JFC. GOP already talking about impeaching Hillary
- Thread starter Huey Grey
- Start date
I think this is a fundamental error akin to the errors communism makes about human nature. Human nature is self interested. There are only two ways to get people to do what you want. You bribe them or you force them. There is no such thing as a system that works by people simply deciding to do what is the best thing to do for society. Our system works on bribery. It worked a lot better when we were open about that and embraced pork and earmarks as good things. It would be a far worse system if we gave up on bribery and teams and went to forcing people to do what we think the solutions should be.
Your saying that the administration that wanted us involved in WW2, stole their peoples gold, and enacted the welfare legislation that continues to haunt us today was bringing down the ruling class?
WW2 helped create the monstrosity called the War Machine, taking the gold enhanced the wealthy, and the welfare legislation created dependents. Are those three things all that bad, when broken down into multiple categories and then judged one by one?
Yes, for the most part, I would say yes. I do not believe that working within the system is the hard work. The hard work comes from working against it, as in my opinion, we should within many areas of it's structuring.
You're saying that the administration that wanted us involved in WW2, stole their peoples gold, and enacted the welfare legislation that continues to haunt us today was bringing down the ruling class?
WW2 helped create, or solidify to be more accurate the monstrosity called the War Machine, taking the gold enhanced the wealthies monopoly, and the welfare legislation created dependents. Are those three things all that bad, when broken down into multiple categories and then judged one by one?
Yes, for the most part, I would say yes. I do not believe that working within the system is the hard work. The hard work comes from working against it, as in my opinion, we should within many areas of it's structuring.
The middle class is becoming the lower class, with only the wealthy class on the other side of the ever thinning line. This is because the system you wish to work with, is not working. I believe that after debating you for awhile now, that you believe the system is something divergent from it's true self.
Yes, I think redistribution was a good thing and I'm glad we got into WWII.
Tell us how you plan to work outside the system and make any change? You got a blue print of that ever working? Because I can point to success after success of getting what i want from within the system.
Is not communism in it's, innocent form, exactly what you would want then? I disagree with your notion that people learning to think logically and not how the system molds them to is communism.
I'd love to, but I'm too busy trying to help free individuals from the Matrix first. We need more free minded people who are able to evolve their thoughts from the devolving process of becoming one with the system.
In short, I can only try to help people understand for now. Would you be so kind as to list the successes you believe you have received from the system?
If you are saying there will always be cheaters and criminals, that certainly seems borne out by history. But the truth is that no particular type of society has ever "worked." Maybe one of those in existence today will, but would you bet on it? And the myriad others that went before obviously all failed.
So I could argue that self-interested cultures are no more successful than more altruistic or cooperative ones.
There's even some reason to hope for the cooperative ones that doesn't exist for the selfish ones. Cultures such as the anarchist communities in pre-WWII Spain thrived. They did not fail due to a failure of cooperation - or because the concept of cooperation is intrinsically flawed. They failed because the fascist nations ganged up on them.
Of course they might have failed anyway. After all, they all do.
See what I mean Natural?^^^^^Your teammate just decided he didn't want go along with the type of team you want to be part of. I bolded Parsers best sentence in his post here.
No, it doesn't. Quite astute there. Of course, that's how it WORKS.
Really? No shyte? You're just a font of information.
Where are those parties now? Which one of them is in a position to actually govern? Take your time.
No idea what this even means. At any rate, it is completely immaterial.
Thank you for your responses. I see we are not so different you and I. Do you like bagels?
I just don't feel like debating right now. I wanted to make sure you're not ignored though.
That's not what I was trying to communicate. I was trying to communicate that like the communists, you are naive in your notion that we could ever have a government that just fixed problems. That sort of government has never existed. You always need to buy off or force people/interests/groups to behave as you would like to fix problems. Which is why pretending you can work outside the system is foolish. Just like communism is foolish.
So you admit you have no way forward. This is why your theories fall apart. You can't do anything. I on the other hand have experienced success on multiple fronts by working in the system to expand healthcare, education, civil rights, environmental protections and multiple other wins. Look around you, this is a golden age and you are worried about the color of the piss pot when the important thing is that we all have a pot to piss in.
I don't think there is such a thing as altruistic or cooperative cultures on any large term that survive some hero leader. I think humans are inherently self interested. Our current system is built to deal with that truth. That's why it works. and I do think it works. Just because change is a constant and nothing last forever isn't a reason to say all endeavors of civilization are failures.
I'm not debating you...that would presume you have a valid stance. And feel free to ignore me. Please.
I think it more of a perception thing.
When we talk capitalism, for example, we expect people to lie, cheat and steal. They do. We aren't especially upset because we expected it. When we talk military dictatorships we expect ruthlessness. We get it. We aren't especially disappointed because we didn't expect better. And so on.
When we see these same human characteristics in more utopian settings, we should be no more surprised. But we are. But what happens next is something odd - and I would say wrong - we condemn utopian aspirations.
Think about it. How many times have you heard people say things like "it's always people with the best of intentions who cause the most harm"? It isn't true, of course. But it's either taken as great wisdom, or a truism.
At the same time, our whole society is built on this interesting belief
I don't think people lie cheat and steal because of their government or economic system. I think they do that because that's what it is to be human. If your system can deal with humans, it survives. If it requires that people not behave as humans, it falls apart. Red's and Prime's and Soup's and possibly your systems all require people to just behave themselves which never works. The status quo I'm defending deals pretty good with human nature. Now we both would like to see it do better. I think improvement can be made with some rather minor tweaks rather then a revolution based on ideas that have empirically failed.I think it more of a perception thing.
When we talk capitalism, for example, we expect people to lie, cheat and steal. They do. We aren't especially upset because we expected it. When we talk military dictatorships we expect ruthlessness. We get it. We aren't especially disappointed because we didn't expect better. And so on.
When we see these same human characteristics in more utopian settings, we should be no more surprised. But we are. But what happens next is something odd - and I would say wrong - we condemn utopian aspirations.
Think about it. How many times have you heard people say things like "it's always people with the best of intentions who cause the most harm"? It isn't true, of course. But it's either taken as great wisdom, or a truism.
At the same time, our whole society is built on this interesting belief
I was agreeing with you that it's a human problem. But societies can encourage or discourage those activities. And, as you point out, regardless of the type of society, they have to be prepared to deal with it.
I was just saying that I don't think that is a worse problem for societies that are based more on cooperation than those based on competition or violence.
We are a gang species and have evolved to be accomplished liars. It would be silly to pretend otherwise. But that shouldn't keep us from striving to be better.
As the father of sociobiology has pointed out, the point of understanding the evolutionary underpinnings of human nature isn't to excuse atrocities and all the ugly stuff, it's so we have a handle on overcoming our inherent weaknesses.
Fair enough. I don't see where most of the anti system folks are offering a better way to deal with human nature than the status quo. Red wants to pretend if we got rid of parties, people would just cooperate and solve problems. Prime wants to think if we just vote 3rd party that will destroy corruption and the new party will resist becoming what it replaced. Soup thinks if we just get rid of government we will all live in pease. All of these thoughts naively depend on the goodness of mankind. All of them would fail IMO because that's not who humans are.
So . . . if those are flawed, what's your critique of getting money out of politics and having automatic voter registration at 18 (or perhaps mandatory voting)? Other than making it happen, that is (since all of the other suggestions would also face that first hurdle).
I'm for it. I think you fix the status quo with two basic efforts. You mitigate the power of money in politics with things like you suggest. I would consider dealing with citizens united, mandatory voting, preferential ranked ballots, gerrymandering rules like Iowa has, national voting standards and protecting access to the ballot for both voters and candidates as additions to this effort.
Follow that up with more redistribution to reinvigorate the middle class like we did after WWII. You now have more people with money and a stronger market. Use our market to secure fair trade policy and force the world to our will peacefully. Both of these things have been tried before, proven to work and are not very radical. We keep capitalism, the constitution, the party system. We just get a better world more responsive to the general welfare of the people.
Is it buying off or forcing people/interests/groups to fix problems? Or is it all of that in order for THEM to get what they want?
Both. The price of getting a person to do what you want is to give them something they want. In such ways both people get their problems solved. That's the basic format of human cooperation.
All of those things were withheld from you because of the system. I'll agree with you on environments protections to a degree. The rest though was withheld from you because of the system. Significant failures in civil rights and education as examples. You always point to social issues also, it's clearly your bread and butter in these debates. What about the wars, the growth of governments ability to detain citizens, their constant efforts to find ways to convince you to deal with higher taxes. Healthcare has not improved, the rates have simply skyrocketed due to government interference.
You need to start looking past your need to focus simply on social issues. Government is exactly what causes the most problems or is the biggest withholder of rights amongst the people.
Nonsense, government is the source of rights. There are no rights absent government. And you have no alternative. So no matter how bad you think government is, it's the only game in town. Which is why I hold the position that you must work to make government work and not work to unmake government.
So bribery over truly making positive changes. Progressives need to change that term as if they are truly for progression. I see more problems coming from government.
In example, people of the homosexual persuasion are now allowed to get married. As if government should of ever of had a say in that matter, regardless of whether it was against it or for it.
Along with that all US citizens are now able to be killed by their government before trial and to also be detained without warrant and at an indefinite time period. They are also able to be spied upon without warrant.
That is your system for you. Handing you bread crumbs that you already should of had, and taking away half of the contents of your fridge in return.
That sounds very much like a 'loony religious', type of view. You are simply a subject to the power of an entity then?
You're missing the big picture. The bribery is the positive change. Bribes are how you convince people to care,about each other's issues. Bribes are the communities form links and alliances and bulwarks to resist force. Bribes are what enables popular rule. The alternative to bribes is force. You only have two options to achieve progress. I pick the more practical, ethical, peaceful option. For a man focused on war, you chart a path that enables it.
Of course, we are all subject to power. That's why I want a government with checks and rules and restraints and redress to keep the powerful at bay. Your alternative is absolute power in the hands of thugs without any rights at all.
It's weird that you can't see the holes in your theory. Your position is entirely based on trusting the goodness of your fellow man when inherent to your complaint is your realization you don't think your fellow man is trustworthy. I prefer a more practical approach. Acknowledge you can't trust people, so buy them, bind them, make them dependent and give them a reason to work for what you want.
I think that if someone had to be bribed to do the right thing as you say, then the system is unsatisfactory at best.
I like it. A system built on persuasion is real, sturdy, able to deal with problems. Your fantasy alternative made up of saints and angels just naturally motivated by goodness and light is weak. And a weak system will be pray to the first bad guy who happens along. Your utopian visions hold no truck with me.
They don't seem to be keeping the powerful at bay. They seem to be keeping the powerful in a position to stay powerful. Where do you get your thugs statement if I may ask? That is not at all what I've said, nor do I get how you could conjure something like that up.
Your position is based on trusting a system that has failed you and ran by those you know you cannot trust. The proof is in the history of your world. You seem to just not have faith that humans are capable of growing without restraints.
It is also truly capable of striking you down. It also has you put faith into it, despite your intuition telling you that you know it's not built to help, it's built to structure the controlling interests of those that wish to 'lead you'.
It is also no different than a belief system that relies on blind faith instead of common sense. Even worse is that the Devils due is truly a constructed aspect of your system. I do not consider my self religious by the way. Spiritual maybe, but not religious.
If you remove the government, you get thugs in charge. Power is kept in check by the system. You're not seeing reality if you think you are a surf under the system we have today. But we would be if we dismantled all the protections, because that's is the natural state absent civilization.
No one is calling for "no government". Government is necessary, but our government is WAY out of control.
I prefer centuries of empirical data to faith. Faith is the weakness in your theory. My system is practical. I buy the results I want. You wish for them which puts us all at risk.
What makes you think there isn't already a group of thugs in charge? The only thing different between them and the mobsters of old, is that they are far more powerful and have total and complete control. They order 'hits', force you to pay them lest you suffer, and use fear to keep you in check. Most troubling of all is that they use the 'law' to get away with what they would put you in prison for.
Then trust that the empirical data shows that government has done more harm to humanity than religion ever could have thought to. Religion is simply a avenue to which they drive you to their cause. Or the lack of religion as well.
I have no faith when it comes to a system. I am exquisitely empty of that faith.
Similar threads
