Pedantic Struggles: The All Encompassing Philosophy Thread™

[Green Habit]

Surely there is a better system out there than democracy. It really is just mob rule. And the ability of hundreds of millions of people to make the best choice, or even a better than terrible one, is next to impossible. We just had an election between Trump and Hillary, for God's sake. And Trump won.

Forcing the majority's will on the minority is no more morally justified than the opposite.

Let's devise a replacement. It all starts here on RM.

Democracy is the only system of any merit. But democracy comes in many variations. If the US wanted to, there are plenty of other ways it could fill the congress. The first past the post voting system, means that it is very difficult for a third or a fourth party to emerge. "The majority is always wrong, the minority is rarely right." Which means that even in a democracy, if only the majority have a say, then it can easily turn into a tyranny of the majority.

This is why I find the concept of the Bill of Rights to be a brilliant check against the tyranny of the majority, by shutting off certain abuses of government against minorities that serve no rational purpose in improving the society as a whole.

[BurtReynolds]

[BurtReynolds]

Surely there is a better system out there than democracy. It really is just mob rule. And the ability of hundreds of millions of people to make the best choice, or even a better than terrible one, is next to impossible. We just had an election between Trump and Hillary, for God's sake. And Trump won.

Forcing the majority's will on the minority is no more morally justified than the opposite.

Let's devise a replacement. It all starts here on RM.

Democracy is the only system of any merit. But democracy comes in many variations. If the US wanted to, there are plenty of other ways it could fill the congress. The first past the post voting system, means that it is very difficult for a third or a fourth party to emerge. "The majority is always wrong, the minority is rarely right." Which means that even in a democracy, if only the majority have a say, then it can easily turn into a tyranny of the majority.

This is why I find the concept of the Bill of Rights to be a brilliant check against the tyranny of the majority, by shutting off certain abuses of government against minorities that serve no rational purpose in improving the society as a whole.

I think most checks on the majority are largely imaginary. The Bill of Rights may defend against certain abuses , but only those specific cases, and a large enough majority can change the rules, so it's really only a protection against weak majorities.

[Green Habit]

I think most checks on the majority are largely imaginary. The Bill of Rights may defend against certain abuses , but only those specific cases, and a large enough majority can change the rules, so it's really only a protection against weak majorities.

It's also a problem if the judiciary isn't following the rules. The Supreme Court, like any body of humans, isn't infallible, but having the ability to get it right is important.

[Birds in Hell]

This, from the 2017 UK Conservative Party Manifesto, is extremely up my alley.

[simple schoolboy]

This, from the 2017 UK Conservative Party Manifesto, is extremely up my alley.

[BurtReynolds]

The more I delve into various government forms, the more I seem to be spinning my wheels.

Stirner was right. It's all make believe. Power always goes to the powerful (edit: it just takes a little longer in some forms).

[BurtReynolds]

political ideology generator

http://political-generator.herokuapp.com/

I'm a Catholic Anarcho-Stalinist

[Birds in Hell]

Islamic Post-Communist

Well, if the shoe fits...

[malice]

Neo-Accelerationist


I don't know what that means but it sure sounds good

[Self]

Pan-Luddite

[BurtReynolds]

Queer Neo-Zionist

[---]

lower-caser

[Bi_3]

lower-caser

That's not a proper name

[malice]

lower-caser

win

/thread

[Noangel]

Here's truth....



labels are bigotry. The same thought process takes places whether you are talking about race, religion...even political ideology.


It is essentially a way to distract us all and point fingers or make it easy to dismiss ideas that make us uncomfortable. '...the crazy hippy liberal...or the racist old white guy...' meanwhile we can continue our safe little lives of ignorance and not have to truly discovery what this is all about.



Pointing fingers and figuring out the problem is easy...whatever the specific issue that a society needs to deal with should be discussed. Its not about individual's...its about ideas. Solutions exist in this world....revolution is not required to solve many of the problems facing the people of this world.

SOP is to derail any slight move towards that discussion. Us vs Them. Left/Right. dem/rep. you lost/we won. what is really lost, besides the discussion that is essential to solving the issue(s)....is the many great ideas that could/can be presented.


There is a very real difference between democrats and republicans.....i'm not suggesting that. policy-affecting millions...hundreds of millions of people, is very much affected by that contest.



But to look past that.....this isn't about individuals anymore -or shouldn't be, if anyone cares about anything that matters. IDEAS. Many on the left will agree that single payer health care is obvious, not a right, not a something you need to earn....its obvious....and for the US to step out of the archaic mentality where so many profit on suffering, and catch up with the rest of the civilized world...yeah...even the current elected official acting as president of the US said it....single payer health care is better than what we currently have.

Why are Canadian stitches cheaper?



Ideas from the right...the very argument used to dismiss socialism or communism...that a massive gov't is required to sustain and maintain them, thus stifling freedom...that is also true of capitalism, as it turns out. When 20% of industry and US capability is idle...as it was recently, according to the Federal Reserve....and 20 million Americans are out of work...a society that cannot put those 2 together has a fundamental flaw. A system that is crisis prone is flawed....



Mental health....medicate and interrogate.....meanwhile, it is no sign of health to be well adjusted to a sick society. If you're sad you're just fucking sad. If you're pissed off you're just pissed off. There's a reason...figure it out, you will learn a lot more than just taking a pill that for some reason also makes you fat and lazy and stupid and blocks out whatever it is you are experiencing.

and on and on...each specific issue is has a solution...using Einstein's method......fundamentally identifying the problem is essential, he'd spend 90% of his time figuring out just what it was....at that point the solution didn't take long.


Saddam Hussein offered to buy 1,000,000 automobiles manufactured in Detroit, every year for 10 years. Well, today Flynt residents probably wouldn't be paying for poisoned water and michigan might have a thriving economy. Also, the FBI was going to be allowed authority to operate within Iraq...well there's you're road to democracy, pretending that's an honest goal- there's you're solution to US economy woes...instead Chrysler dismantled its factory bolt by bolt, shipped it to Brazil, re assembled, re-trained workers, and began manufacturing again...because it was more profitable.

Instead of that choice, the US military just destroyed the entire country of Iraq. They had almost 30 years to solve this problem....and the path and choice and idea they chose was to destroy the entire country and kill over 3 MILLION ppl. A slaughter almost on par with the Holocaust. Yet its not even a footnote when discussing US involvement in Iraq. It was modern. Advanced. Had the world's oldest agricultural program. Held the world's second successful heart transplant. The US...in 30 years....could have had a very stable, functioning, democratic and perhaps even grateful ally in the region, right on the border of today's current 'foe'-Iran.

Now its very Orwellian. You have 12 insurgents and kill 2, you are not left with 10.


To the religious....the Old Testament...can't even spell it right,.....the question is asked.or statement raised....

'You can either choose to live, or choose to die.'


I don't know what people think when they read that....stupid question, obvious answer, God is...whatever, if anything... religion is the opiate of the masses...whatever the case may be....that question exists. Some people have to consciously answer it, and others answer it without ever hearing the question. It isn't a nod to religion.....its a nod to the idea that there is more to life and human history than randomly being created in a bubbling pool of slime as a single cell that decided to mutate. Reality of spirituality....


Answers are everywhere....depends on how motivated a person is to go looking.







To the philosophy thread, a serious question.



Why would Armageddon be considered a positive thing, to some, for human beings.

[malice]

Darrin, i think

[BurtReynolds]

This is why drugs shouldn't be legalized.

[BurtReynolds]

Neo-Accelerationist


I don't know what that means but it sure sounds good

In political and social theory, accelerationism is the idea that either the prevailing system of capitalism, or certain technosocial processes that have historically characterised it, should be expanded, repurposed, or accelerated in order to generate radical social change. Some contemporary accelerationist philosophy takes as its starting point the Deleuzo-Guattarian theory of deterritorialisation, aiming to identify, deepen, and radicalise the forces of deterritorialisation with a view to overcoming the countervailing tendencies that suppress the possibility of far-reaching social transformation.[1][clarification needed] Accelerationism may also refer more broadly, and usually pejoratively, to support for the deepening of capitalism in the belief that this will hasten its self-destructive tendencies and ultimately lead to its collapse.[2][3]

Accelerationist theory has been divided into mutually contradictory left-wing and right-wing variants. "Left-accelerationism" attempts to press "the process of technological evolution" beyond the constrictive horizon of capitalism, for example by repurposing modern technology for socially beneficial and emancipatory ends; "right-accelerationism" supports the indefinite intensification of capitalism itself, possibly in order to bring about a technological singularity.

Sounds interesting. Kind of a transhumanist idea.

[Green Habit]

Darrin, i think

Darrin always used consistently proper capitalization and punctuation.