done, then vote.

2. I don't know what you mean by the tyranny of the majority.

3. Everyone should be able to put something up for discussion, like on a forum. If people find it interesting it will grow to be an important issue and lots of people will either vote or discuss it. Like debates on forums, about religion, they're never-ending, about other things they are.

4. A predetermined number of people need to be discussing the topic before it gets any consideration for a vote. Then a predetermined timetable should be given for any issue to be discussed depending on money needed to make it happen, time it will take and many other factors.

I'm also not talking about anarchy, but about democracy in its truest form.

Crap, go to one Town Meeting in a town run by Selectmen and you will never suggest such an idea again

What's a Selectman ?

While I like Pladio's idea and would support it, if it were practical, I don't think it will work on a large scale.

What's large scale for you ? (as large can be seen as many different things, relative)

Call me a romantic, but a benign oligarchy in the Periclean mode might be the most efficient!!

Why would an oligarchy be most effective according to you ? Oligarchs get greedy and corrupt very easily and it's quite hard to depose oligarchs from power.
What is the Periclean mode ?

How about after 10 years we execute ALL politicians and leaders who have been in power for that long. Therefore, only those who truly care about the people will serve!!

That's why my system will work out better :p

Well, it was originally designed as a poorly paid hobby for gentleman farmers. Since only the rich (OK, sweeping generalization, but I think the point stands) were properly educated back in those days and only the rich had the ability to go off-reservation for years at a time, it's only to be expected that the folks that ran the country came from those social circles. Today, politics is a profession rather than a hobby, but the pool of applicants is much the same. Today's rich got rich in some manner and that will certainly color their decisions. That's why I always love when the Democrats trot out their "party of the people" nonsense. Let's face it- no politician on either side of the aisle is "of the people" anymore.

I mostly agree with you except for your black&white generalization that NO politician is for the people. I believe there still are, even though they are few and mostly less powerful since they are too honest to advance in the political landscape.

txa1265

September 5th, 2007, 17:25

2. I don't know what you mean by the tyranny of the majority.

'Everyone' thinks something, therefore it is right and what should be done. It is the thought that without limits and checks and balances, the majority will spin out of control and trample the minority. In doing so, the 'majority' becomes more like a mob acting like an authoritarian dictator.

Prime Junta

September 5th, 2007, 18:20

2. I don't know what you mean by the tyranny of the majority.

In that case, I suggest you give up trying to design political systems until you've educated yourself on the topic a bit. You're just re-inventing the wheel, and currently you're at the "sawing a bit off a tree trunk" stage. Political systems are complex; if you don't know anything about how they work and what the pitfalls are, you're about as likely to come up with something useful as someone completely ignorant of anatomy is to come up with a new procedure for heart bypass surgery.

Pladio

September 5th, 2007, 19:02

In that case, I suggest you give up trying to design political systems until you've educated yourself on the topic a bit. You're just re-inventing the wheel, and currently you're at the "sawing a bit off a tree trunk" stage. Political systems are complex; if you don't know anything about how they work and what the pitfalls are, you're about as likely to come up with something useful as someone completely ignorant of anatomy is to come up with a new procedure for heart bypass surgery.

Actually, I know the concept, just not that that is the phrasing for it.

Now to answer your question :

How to avoid it ? I don't know, but I am sure people can find a solution for it.

Let me ask you a question though. Do you like it that the ones governing don't care about you at all? They care about themselves and furthering their career and their lives. Those are the politics of today, except for minor few exceptions. Even though my idea sounds naive and maybe unpractical to you; I think every form of government is unpractical, and I also feel that giving my vote to someone who doesn't care about me at all is not only unpractical but also ineffective.

Corwin

September 6th, 2007, 01:23

Fenris

September 6th, 2007, 01:32

How about after 10 years we execute ALL politicians and leaders who have been in power for that long. Therefore, only those who truly care about the people will serve!! :biggrin:

I guess a vow of Poverty and a lonely Mountain-Monastary as Gouvernment-Seat would be more effective and less messy ;)

Right now its kind of funny that people who get around ten times more money than me tell me about (monetary) sacrifices for the greater good of the nation...

Edit:

I just imagened to live in poverty in a secluded mountain-monastary with our current chancellor... maybe death is more mercyful :)

Pladio

September 6th, 2007, 04:23

Pladio, I was thinking large as in running a major country like the US, or Australia. Pericles was the leader of Athens during what is commonly called its Golden Age. Note I designated a BENIGN oligarchy. Whether such a thing is actually possible is the subject of another debate, but I'm willing to have a go at displaying how benign I am!! :biggrin:

Then it might not work, but I don't think such a thing should be directly implemented either, I believe it should be 'experimented' with first and only by people who are really willing to do it. I believe that's the first step. If it works then maybe things can happen, but if it doesn't even work on a very small scale then and only then do I believe I won't support this system anymore.

Prime Junta

September 6th, 2007, 10:11

How to avoid it ? I don't know, but I am sure people can find a solution for it.

I find your faith... touching.

Let me ask you a question though. Do you like it that the ones governing don't care about you at all? They care about themselves and furthering their career and their lives.

I honestly don't care what their motivations are, if the outcome is good governance. My wife cares for me. My family cares for me. The few friends I have care for me. I don't need the president or the prime minister to care for me. (In fact, come to think of it, I would find the idea slightly icky, knowing who the prez and prime minister are.)

The challenge in designing a good system of government is to align the incentives: create something where the people doing the governing are rewarded for good governance and punished for bad governance.

Those are the politics of today, except for minor few exceptions. Even though my idea sounds naive and maybe unpractical to you; I think every form of government is unpractical, and I also feel that giving my vote to someone who doesn't care about me at all is not only unpractical but also ineffective.

Saying "every form of government is unpractical" is just silly. There are different forms of government in use around the world, some of which demonstrably work better than others, and all of which could certainly be improved. IMO it's pointless (and potentially dangerous) to try to design a utopia from scratch; it's a much better approach to look at what we have and try to figure out how to make it better.

txa1265

September 6th, 2007, 14:27

Saying "every form of government is unpractical" is just silly.
Exactly - thinking that "every form of government is flawed" is useful as it gets out of the competitive nature of 'my President could beat up your Prime Minister', or 'my Sultan has a better car than your despot' ... and lets you think about the roots of problems and how to fix them.

Pladio

September 6th, 2007, 15:22

I find your faith... touching.

By the rest of your post it seems you have a lot of faith in your government, why then can't I have faith in people who could make the world better?

By the way, now you just dropped all the rest of my answers to your questions.

I honestly don't care what their motivations are, if the outcome is good governance. My wife cares for me. My family cares for me. The few friends I have care for me. I don't need the president or the prime minister to care for me. (In fact, come to think of it, I would find the idea slightly icky, knowing who the prez and prime minister are.)

I'm not talking about knowing them personally but about them caring for you or what you want... They don't and they only care for themselves and the people backing them either with money of influence.

The challenge in designing a good system of government is to align the incentives: create something where the people doing the governing are rewarded for good governance and punished for bad governance.

I can't see how this is happening today ?
It's to talk about Belgium now as I said the federal government is down.
But Bush managed to declare a war on 90% of the Arab world gaining him a casus belli against them and allowing him to attack any country he deems necessary.

When the tsunami hit the south-Asian coast and Indonesia a lot of money was donated by people in Europe and the US to give to the people to rebuild their homes and to have enough food to survive. Instead, after more than one year most places didn't get any food or help, many were found to have taken the money for themselves.

Saying "every form of government is unpractical" is just silly. There are different forms of government in use around the world, some of which demonstrably work better than others, and all of which could certainly be improved. IMO it's pointless (and potentially dangerous) to try to design a utopia from scratch; it's a much better approach to look at what we have and try to figure out how to make it better.

Yes, and you say it yourself : "There are different forms of government in use around the world, some of which demonstrably work better than others"

Every form of government is flawed. Yes they could be improved, now tell me how...

Exactly - thinking that "every form of government is flawed" is useful as it gets out of the competitive nature of 'my President could beat up your Prime Minister', or 'my Sultan has a better car than your despot' ... and lets you think about the roots of problems and how to fix them.

Uhm, Mike, you're saying it's useful while he's saying it's silly. Why then do you say : "Exactly" ?

Prime Junta

September 6th, 2007, 15:32

By the rest of your post it seems you have a lot of faith in your government, why then can't I have faith in people who could make the world better?

It is my experience that my government works reasonably well, compared to most other governments out there.

It is also my experience that it is naive to expect by default that "someone" or "people" comes up with brilliant solutions to extremely difficult problems.

By the way, now you just dropped all the rest of my answers to your questions.

Because I had nothing useful to add to them.

I'm not talking about knowing them personally but about them caring for you or what you want... They don't and they only care for themselves and the people backing them either with money of influence.

Generally speaking, people only care for themselves and the people they care about. As I said, the challenge of devising a good system of government is one of aligning incentives: in a good system, politicians are rewarded for governing well and punished for governing badly (e.g. by unfairly favoring some groups over others).

Yes, and you say it yourself : "There are different forms of government in use around the world, some of which demonstrably work better than others"

Every form of government is flawed. Yes they could be improved, now tell me how...

Now you're asking the right question. Or close to, anyway -- put this way, it's way too broad to be answered usefully. However, if you should ask "In what ways is the Belgian government flawed, and what could we do to make it better?" you would have a chance of actually coming up with useful answers.

Pladio

September 6th, 2007, 16:11

It is my experience that my government works reasonably well, compared to most other governments out there.

May I ask where you live and why you find that ?

It is also my experience that it is naive to expect by default that "someone" or "people" comes up with brilliant solutions to extremely difficult problems.

Not to expect just someone to find a solution, but maybe if some people put hteir heads together...

Generally speaking, people only care for themselves and the people they care about. As I said, the challenge of devising a good system of government is one of aligning incentives: in a good system, politicians are rewarded for governing well and punished for governing badly (e.g. by unfairly favoring some groups over others).

And that's why, IMHO, democracy as we know it today is bad. Governments of today mostly try to keep the majority of the population happy so they can either get rich or manage to find a way to get rich later on.
Bush wasn't thrown out of office after he lied about the reasons of going to war with another country, but since at home everything was still A-OK, people even managed to reelect him.
People didn't care about what happened to the people in Southern-Asia when they didn't get their food, while other people took money in their pockets.

Now you're asking the right question. Or close to, anyway -- put this way, it's way too broad to be answered usefully. However, if you should ask "In what ways is the Belgian government flawed, and what could we do to make it better?" you would have a chance of actually coming up with useful answers.

Actually, the Belgian government has been 'away' for more than three months now, ever since the election, so I don't know how to make it better as there is no government in Belgium...

But, actually I was asking you the question...
Democracies of today are ruled by corruption and compromise.
Dictatorships and Despots of today rule with impunity over their people without anyone being able to talk.
Council governments have the same power as dictatorships except they have to talk over some things first, but they also only care about getting richer.
I don't know of any 'ruling' monarchies, but I believe that they would do the same thing as dictatorships.
So how would you make those better ?

Prime Junta

September 6th, 2007, 16:40

May I ask where you live and why you find that ?

You may, but I prefer not to answer that question at this time.

Actually, the Belgian government has been 'away' for more than three months now, ever since the election, so I don't know how to make it better as there is no government in Belgium...

OK, make that "system of government."

But, actually I was asking you the question...
Democracies of today are ruled by corruption and compromise.

Compromise, certainly: that's sort of the whole point of the system. Corruption, not invariably, and mostly less so than in other forms of government.

Dictatorships and Despots of today rule with impunity over their people without anyone being able to talk.
Council governments have the same power as dictatorships except they have to talk over some things first, but they also only care about getting richer.
I don't know of any 'ruling' monarchies, but I believe that they would do the same thing as dictatorships.
So how would you make those better ?

Your focus is still too broad. Pick one particular problem in one particular country, and work with that.

(Unfortunately I'm not familiar enough with Belgium to be able to offer any intelligent insight into what's wrong with it and how it could be made better. Nor do I have any pat answers ready for most countries.)

Pladio

September 6th, 2007, 19:00

You may, but I prefer not to answer that question at this time.

Whenever you do, I'll be glad to hear about it.

OK, make that "system of government."

Alright, the major problem in Belgium is that it's divided into three important regions. The Region of Brussels which is the center of the country. It has both people who speak French and Dutch. The seat of the federal government is there and the royal family resides there.
The Region of Wallonia is the southern part of Belgium and most people there speak French. It's also the poorer part of Belgium ever since they closed all the coal mines down there, which broke down the whole industry in that region.
They also mostly support the royal family and prefer to keep Belgium in one piece.
The Region of Flanders is the northern part of Belgium and most people there speak Dutch. This is the richer part of the country which mostly opposes the royal family and is 40/60 about Belgium splitting up in two parts.

Now there's also the trouble of Flanders giving a lot of money a year to to Wallonia for Social security since they have a much too high unemployment rate.

Some people believe that if the north keeps helping the south then in the end they will reach the same level as the north. Others believe that the only way for Flanders to reach its potential is to divide the country.
Now the biggest problem for forming a government is the fact that the biggest northern parties want to make a state reform whereas the southern part is against it.
But the biggest parties in the north all have different ideologies except for the state reform so they need the south to form a government, but the south disagrees about the state reform...

So now we're at an impasse regarding the federal government.

That's the problem with the multi-party government system. Any ideas... ?

Compromise, certainly: that's sort of the whole point of the system. Corruption, not invariably, and mostly less so than in other forms of government.

I don't really believe that. I believe they just hide it better and it's not like just bribes in the hand, it's rich people who are backing several parties which allow them to have a say in politics.

Your focus is still too broad. Pick one particular problem in one particular country, and work with that.

The problem is that there are too many problems to resolve this way and that's why I believe a new system would be better.

(Unfortunately I'm not familiar enough with Belgium to be able to offer any intelligent insight into what's wrong with it and how it could be made better. Nor do I have any pat answers ready for most countries.)

Wiki is a good place to start :D

Sorry for my rant about Belgium...

Prime Junta

September 6th, 2007, 19:36

That's the problem with the multi-party government system. Any ideas... ?

I still don't have enough information to go on. I would need to do some serious reading-up, as well as following the Belgian media for a while to see what people are talking about in order to have something to say on the topic. Unfortunately, I'm not going to do that; there are other areas that I'm more interested in, and my time is somewhat limited. Sorry.

The problem is that there are too many problems to resolve this way and that's why I believe a new system would be better.

Why do you think a large number of difficult problems would be easier to solve by dreaming up something from scratch than by attacking them one by one?

dteowner

September 6th, 2007, 23:19

You two won't be able to come to a solution because deep down at the heart of the discussion is a disagreement over the nature of man. Pladio clearly believes that man is innately good, while PJ is operating on the assumption that man is innately selfish.

PJ, you've got to keep in mind that it's a cop-out to sit back and be a nay-sayer. If you're willing to say Pladio's plan is crap (which I actually agree with since I don't have a terribly positive opinion on the nature of man), you're kinda on the hook to offer a better option. Also, systemic problems often call for global solutions; there are times when you simply can't eat the elephant one bite at a time.

Pladio

September 7th, 2007, 00:53

Why do you think a large number of difficult problems would be easier to solve by dreaming up something from scratch than by attacking them one by one?

Because I believe that finding a solution to one problem could mess up other parts and that it would take an eternity fixing everything, whereas a new form might cover most problems at once.

Pladio clearly believes that man is innately good, while PJ is operating on the assumption that man is innately selfish.

Actually, I don't, I believe that men is selfish and he'll really try to do what's in his best interests, but if everyone has a vote instead of a select few then I believe more good will be done since there will be too many people for a certain group to control. Too many voices to be heard for one certain group to take control.

Prime Junta

September 7th, 2007, 10:21

Because I believe that finding a solution to one problem could mess up other parts and that it would take an eternity fixing everything, whereas a new form might cover most problems at once.

In other words, you're a supporter of revolutionary rather than evolutionary change.

How many revolutions can you name where the system emerging from the revolution (directly, not, say, 30-50 years later) was unambiguously better than the system it replaced? (Discounting wars of independence here; they're a different case.)

Social systems are very complex, and introducing a new one wholesale is empirically more likely to cause more problems than it solves.

Prime Junta

September 7th, 2007, 10:30

PJ, you've got to keep in mind that it's a cop-out to sit back and be a nay-sayer. If you're willing to say Pladio's plan is crap (which I actually agree with since I don't have a terribly positive opinion on the nature of man), you're kinda on the hook to offer a better option. Also, systemic problems often call for global solutions; there are times when you simply can't eat the elephant one bite at a time.

I do have a better option, and I've already proffered it: "social engineering." Go with what we have, examine it critically, change it one piece at a time, be prepared to roll back the change if it made things worse rather than better. Unfortunately I can't suggest specific solutions for Belgium simply because I don't know enough about Belgium to be able to do so.

To pick a country I do know something about, some things you could try in the US -- I believe these would be doable even within the current (corrupt) framework, given enough popular support, in the short to medium term -- and most of these aren't the least bit original:

* Reform campaign finance law to reduce the power of special interest groups to buy candidates.
* Reform tort law, taking as a principle that you may not profit from being a victim. I.e., make compensation scaled to the damage caused, not the wealth of the defendant. If it's necessary to punish the defendant, fine them. This would greatly reduce the amount of frivolous litigation (as well as being more just).
* Gradually replace the winner-takes-all system with proportional representation, starting from the local level. This would give third-party candidates a real chance at breaking into the system.
* Devolve power from the federal government to state and municipal governments.
* Reform the primary system. Currently it's chaotic and undemocratic: essentially, two tiny minorities get to pick the two candidates that go head to head. If the primary candidates were selected with full input of the electorate, the results would be very different, and the candidates would not need to pander to their respective tiny minorities and interest groups to get a shot at the presidency. (There are plenty of models around the world to look at for examples.)

I could go on (and you could make your own list, I'm sure), but you get my drift -- it would take many years to do most of these things, any of them could be rolled back if they didn't work, and at least some of them have a decent shot at making things better rather than worse.

Pladio

September 7th, 2007, 13:21

In other words, you're a supporter of revolutionary rather than evolutionary change.

How many revolutions can you name where the system emerging from the revolution (directly, not, say, 30-50 years later) was unambiguously better than the system it replaced? (Discounting wars of independence here; they're a different case.)

Social systems are very complex, and introducing a new one wholesale is empirically more likely to cause more problems than it solves.

You could say I'm more for a revolution, but I'm not for a revolution with violence, but an 'evolutionary' revolution. What do I mean ? I mean an experiment on small scale should be started to see if what I'm saying is possible first. If even that isn't possible then my idea will be dropped. If it is then the scale could be enlarged further and continue....

* Reform campaign finance law to reduce the power of special interest groups to buy candidates.

Why would politicians agree to that ? 99% of politicians, certainly in the US are backed by special interest groups.

* Reform tort law, taking as a principle that you may not profit from being a victim. I.e., make compensation scaled to the damage caused, not the wealth of the defendant. If it's necessary to punish the defendant, fine them. This would greatly reduce the amount of frivolous litigation (as well as being more just).

Like I said fixing small things one at a time creates new/old problems again. This would make the rich people and/or corporations not care about the victims. I know this is a story which has been used much too often but still...
About the woman who burned herself at the McDonald's and got a huge amount of money for it. You're saying a victim shouldn't receive that much money since it was just a small burn of the tongue and McD would just have to pay the medical bill and a small fine a according to you. But since then I haven't heard from anyone another story about someone burning themselves with a drink at McDonald's. If they would just have paid a small medical bill and a small fine, they wouldn't have cared as much if several people a year burned themselves.

Yes, I believe it's wrong for people who are rich to pay more just because they are rich, but on the other hand, if they don't then they won't care about it.
An example, someone who wins 1000€ a month can't afford to be fined for driving too fast at 100€ the fine, but someone who gets 100000€ per month, won't really care about that 100 € and would drive fast most of the time, which is what is mostly happening.

* Gradually replace the winner-takes-all system with proportional representation, starting from the local level. This would give third-party candidates a real chance at breaking into the system.

I agree with this too, there's the problem that a majority of the people are registered voters of the Democratic or Republican parties and with more than two parties, their party will risk losing a lot of influence. Politicians won't want to lose their influence either and they will mostly vote against such propositions.

* Devolve power from the federal government to state and municipal governments.

I don't know enough about US politics but it seems to me about the classical Centralization vs. Decentralization debate:
Centralization should in essence make everything go faster and more efficiently, but would give a lot of power to to few a people. and vice versa for decentralization.

And I don't understand your last topic, but you don't have to explain if you don't want to.

dteowner

September 7th, 2007, 14:57

Prime Junta

September 7th, 2007, 17:31

Pretty solid libertarian policy, PJ, which I'm receptive to. Unfortunately, you're contradicting your "man is evil" underpinning with several of them. To think that the politicians would cut their own pocketbooks with campaign finance reform is "rainbows and unicorns" at best, as we've seen. After all the big talk from both sides of the aisle, we got a big fat nothing. Similarly, since the social circles of the politicians are full of lawyers (rich folks hang with rich folks), it's highly unlikely that tort reform will get much real traction. Those rich lawyers got rich off of their cut of ridiculous suit awards.

Now who's the nay-sayer?

(Also, there's nothing inherently libertarian about any of these initiatives.)

The key is to start small. The system works fairly well at the municipal and sometimes the state level. Change can be effective there, and can eventually propagate up the system. It will take a long time even in the best of cases, of course.

Pladio

September 7th, 2007, 18:49

I feel left out :(, PJ, you didn't reply to my post.

Prime Junta

September 7th, 2007, 18:57

You could say I'm more for a revolution, but I'm not for a revolution with violence, but an 'evolutionary' revolution. What do I mean ? I mean an experiment on small scale should be started to see if what I'm saying is possible first. If even that isn't possible then my idea will be dropped. If it is then the scale could be enlarged further and continue....

And you think this would be realistic, whereas a much smaller change like campaign finance reform would not? Why?

dteowner

September 7th, 2007, 19:27

Now who's the nay-sayer?

(Also, there's nothing inherently libertarian about any of these initiatives.)

The key is to start small. The system works fairly well at the municipal and sometimes the state level. Change can be effective there, and can eventually propagate up the system. It will take a long time even in the best of cases, of course.Guilty as charged, so I owe you an alternative. I'll get to that in a second.

I would say decentralization of government is the founding principle of libertarians. A couple other items of yours have been adopted by various libertarians of note. But I suppose the label isn't terribly important since no group (outside of me, naturally) has all the answers.

Starting small is OK, but I think you'll find that relying on states and municipalities has one real problem. Federal problems keep getting driven down to the local governments. While I agree with you that the locals are better able to deal with problems and more creative with solutions, they generally lack the resources to "do it right", which limits the real creativity. For example, let's say someone designs a water desalinization plant that's efficient, environmentally reliable, and doesn't suck half a million dolphins into the inlet pipes each day. Price tag, $10billion. That might be a viable solution in LA, but what would Coastal-But-Still-Dry-BFE in South Oregon do? More like a guy with a bucket and a campfire. It's across state lines (shoulda done this example on the east coast so the cities would be closer, but anyway), so you won't get any cooperation. OTOH, the feds would be able to pool money and service multiple localities. Efficiency in numbers, as it were.

Now, for that solution I owe you. I think you'd be hard pressed to get 10 random people to agree on what order to discuss things, let alone agree on any solutions. Not only do I think man is innately selfish, I think he's also innately unhappy. If you buy into that cheery philosophy, government is pretty much dead before it gets off the ground. That means my answer would probably have to involve small islands or the wildly mythical benevolent dictatorship. I, of course, am incorruptible and benevolent as they come, and available to take the job if there's an opening.

Pladio

September 7th, 2007, 22:25

And you think this would be realistic, whereas a much smaller change like campaign finance reform would not? Why?

The finance campaign reform, I already explained why I don't believe it to be possible and so did Mike.

I'm not saying it's realistic at present, but new states emerge all the time and instead of making it party based, the international community could try to input this system to a new country or just experiment with it in villages or small towns.

I do believe however, certainly about the campaign finance reform you're proposing, that even MY proposal is more realistic than that.

Corwin

September 8th, 2007, 03:23

Dte, based on an earlier post of mine, you have to get in line behind me for that benevolent dictators job!! :)

Prime Junta

September 8th, 2007, 09:09

Now, for that solution I owe you. I think you'd be hard pressed to get 10 random people to agree on what order to discuss things, let alone agree on any solutions. Not only do I think man is innately selfish, I think he's also innately unhappy. If you buy into that cheery philosophy, government is pretty much dead before it gets off the ground. That means my answer would probably have to involve small islands or the wildly mythical benevolent dictatorship. I, of course, am incorruptible and benevolent as they come, and available to take the job if there's an opening.

LOL! OK, fair enough, I guess.

I'll stick to my boring program of looking at which really existing systems work better than which others, and trying to figure out how to make small steps of progress from there.

Also, you can work backwards: if you have an objective that you recognize is not achievable now, you can try to figure out *why* it's not achievable. Then you can take fixing that impediment as an intermediate objective. Rinse and repeat until you find an intermediate objective that *is* achievable, and set to work on that.

Take campaign finance again: if you believe that politicians are too venal to do it, that means you need new, less venal politicians. This means you have to figure out how to get new, less venal politicians. This means you have to pick a political organization, arrange it in a way that discourages venality (for example, it enforces your cleaned-up campaign finance rules internally, refusing money from special-interest groups), and then start working with it to become more powerful. After enough time, you will have bred a variety of politicians that are not dependent on the corrupt system, and are in a position of doing something about it. Hell, if you've succeeded in building your political organization, they may even be quite popular.

I pretty much pulled that off the top of my head, but you get the picture.

Prime Junta

September 8th, 2007, 09:20

I do believe however, certainly about the campaign finance reform you're proposing, that even MY proposal is more realistic than that.

I disagree. You're proposing revolutionary change: designing something new from first principles. That hardly ever works, and when people are involved, the cost of mistakes can be very high. I'm proposing evolutionary change, which has a good chance of working, and a much lower cost of failure. A revolutionary program is only defensible if a system is irredeemably broken.

Let me put it this way.

(1) There are three types of attitudes with regards to society: apathetic, cynical, and activist. "Apathetic" means that you direct your activity towards your personal goals outside and despite the system. "Cynical" means that you direct your activity towards gaming the system and getting the most personal profit out of it. "Activist" means that you direct your energy towards improving the system.

(2) There are two types of political systems: ones that can be improved from within the system ("reformable"), and ones that can only be improved through revolutionary change from outside the system ("unreformable").

(3) Let's suppose that you're "activist" rather than "cynical" or "apathetic."

(4) If you're living in a system that's reformable, your ethical imperative is to direct your efforts towards reforming it.

(5) If you're living in a system that's unreformable, your ethical imperative is to direct your efforts towards overthrowing/destroying it.

Now, @dte and others, do you believe the political system of the USA to be reformable, or unreformable? In light of this, do you believe the ethical imperative is to attempt to reform it, or to destroy or overthrow it?

Corwin

September 8th, 2007, 10:35

Prime Junta

September 8th, 2007, 11:25

I don't agree with your first point. Your definitions of the 3 types of people are far too exclusive. I'm very cynical about politicians for example, and political systems, but I've never been looking for personal profit; I'd be happy if they just left me alone, but they don't!!

The classification isn't about what people think or how they rationalize their actions, but how they act.

If you've chosen to opt out of the system as far as possible, you're an "apathetic," not a "cynic." Even if the reason you're apathetic is that you're cynical about politicians.

Pladio

September 8th, 2007, 16:09

I disagree. You're proposing revolutionary change: designing something new from first principles. That hardly ever works, and when people are involved, the cost of mistakes can be very high. I'm proposing evolutionary change, which has a good chance of working, and a much lower cost of failure. A revolutionary program is only defensible if a system is irredeemably broken.

Before I answer. Wasn't the US created in a revolutionary way? I'm not talking about the war before it, but the way it was created, with constitutions, a president... ?

Prime Junta

September 8th, 2007, 16:47

Yes, it was, but it was a specific type of revolution: namely, a war of independence followed by the establishment of a new order. That sort of thing does have better odds of succeeding than what people usually understand by "revolution" (the sudden overthrow of a deeply entrenched indigenous social/political system followed by the establishment of a new one). In other words, you can only pull that type of thing off under specific circumstances. For example, if Flanders were to secede from Belgium, or California from the USA.

Pladio

September 8th, 2007, 23:36

Now, @dte and others, do you believe the political system of the USA to be reformable, or unreformable? In light of this, do you believe the ethical imperative is to attempt to reform it, or to destroy or overthrow it?

I believe it could be worked out by reform, but it would take a very long time (generations of work, IMHO). The ethical imperative is to reform, but if you really want to change something then I believe it should be a complete makeover.

I might be completely wrong, but democratic countries the way we know them haven't changed a lot, except through revolution (even if messy)...
So, no I don't believe it to be the best solution to reform a country even if it's ethically correct. (I'm not saying we have to shoot everyone now, just so you don't throw that in my face)
I'm sure you can come up with examples but if you need any I'll be happy to provide the ones I know of the top of my hat.

Prime Junta

September 8th, 2007, 23:56

I might be completely wrong, but democratic countries the way we know them haven't changed a lot, except through revolution (even if messy)...

Actually, you are pretty far wrong there. Many democratic countries have gone through very large changes; to mention one, the transition from a laissez-faire capitalist, imperialist state to a social-democratic welfare state model. That's a bigger change than many revolutions manage, and it was one entirely through the democratic process.

Pladio

September 9th, 2007, 02:41

You're telling me the US is a social-democratic country ?

Also, most social-democratic countries of today have the biggest problems today, Belgium doesn't have enough money since it spends too much on social security and people are getting older and older, so pensions are acting as an unlimited strain on the country's finance as well. Most Scandinavian countries seem to be facing the same problems or projections seem to direct it towards the same trend.
France as a more social-democratic state has suffered from riots across all the poor neighborhoods and that's one of the reasons it's becoming more capitalistic (President Sarkozy).
I don't see social-democratism as an evolution, just as a change. Some parts of government are better, others become worse.

Prime Junta

September 9th, 2007, 08:35

You're telling me the US is a social-democratic country ?

No. I'm telling you France is a social-democratic country.

Also, most social-democratic countries of today have the biggest problems today, Belgium doesn't have enough money since it spends too much on social security and people are getting older and older, so pensions are acting as an unlimited strain on the country's finance as well. Most Scandinavian countries seem to be facing the same problems or projections seem to direct it towards the same trend.

Even if that was true, it would be irrelevant: you asked for an example of dramatic social/political change brought about by evolutionary rather than revolutionary means, and I gave you one.

(BTW, it isn't true -- some social-democratic countries do have problems, others don't. And if you look at things on a global scale, the European social-democratic countries with the worst problems are doing extremely well.)

I don't see social-democratism as an evolution, just as a change. Some parts of government are better, others become worse.

Do you seriously think that the EU countries are worse off now than they were, say, in the 1930's?

Geist

September 9th, 2007, 14:13

do you believe the political system of the USA to be reformable, or unreformable? In light of this, do you believe the ethical imperative is to attempt to reform it, or to destroy or overthrow it?

Great question PJ. My opinion is that the systems, not just in the US, but in most of the world are deeply broken, to such a degree that they are unlikely to be fixed by the mechanisms of what we like to call democracy. A fundamental reason for the gulf that exists between the interests of the people and the interests of the politicians (and their backers) has to do with the dissemination of information. As long as the major media, which is the primary source of information for the majority of the population, is controlled by elites, democracy becomes a game of manipulation, rather than an exercise in popular government.
Only in the hypothetical case of a truly objective, independent media and a highly educated population with the time and the means to thoroughly inform itself on complex issues, can democracy work as we would wish it. Given the extreme unlikelihood of such a scenario, I would take Corwin as a benevolent dictator over the de facto corporate plutocracy that exists in most western so called democracies today.

So, if we happen to believe that a system is irredeemably broken, is it our ethical imperative to attempt to destroy/overthrow it? I think the answer is not so straightforward. Regardless of how dysfunctional a system is, there is always something worse, and if we participate in overthrowing a particular system (no matter how good our intentions), there is no guarantee that it won't be succeeded by something even more revolting (Czarist Russia was a bleak, oppressive place, but Stalin's regime of terror was arguably even nastier).

magerette

September 9th, 2007, 19:04

Geist, good to see you back around. As always, great post.

I hold out hope that the "highly educated population" you speak of is coming into being, and possibly now is the first time in history that the time and the means to attain information is present for so many. The unfortunate corollary is that people take their prejudices with them, and so are prone to find only the information/answers they're looking for.

One good trend I think we're seeing now is the tendency to scrutinize things a bit more, to look for the transition from "fact" to opinion. The idea that one can rely on the mainstream media alone to present "the truth" is more in question. The internet is something of an education in itself and more and more easy of access, so that almost anyone who spends any time there becomes dissatisfied with the predigested pablum and the mind control, and begins to lack that readiness to believe that propaganda depends on. To paraphrase Alice, you can only believe so many impossible things before breakfast. Propaganda can't be taken with a grain of salt;once the cynicism and sarcasm creep in, it's lost its trump card.

On the topic of revolution, the feeling that things are out of control does breed desperation, but I think to truly invest in what it takes to overthrow a government you have to have nothing to gain by keeping it. We may be approaching that point, but we're not there yet imo.

So while I don't think the current degeneration and perversion of democratic government will actually provoke a violent revolution, I do think dissatisfaction at the current level coupled with information can and should provoke significant change. Whether it comes in time to stop the slide into ineffective bureaucratic chaos and global corporate domination is a moot point.

Pladio

September 10th, 2007, 19:01

No. I'm telling you France is a social-democratic country.

It is, but with Sarkozy, it will likely change back a little to a more capitalistic country.

Even if that was true, it would be irrelevant: you asked for an example of dramatic social/political change brought about by evolutionary rather than revolutionary means, and I gave you one.

(BTW, it isn't true -- some social-democratic countries do have problems, others don't. And if you look at things on a global scale, the European social-democratic countries with the worst problems are doing extremely well.)

They are, because they're mostly trying to balance social-democratism with capitalism. No country I know of in Europe is 100% social-democratic or 100% capitalistic. They're trying to balance it out. 100% social-democratism would ruin every country out there. So will a 100% capitalistic country, IMHO.

Do you seriously think that the EU countries are worse off now than they were, say, in the 1930's?

Not at all, why?

Prime Junta

September 10th, 2007, 19:12

It is, but with Sarkozy, it will likely change back a little to a more capitalistic country.

No mainstream European conservative is challenging the basis of the social order there, Sarkozy included. The difference between a Euro-conservative and a Euro-social-democrat in economic policy is about three percentage points worth of capital gains tax.

They are, because they're mostly trying to balance social-democratism with capitalism. No country I know of in Europe is 100% social-democratic or 100% capitalistic. They're trying to balance it out. 100% social-democratism would ruin every country out there. So will a 100% capitalistic country, IMHO.

Social democracy and capitalism are not mutually exclusive. Social democracy and libertarianism are, but that's different.

Pladio

September 10th, 2007, 20:02

No mainstream European conservative is challenging the basis of the social order there, Sarkozy included. The difference between a Euro-conservative and a Euro-social-democrat in economic policy is about three percentage points worth of capital gains tax.

Maybe, but it does make a difference on billions and billions of euros.

Do you mind me asking how we got to this discussion and what we were actually talking about?

Squeek

September 10th, 2007, 21:01

Do you mind me asking how we got to this discussion and what we were actually talking about?I think you've been talking about how capitalism isn't what the capitalists think it is, and neither is socialism. It's been about statistics supporting fast-food analysis by PJ. There's been nothing really wrong with it. It just hasn't been very good, at least in my opinion.

Pladio

September 10th, 2007, 22:26

I don't believe that makes a lot of sense. <_<

Arhu

September 10th, 2007, 23:16

Politics - I don't believe it makes a lot of sense. <_<

Hehe, sorry folks, somehow I thought Pladio's comment made for a good oneliner. I do enjoy reading this thread though. Carry on please.

Prime Junta

September 10th, 2007, 23:17

Maybe, but it does make a difference on billions and billions of euros.

Yup, but it's hardly a fundamental difference in Weltanschauung.

Do you mind me asking how we got to this discussion and what we were actually talking about?

The thread's right here. Feel free to browse backwards. :)

If you mean that the thread is past its best-before date, I agree. Perhaps it's time to call it a (virtual) day.

Prime Junta

September 10th, 2007, 23:19

I think you've been talking about how capitalism isn't what the capitalists think it is, and neither is socialism. It's been about statistics supporting fast-food analysis by PJ. There's been nothing really wrong with it. It just hasn't been very good, at least in my opinion.

"Fast-food analysis?" Very droll.

Pladio

September 11th, 2007, 03:01

I'm starting to think you're inventing terms :P

Actually, I just don't know them very well, but what does "Weltanschauung" mean ?

If you mean that the thread is past its best-before date, I agree. Perhaps it's time to call it a (virtual) day.

I do, but I'll read the thread again once I feel like it and post a good reply to someone and then we can continue :)
(Feel free to do the same.)

Geist

September 11th, 2007, 08:35

Weltanschauung = World View
another one of those sneaky german words (ex. angst, doppelgänger, gesundheit, wunderbar, poltergeist, hamburger) that have found their way into the english language.

curiously undead

September 11th, 2007, 09:30

.Yes, it was, but it was a specific type of revolution: namely, a war of independence followed by the establishment of a new order. That sort of thing does have better odds of succeeding than what people usually understand by "revolution" (the sudden overthrow of a deeply entrenched indigenous social/political system followed by the establishment of a new one). In other words, you can only pull that type of thing off under specific circumstances. For example, if Flanders were to secede from Belgium, or California from the USA.
that's been a serious fantasy of mine for years.

Geist

September 11th, 2007, 10:43

dann wird der Arnie president, lederhosen resident..

Geist

September 11th, 2007, 10:43

Sorry for the horrid quote.. I was just listening to an Oktoberfest hits album and the Dirndlsong came up.

Pladio

September 11th, 2007, 16:21

How did he get to be a governor though ? This really astonished me. Is he doing his work good (as in, without any previous political experience) ?

Prime Junta

September 11th, 2007, 16:31

that's been a serious fantasy of mine for years.

If you ever get started on it, sign me up. ;)

dteowner

September 11th, 2007, 18:50

Now, @dte and others, do you believe the political system of the USA to be reformable, or unreformable? In light of this, do you believe the ethical imperative is to attempt to reform it, or to destroy or overthrow it?Sorry, got a bit behind in the discussion. My response might be off-topic in relation to the direction the conversation took in the interim, but I'll throw it out there anyway.

While superficial change is always going to happen, the basic US political system will not and cannot change. Since politics is now a profession rather than a hobby, the positions now appeal to people looking for a career rather than people looking to "help the country" before returning to their normal lives. As such, the system is designed to maintain the status quo, both of the people governed as well as the people governing.

Take campaign finance reform. The people making those decisions got their jobs by playing the "political whore" game. They've already sold their idealism, so they have no reason, practical or philosophical, to reform the system. The people that work outside the system, as your plan details, have very little chance of getting to a position to be able to influence the rules of the game. To change the rules, you've got to get elected. To get elected, you've got to run a successful campaign, which is terribly expensive. To pay for the campaign, you've got a be a "political whore". So much for idealism.

Now, I'll toss out another theory for you. I'm going to cheat and not support it since I'm supposed to be working, but I can discuss it deeper should you care to debate. I think that no system of government (or religion, but that's a whole different thread) can be reformed without going thru a complete collapse. All forms of government quickly evolve into self-preserving systems, maintaining power for the insiders (even if the insiders divide into some number of factions) and seeking nothing more than putting off the inevitable collapse.

If this branch of the discussion falls on fertile ground, when I get some more time, I'll throw out my prediction on the impending collapse in the USA.

magerette

September 11th, 2007, 19:22

Weltanschauung = World View
another one of those sneaky german words (ex. angst, doppelgänger, gesundheit, wunderbar, poltergeist, hamburger) that have found their way into the english language.
Also schadenfreude and zeitgeist, my personal favorites. :)

*snip*

While superficial change is always going to happen, the basic US political system will not and cannot change. Since politics is now a profession rather than a hobby, the positions now appeal to people looking for a career rather than people looking to "help the country" before returning to their normal lives. As such, the system is designed to maintain the status quo, both of the people governed as well as the people governing.

Now, I'll toss out another theory for you. I'm going to cheat and not support it since I'm supposed to be working, but I can discuss it deeper should you care to debate. I think that no system of government (or religion, but that's a whole different thread) can be reformed without going thru a complete collapse. All forms of government quickly evolve into self-preserving systems, maintaining power for the insiders (even if the insiders divide into some number of factions) and seeking nothing more than putting off the inevitable collapse.

If this branch of the discussion falls on fertile ground, when I get some more time, I'll throw out my prediction on the impending collapse in the USA.

I'd like to hear your fullblown theories, and while I'm not going to try to actually debate this as I somewhat agree, I will play a little devil's advocate *grabs canopener*--

What about the(negative) change that's already happened to our government? True, it certainly isn't "reform", but it's definitely a far different government in theory and practice than it was even fifty years ago, let alone as it was first conceived and implemented. In some ways, it may seem more functional (supportive of personal liberties, mainly) and in many others, less.

While I have to agree that it's more devolving (as Devo would say) than evolving, still it represents a gradual, incremental series of changes over time that produces a new entity.

Theoretically, couldn't it work the other way--move from a disabled and inefficient form to a better one through a series of small but consistent changes without hitting the collapse phase?

Pladio

September 11th, 2007, 20:15

I believe 'theoretically' is the most important and significant word. Yes, theoretically it could be done, but politicians won't do it.

dteowner

September 11th, 2007, 23:48

I'm not sure the system has really changed so much as the people in the system have changed. Career politicians really got started around FDR's time (I don't know that I could support that scientifically, but I'll sweep to the generalization anyway), and the way Joe Public perceives the whole shebang was revolutionized by TV (Kennedy vs Nixon debates, anyone?) shortly thereafter. Neither of those issues really is a part of the system itself, but the system has (d)evolved in response to it. In summary, I'm saying the engine is the same, but we're feeding it really crappy gas now.

As for my tinfoil hat moment, I'll hit it quick. I'm betting that the US will undergo some sort of revolutionary change in the next 40 years or so. Aging babyboomers will put a tremendous financial strain on the country and there will be nobody left to pay the mounting bills since the middle class (which pays 90% of the taxes) won't exist by then. The babyboomers will control fiscal policy due to their numbers but Generation X will get stuck with the bills. You'll end up with tyranny of the majority (to pilfer a phrase), which will effectively result in oppressive taxation without representation for GenX. We all remember what happened last time we had that situation around these parts.

Prime Junta

September 11th, 2007, 23:50

Now, I'll toss out another theory for you. I'm going to cheat and not support it since I'm supposed to be working, but I can discuss it deeper should you care to debate. I think that no system of government (or religion, but that's a whole different thread) can be reformed without going thru a complete collapse. All forms of government quickly evolve into self-preserving systems, maintaining power for the insiders (even if the insiders divide into some number of factions) and seeking nothing more than putting off the inevitable collapse.

You didn't answer the second part of my question, which I was actually more interested in: if you believe this to be the case, do you feel that there exists a moral imperative to destroy this system?

To comment on your theory, though: I don't believe it's supported by experience. I can come up with numerous examples of dramatic change in political systems (and religions) that was did not entail going through a complete collapse -- in my book, these changes count as improvements; you may or may not disagree, but I'm sure you'll find similar changes more to your taste:

* France's and Britain's evolution from imperialist, laissez-faire capitalist states to social-democratic "collaborative" states
* Finland's evolution from a poor, agrarian, semi-authoritarian state to a rich, information-society based social-democratic state
* The Anglican church's acceptance of openly gay clergy (indicative of a very significant shift in attitudes inside the church)
* The Second Vatican Council in the Catholic church
* South Africa's dismantling of the apartheid system
* Qatar's evolution from a strict, traditionalist, closed society to a (comparatively) open, modernizing, dynamic society
* Lots of examples from Roman history, for example Caligula to Claudius, Nero via the Four Emperors and the Flavians to the Five Good Emperors
* The USA's emergence from the Great Depression

If this branch of the discussion falls on fertile ground, when I get some more time, I'll throw out my prediction on the impending collapse in the USA.

Film at eleven.

dteowner

September 12th, 2007, 00:08

- Were the French and British changes not brought about in response to economic collapse, resulting in the sitting governments effectively being dumped on their butts? I guess I'm speaking more to France than Britain, but I think it applies to both.
- South Africa only reformed when the entire world put them in a financial bind. Although the Whites saw the writing on the wall before their economy was completely destroyed, I would still say "impending collapse" is close enough to "collapse" to keep the theory.
- The Great Depression was the collapse of the system, so the new version of government we got after that would in fact be a revolutionary change rather than a gradual adjustment.

I don't know that I can speak intelligently to your other examples. I guess we're viewing "collapse" differently. I'm using a slightly more broad view--it doesn't necessarily have to be a governmental meltdown as much as a meltdown of the people being governed.

Gotta go home. Perhaps we can play some more tomorrow ;)

Corwin

September 12th, 2007, 02:00

Prime Junta

September 12th, 2007, 11:17

I don't know that I can speak intelligently to your other examples. I guess we're viewing "collapse" differently. I'm using a slightly more broad view--it doesn't necessarily have to be a governmental meltdown as much as a meltdown of the people being governed.

You took the words out of my mouth. By "collapse" I understand a wholesale and sudden destruction of existing social, economic, and political structures -- à la French revolution, Russian revolution of 1917 (but not the one of 1905), the Chinese revolution of 1948, the German collapses after World Wars I and II, the implosion of the Soviet Socialist systems 1989-1990, that sort of thing.

Of course, crisis does often stimulate reform. However, I think you'll find that some of my examples don't fall under that category either -- in particular, look at the sequence of Roman history: it was in pretty bad shape under Nero, worse under the Year of the Four Emperors, it started to pick up slowly under the Flavians, built up a good head of steam under Trajan, and then enjoyed very steady and on the whole peaceful progress under Nerva, Hadrian, Antoninus Pius, and Marcus Aurelius. If you like, I can come up with more examples of that type.

Is the US system reformable *without* a major crisis as a catalyst? Personally, I don't think so. There are a couple of very entrenched structures that prevent it -- for example, (1) the passive and politically naive electorate, (2) the stranglehold of the military-industrial complex (enabled by a culture of militarism), and (3) a culture of irresponsible spending to cover up for bad government.

I believe a thorough and sufficiently painful military defeat could fix (2), a sufficiently deep economic crisis would certainly fix (3), and both together just might do the trick to fix (1).

But in my book, this would be a long way from collapse.

Prime Junta

September 12th, 2007, 11:22

From my perspective, the Anglican church collapsed years ago. All that's left is a shell!! They are preaching what the Bible calls 'Another Gospel' ( like many of the other modern church movements) and as such, are not 'Christian'!!

I must've missed out on something, since it's clear that Benedict XVI died and they made you Pope. If so, congratulations, Your Holiness. How otherwise would you have the authority to decide who's Christian and who isn't?

Corwin

September 12th, 2007, 11:45

Prime Junta

September 12th, 2007, 12:02

Corwin, I take extreme exception to your having the temerity to define somebody's religious identity for them. I have nothing but the deepest contempt for you for it, and will not engage in any further conversation with you on this or any other topic.

Put more another way: fuck you and the horse you rode in on, and you can stuff your Bible up your haemorrhoidal ass, if you're able to un-clench your sphincter enough to make the operation possible. Do I make myself clear?

Corwin

September 12th, 2007, 13:17

Unfortunately for you, I have the expertise to define somebody's religious identity; it's part of what I do and who I am!! I am an expert on the Bible, theology, and what it ACTUALLY means to be a Christian. I try not to preach on this site, for many reasons, but when asked, I oblige!! Seems you can dish it out, but not take it!!!!

Prime Junta

September 12th, 2007, 13:43

No, Corwin, you do not have that authority. The only one with the authority to define a person's religious identity is the person him or herself. Not the government, not the Pope, and certainly not some ten-penny preacher from Australia pitifully flaunting their "expertise" on some games forum somewhere.

Second, you're not "using the Bible as your authority" -- you're setting up *YOURSELF* as the authority, while hiding behind the Bible. That's simultaneously incredibly cowardly and incredibly prideful. Not to mention entirely un-Christian. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_deadly_sins#Pride_.28Latin.2C_superbia.29)

txa1265

September 12th, 2007, 13:53

Well, let's see!! The Pope isn't a Christian by MY definition!! I use the Bible as my authority, not a man. The Apostle Paul warns very clearly against those who preach 'Another Gospel'. This includes such things as gay clergy, gay marriages, wealth/prosperity teaching, worship of Mary, worship of Saints, etc, etc!!

Doesn't that make me and all Catholics non-Christians? And all Eastern / Greek / Russian Orthodox church member non-Christians? And pretty much any Protestant Church I have encountered in the US non-Christian?

Sorry, but that is a load of BS.

Prime Junta

September 12th, 2007, 15:24

@Corwin, one more thing: yes, I'm upset at your attitude. A part of it is general philosophical upset, but I have to admit that a part is personal.

My wife comes from a certain Middle Eastern country that makes the news all too often. She grew up during a war. She has had relatives killed for being Christian; in fact, her father only very narrowly escaped that fate once. And... she's Roman Catholic.

And then some smug Australian fuck blithely defines her as "not Christian."

How cool is that?

Corwin

September 12th, 2007, 15:41

Prime Junta

September 12th, 2007, 15:56

Sorry to offend, but the RC church is not Christian by the definition of Christian I subscribe to. You may disagree with me, and we can debate Protestant vs RC doctrine all you wish, but it won't change my beliefs. I avoid these issues as much as possible, because I know some will be offended. I can't help that, the Bible admits its message will be offensive to some. PJ, I'm ignoring your insults.

I have absolutely no desire to engage in any kind of doctrinal discussion with anyone: it's entirely beside the point, the point being that religious identity is something that only the individual can define for themselves.

"Avoid these issues as much as possible" my ass. You take every opportunity you get to tout your credentials in exegetics and your narrow, bitter little brand of Christianity as the only *real* Christianity. Claiming the contrary makes you a sorry little hypocrite in addition to your other endearing qualities. Would you like me to dig up some examples, hmm?

Judge not lest ye be judged, Corwin. You're a smug, prideful, judgmental, parochial, narrow-minded, sorry little prick of an excuse for a human being, and I am done discussing anything at all with you.

dteowner

September 12th, 2007, 16:38

txa1265

September 12th, 2007, 16:38

Well, dte is right about one thing - time to chill on this whole topic.

The thing I get hung up on, and perhaps PJ as well, is that contained in the Bible (NT) are many, many messages of inclusion, acceptance and conciliation. The verbage and attitude I saw / inferred from Corwin in this thread were all about exclusion, renunciation and rejection.

Prime Junta

September 12th, 2007, 16:47

Well now, isn't that nice. Take a breath, gents. Clearly this is a little too hot of a topic for us to deal with today. PJ, you kinda crossed the line there. You clearly have strong beliefs in this area, and that's fine with me. Corwin's got strong beliefs as well. That's no excuse for the level of venom you unleashed there.

It is, by my definition. (See, two can play at *that* game.)

There's absolutely nothing I can say that can come close to the level of offensiveness Corwin exhibited here, and I don't buy into the "turn the other cheek" spiel.

I take a dim view of organized religion of any color, so Corwin and I have gone a few rounds in the past as well. I think you'll find that he can speak very intelligently to the topic.

I kinda doubt it. I haven't noticed him speaking particularly intelligently on *any* topic so far.

That doesn't mean you'll like everything he has to say, but it certainly merits intelligent and respectful conversation. For a concrete agnostic like me, the alternate viewpoint is interesting and stimulating and it's a shame that he won't generally share it because of blowups like this.

Rest assured that I'm very familiar indeed with "the alternative viewpoint" -- I've talked religion (and lack thereof) more than most people, and with more people of different religions than most people are likely to even encounter.

However, I want absolutely no truck with miserable integrist fucks like Corwin, other than to express the depths of contempt I hold for them. And that goes for integrist fucks of every flavor, Objectivist, Christian, Muslim, Jew, Hindu, or what have you.

After several pages of intelligent comments, you kinda blew it there PJ. I would have expected better from you, even if the topic is a major hot button for you.

I do not regret the least bit what I said, nor did I write it at the spur of the moment. I took about two hours to think about exactly what to say, as a matter of fact, and even edited and re-wrote the message about two or three times. I don't tend to spit venom without good reason.