FRIHOST • FORUMS • FAQ • TOS • BLOGS • DIRECTORY
You are invited to Log in or Register a Frihost Account!

State your Political Philosophy! (1000 FRIH$ to the best!)

   Frihost Forum Index -> Lifestyle and News -> Philosophy and Religion
 


The Philosopher Princess
{EDITED-IN ANNOUNCEMENTS (newest to oldest)}

Arrow Current news: The contest is officially over. The awards have been presented. These sibling topics are now open for further political philosophy discussion. But they are no longer being as closely facilitated or monitored as before. (See why, here.) (Staff is always around, though. Wink) Nevertheless, please keep up the high-quality standards of discussion. Readers and T.P.P. will appreciate it. Very Happy

Arrow Old news: This thread (and its sibling topic) are temporarily locked during political philosophy contest deliberations. Please do not despair, for both topics will be re-opened for discussion within hopefully a week.

Arrow Old news: The deadline for questioning, challenging, answering, and offering other political philosophy additions has been set for Thursday, 19 October 2006, 6:00 p.m. GMT. At that time, the threads will be temporarily locked.

Arrow Old news: The deadline for accepting new contestants has now past.

Arrow Old news: The deadline for new entries has been set for Tuesday, 10 October 2006, 6:00 p.m. Greenwich Mean Time.

{INTRODUCTION}

What should be The Law? What should The Government look like? What should Government Authorities be allowed to do, and what should they do? What should not be in the scope of these things? Please share with us your best answers. And/or please help analyze other people’s answers. This is a contest with a serious bent.

Please don’t get bent out of shape (Smile) at the length of the description below. As with many contests, the “fine print” is voluminous, but it doesn’t mean this is difficult. As long as you are courteous and sincere, everyone is welcome to give this a try. More entries will make it more interesting for everybody. There will be only one winner, but every person who enters will receive FRIH$, and every person who adds to the discussion will receive FRIH$.

{SIBLING TOPICS}

This is the main sibling topic. It is for serious discussion in the context of political philosophy.

The subordinate sibling topic (located in the Contests Forum) is less serious -- even light and playful. It is entitled, Discussion ABOUT “State your Poly Philosophy! 1000 FRIH$”. Posts (after this one) that discuss FRIH$, or include questions about the contest logistics, will probably be moved to there. In other words, the contest part is to be discussed over there, while the serious on-topic part is here. I will do my best to judge these appropriately, but you can help by posting in the right place.

{STATE YOUR POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY}

I would like as many people as possible (within the next week or so) to state for us your political philosophy. It can be in the form of prose (text), a bulleted list, a poem, a table, or other forms. But it needs to be created by you. You may rainbox (use color and formatting) or not, as you like. It may be fairly short, fairly long, or in-between. You may offer more than one entry (both of course would be reflecting the same political philosophy). In general, more comprehensive is better than less; however, a subset of your political philosophy is acceptable.

To remind you (Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_philosophy):
Wikipedia wrote:
Political philosophy is the study of fundamental questions about the state, government, politics, liberty, property, rights, law and the enforcement of a legal code by authority: what they are, why they are needed, what makes a government legitimate, what rights and freedoms it should protect and why, what form it should take and why, what the law is, and what duties citizens owe to a legitimate government, if any, and when it may be legitimately overthrown—if ever.

{DISCUSS OTHER PEOPLE’S POLITICAL PHILOSOPHIES}

You may question, challenge, agree with, and otherwise discuss any philosophies here. You do not need to have offered your own philosophy to join in on the discussion. You do not need to be interested in the contest part, even. In fact, for this to work, I need many of you to analyze and critique others’ philosophies on things such as how practical they are, how well they will achieve their goals, how moral they are, how sincerely the author believes it, whether the form offered is original and creative -- virtually any area as long as you also are being sincere and serious.

{CONTEST}

Arrow The 1000 FRIH$ will be awarded to the winner, only if 10 or more people who are eligible to win offer their political philosophies. If there are fewer entries, then only 500 FRIH$ will go to the winner.

Arrow Every valid political philosophy entrant will receive an amount of FRIH$ for your part in contributing to the success of the contest. So too will every person who questions, challenges, and discusses others’ philosophies. (These amounts will be disclosed later when the awards are presented.)

Arrow The Philosopher Princess will be the sole judge of this contest. I give you my word that I will do it as objectively as possible. I am not eligible to win. My closer friends will not receive preferential treatment. Your philosophy needs to be yours (not mine, not someone else’s) and all will be treated with equal respect and skepticism. (Sincerity and creativity are most important.) I will be using Moderating powers, as well as taking part in any and all discussions.

Arrow (Besides all “regular” Frihosters who are eligible) Moderators and Staff are also eligible to win. (If, however, you use any moderating powers here or on the sibling topic, then please recuse yourself from the contest. Even in the case that you aren’t a contest entrant, your own entries and questioning of others would still be needed.)

{THE CRITERIA FOR JUDGING THE WINNER}

These are the areas where entrants may and should be questioned and challenged. They are listed in priority order, most important first.

Arrow SINCERITY. The person entering the political philosophy needs to believe in it. You need to be able to defend your philosophy and explain what it means.

Arrow CREATIVITY/ORIGINALITY. The philosophy, as it is offered, should have been created by the entrant and should be extremely interesting. You could picture it being on the back of your published political philosophy book. (Obviously, something very boring is probably not going to be published.) Write/create something for us that will make you stand out from the crowd. Be innovative. Be provocative. Be profound.

Arrow PHILOSOPHY THAT IS POLITICAL. It must be a philosophy in some sense of stating principles, or stating rules to be followed, or something resembling a credo. It must fit somewhere in the area described in the Wikipedia blurb above.

Arrow PRACTICAL, MORAL, FEASIBLE, CONSISTENT, ETC. This is a catch-all for the most important criteria that a political philosophy should have. However, these are the most difficult to judge objectively -- especially in a relatively short discussion like this. Therefore, the judging will be on how you handle yourself during questioning on these things. People who answer questions directly, thoroughly, and forthrightly will be judged better than those who do not even try.

{FINAL NOTES}

I may be breaking new ground here in attempting to offer a contest that is on a subject of utmost importance. This is planned to be my last Frihost topic (Please join my going-away party). I would be honored if you would help this to be a success. Whether you will write up your philosophy and offer it here, and/or whether you can question others, I depend on you -- and so does the whole contest! Very Happy

As long as this “fine print” is, I know you will likely still have questions, so please ask them over here.

Arrow Arrow Though this is a contest with real FRIH$, I don’t want the FRIH$ to be the main focus. For example, I hope that people who don’t need or care about FRIH$ would participate. Let’s let the political philosophy talk be our main focus -- because that is something that truly affects our relationship with the world. Please let the contest part just add some fun to something serious. I hope many people will take pride in offering your own political philosophy. I will take pride in having you join me here. Very Happy

Last edited by The Philosopher Princess on Wed Dec 06, 2006 12:48 am; edited 7 times in total
NjRocket
The Philosopher Princess wrote:
{INTRODUCTION}

What should be The Law? What should The Government look like? What should Government Authorities be allowed to do, and what should they do? What should not be in the scope of these things? Please share with us your best answers. And/or please help analyze other people’s answers. This is a contest with a serious bent.


Well, ill start it off i guess. The government should be able to control the citizens to a certain extent. They must know what should and shouldnt be leaked out for the purpose of all the lives of the people. They know that people would panic, for example, World of the wars, radio show in princeton where people thought aliens were indeed taking over the world, people starting killing themselves and taking money out of the banks. This is a solid example of what would happen if something the government should have kept quite ended up coming out. Government should be intact of a group of people with different beliefs. I say this because if everyone has the same beliefs, TOO much stuff will get done, hurting the citizens and the people around them. We need people on different sides so that they know they just can't pass something and they must know its good for the country. If there was no government, ask yourself who would be running the country and the people? Can you say chaos? As citizens, people might hate certain decisions made by certain people in office, but its just things that you have no control over. Wars are a great example of this, you might not want to go to war, but the government feels it must protect people by going out and beyond the country and fighting in different lands. Well, this is my submission to the contest, by the way, when will this end?
smartass.id.au
Firstly I think that Philosophy comes first. Its what you conclude right and wrong to be, before you can make a law about it politically.

So, in a Multicultural society such as Australia(where I come from) we have a basic problem: there are so many different philosophies and religions, so how do you make political life fair?

Maybe you could start with just about the only thing that different religions and philosophies have in common : "Do not do things to others that you would not like to have done to yourself". So possibly that idea of action, or policy, could be the fundamental basis for all political philosophy.

It's not perfect, but the principle is sound.

Another concept is working towards "the greatest good for the greatest number[of people]"

To tell a short story(and make it shorter again) : There once was a wealthy Eastern King who gathered all his scholars together to perform a task that had occured to him as a great idea. He wanted all the knowledge in his library condensed down into a set of books, so he could read only the really important stuff, but the set of books was too big, so he ordered all the knowledge in his vast library reduced down to one book. But that was too big, so he forced his scholars to bring it down to one essay. But the esay was too big, so a sentence, then a word.

That word, that affected every other person, every other living thing, and even the physical structure of the universe was - "SURVIVE!" .

Everything was trying to survive. (quote and story from LRH)

It was also "The Answer to Life, The Universe, And Everything" (Quote from Hitch-Hikers Guide To The Galaxy by Douglas Adams, bbc audio + books)

So every action you take could be weighed up, in a Political Philososphy, against whether it enhanced the overall survival value of that society or not.

An example here in South Australia is the introduction of gambling machines where they were previously illegal. Much money has been wasted(approaching billions) by South Australian citizens. The gambling machines were known to be addictive, and its obvious that they serve no puspose other than some sort of entertainment. They should have remained banned, like the highly addictive drug that they are.

A good political philosophy would conclude that Gambling Machines are good only for the manufacturers and operators, and are not good for the general population.

My point is(got there at last!!) that Philosophy comes first.

You gotta think thru in a structured, logical manner before setting rules in law. Thanks for listening.
MadeinIndia
In one of my previous posts, we discussed about God and religion. Even though I had a very few replies to my discussion, almost everyone who replied agreed to my theory.

I was more curious and intrigued by the topic of the post than the lure of the points I would accrue. I always was interested in studying various cultures, religions etc. I myself belong to and adhere to the teachings of Hinduism.

In every society, religion has been a major influence and a decisive factor in the governance. Once we all acheive objectivity on that issue and look at the bigger picture, the world will be a better place to live in.

As the world is becoming more of a global village, there is a very urgent need for everyone to know the importance of keeping their religion out of their professional lives. For the society to achieve the near perfect conditions, we need to evaluate everything that is going wrong. At the same time, discard some ideas and beliefs, even though they are very dear to us.

Take all the good things out of Communism, Capitalism and Socialism and form Humanism, the ultimate model for a society.

Understand that when we were prehistoric cave people, there was no god, no religion and no controversies....ofcourse I guess they fought and ate like animals, that's a different topic. As humans evolved, God became a tool to control the society, keep them in line. We are scared of whatever we cannot see, feel or imagine. Communism failed exactly due to that. They failed to leverage the power of god! People are more scared of god than communist rulers! Funny eh...


For a society to progress, education is the key. Infact, EDUCATION is the only way! Not mere accumulation of degrees etc but an overall learning of philosophy and the bigger picture. For any society to become successful, the stress should be given on education. The educational institutes should be strengthened so much, that they don't just manufacture engineers, doctors or lawyers, but intelligent human beings.

Instead of finding various ways to invent machines that will make cooking easier, wash easier or faster computers, the focus should be on finding ways to make the society a peaceful and understanding race.

If GOD is one thing that scares people, GREED is the other thing that forces them to disobey him! Communists took GOD and GREED out of their society but not from the rulers. Where people worked hard, rulers enjoyed all the luxuries. I was surprised to read a report that the rulers in communist moscow had a different lane on the roads only for their vehicles!

For a model society, Keep GOD and GREED intact, but control them. Weed out Corruption completely. Find mechanisms to do it and the society will progress.

I can keep going on and on about various ways, structures of a society, but unless there is strong education and a control on technological development, which is making the society blind to the environmental concerns, it is impossible to live like humans. Today, we are just like robots, controlled by machines, dependent on them completely. We are more interested in increasing the bank balance, to buy that bigger house, to buy that latest mobile phone, to buy that faster car....we are blinded by this pursuit of material wealth. We need to inform and educate that this is not the reason for our existance.
Indi
NjRocket wrote:
The Philosopher Princess wrote:
{INTRODUCTION}

What should be The Law? What should The Government look like? What should Government Authorities be allowed to do, and what should they do? What should not be in the scope of these things? Please share with us your best answers. And/or please help analyze other people’s answers. This is a contest with a serious bent.


Well, ill start it off i guess. The government should be able to control the citizens to a certain extent. They must know what should and shouldnt be leaked out for the purpose of all the lives of the people. They know that people would panic, for example, World of the wars, radio show in princeton where people thought aliens were indeed taking over the world, people starting killing themselves and taking money out of the banks. This is a solid example of what would happen if something the government should have kept quite ended up coming out. Government should be intact of a group of people with different beliefs. I say this because if everyone has the same beliefs, TOO much stuff will get done, hurting the citizens and the people around them. We need people on different sides so that they know they just can't pass something and they must know its good for the country. If there was no government, ask yourself who would be running the country and the people? Can you say chaos? As citizens, people might hate certain decisions made by certain people in office, but its just things that you have no control over. Wars are a great example of this, you might not want to go to war, but the government feels it must protect people by going out and beyond the country and fighting in different lands. Well, this is my submission to the contest, by the way, when will this end?

There are a lot of questions raised by what you suggest, that to me seem mostly unanswered:
- For starters, you say the government should control the people and the information the people receive. But... what is the "government" if not people?
- How does the government decide what information is "safe" and what is not?
- You say the government should consist of a body that represents different points of view. All points of view? Even fascists, bigots, fanatics and criminals?
- Or if not all points of view, who decides which points of view should be included and which shouldn't?

And then there's the question of limits. Take your War of the Worlds example. That was a hoax, yes, but what if there really were an alien invasion? Wouldn't the steps you say were taken - taking your money out and running for the kills, or simply killing yourself (although, to my knowledge, neither of those things actually happened - from what I recall, only one woman threatened to kill herself but actually did not, and no one rushed to the banks because the show was aired on a Sunday) - wouldn't those steps be reasonable courses of action to take in the event of a full on invasion by extra-terrestrials? Killing yourself may sound extreme, but in such an invasion death is probably inevitable and would probably be very unpleasant - a gentle suicide may be preferable. But taking your cash and heading for the hills will probably go a long way to ensuring your survival. Are you saying the government has the right to deny you your best chance of survival? That the government can decide that you should die any time they feel it would be in their best interests?

Basically, it sounds like you are describing a government that has the right to do what it wants, when it wants, how it wants - whatever it takes for the sake of the "country". It can start wars and send citizens to die in those wars, and the citizens have no say. It can manipulate information and keep things from the citizens - even if that leads to the death of citizens. All for the good of the country. Is that what you're suggesting?

And of course, the ultimate question of government: Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? (Who watches the watchers?)
Rico
Even if only Moderators and Staff are eligible to win, I'd like to give my 50c worth. My political philosophy: Lawyers become politicians (in my neck of the woods anyway), and what good has ever come from a lawyer. Vampires make you feel more fulfilled after dealing with them. Maybe first world is different but where I come from politicians only lie when their lips move. Alas me is an anarchist, nothing less can justify the self destructive nature of the Homo Sapien. Good night and farewell fare princess.
The Philosopher Princess
Rico wrote:
Even if only Moderators and Staff are eligible to win

I would like to make it very clear that EVERYONE in general (besides myself) is eligible to win -- not just Mods and Staff.

The reasons I mentioned that the latter were eligible is (1) very often they are not eligible, for example, for the Fortnightly Fantastic Frihoster awards, so it might not be expected that they were eligible, and (2) I needed to specify the extra rule for them concerning using their powers.

So, Rico, thanks for your thoughts and feel free to add more.

(Normally this discussion about the contest should be on the sibling topic, but it’s too important to let any misunderstanding on this not be addressed here.)
Idoru
This topic got my mind spinning! Thousands of lines said, written and lived by known
and unknown people tend to claim focus at once. Difficult to be clear, but I'll give it
a shot. Even though, I must admit, I'm not compleatlly clear on the frames to
keep myself in. Nevermind that. Smile

The law, as I see it, gets broken all the time. Gouverments seem to try different
methods and ideologies, but often with somewhat similar resaults - it just doesn't
reach everyone that's included. Some doesn't want to be included, some wish to
have it some other way, some doesn't give a damn, some change their ways all
the time... I therefore belive not in one law, one society or one gouverment.
For the ones not caring some kind of parlament propablly works fine. Representatives
speaking and working for those who're satisfied with what comes around.

I, for one, isn't,
but I'm still to tired of it to want to get involved. That's why I'd like to live closer to the
nature. Take the responsibility that comes with the package, and share my life with
similar-minded. Lots of hard work, but hopefully a harmonic state. I realize and
respect that there are many people who doesn't share that dream, but see it as a
step backwards in evolution, why I'm all for small self-gouverned societies living
more or less independent of eachother. All create their own standards, laws and
gouverment, but comes togeather in equal respect for the other societies right to
exist within some terms. Ofcourse we'd have to adept to the lot given to us, but
still be able to move around. I guess what I propose is a more polarized version of
the world we have today, but with greater tolerance for differing views. All you have
to do is to respect and accept your neighbours right to a place to exist in the fashion
he or she likes to, regardless of what you think of it. You don't have to have them
over for coffee. Wink

Perhaps humans possesses some maners that contradicts with this idea, but I
honestly doesn't think so. They could be tamed, if they are, just as long as no
human beeing needs to accept beeing 'stomped on'. So, back to a sort of federalistic
world, but without warmongers and conquerers. If we have the guts to settle with
what we've got. Twisted Evil
MadeinIndia
Continued:

In my previous post, I have discussed about the importance of religion, greed and education in our lives. Once we understand their influence in scoping our future, let's discuss brass stacks about Political Philosophy.


Earth, including the inhabitants within is very diverse. Human race is one, but their customs, practices and way of life is completely different from one another. So to say that one model is perfect is completely wrong. What is wrong for one is right for the other.

We would still try to analyze and understand what would make our lives better but before that, we need to understand the bigger picture in life. I will not use complicated words and mumbo jumbo as I guess I am not trying to make a business presentation.

Humans are created on this earth for a specific reason, to maintain balance of the nature. We have to understand that unless we keep that balance, world will be thrown into choas as it is happening now.

First and foremost, as our education and technology increased, we need to understand that religion and such stuff has just been discovered by men like you and me to maintain control of the world. Ofcourse, I strongly believe that there is some supernatural force controlling the world. Go ahead and call it your god, give it a name like Jesus, Allah or Ram....but please keep it private!

The current chaos in the world is caused exactly due to the excessive influence of religion. Once a society decides to remove religion from governance, it is a positive step in development. (We are not removing it from citizens lives, they are free to follow ANY religion, but keep it private please)

Next, we have to understand that in any society, there should be a constant mix of the experienced old and the energetic youth taking form in governance. Just the old governing would not achieve anything as they think too much before acting or the youth governing would take too many brash decisions. So rather, a good mix of these both should be formed.

In a democratic society, people are given the power to choose leaders, but in countries like India and USA, democracy has turned into a sham. Money, glamour and muscle power wins you elections.

In India, you need to be a gangster or atleast should have enough muscle power to gather people for meetings before a political party gives you a ticket to participate in elections.

In USA, they spend millions of dollars on Presidential elections, total marketing blitzkrieg! Funds that can be better used on development programmes. Often a nincompoop is projected as a great leader.

India is the world's largest democracy and USA is world's oldest democracy.

Such misuse of democratic setup throws the society into anarchy. People become robots, with mechanized lives, trying to purchase happiness and pleasure with money. In their constant pursuit for more money and more pleasure, they don't realize that happiness is slipping away from them slowly, inspite of making millions of dollars(or any other currency), buying that fancy home, the latest mobile phone, the large television.


Once the society decides to elect their government fairly and with competent people, it should keep in mind the following things.

Greed is a complete no no in governance! Each and every person in the government should complete rigorous educational tests. He/she then should win the majority votes from the majority population. There should be no small print enabling people for backdoor entries or other such ways.

It should be made clear to the people in the government that punishment for them is 10 times more for any criminal activities or misuse of power.

Police. Often called a licensed gang of thieves should be controlled effectively. The Police should never become a private army of the rulers.

Except for defence issues, all other decision making meetings should be held in public view, e.g observers from the press, television, public should be randomly selected and made to participate in the meetings and their comments taken in the issue.

For example, there is an important meeting to discuss a multi-billion contract. Apart from the government officials, just like a jury, randomly selected people from the press and public should be chosen and made to be present in the meeting. Their views on the meeting should be made public the next day. This ensures fair play in the decision making process.

Choosing a good government is half the battle won in creating a perfect society. Once we know that the government is filled with honest and hard working people, the society then should look at development. With balance of nature. Educational institutes should be strengthened and be taken care of very very carefully. The students coming out of those institutes is the future of the society.

Laws should be made with consensus. Every law passed should have the approval of the majority of the citizens. Not just a bunch of law-makers sitting in a big building. Just like voting, for any major law decisions, every citizen should be given a form asking their opinion on the concerned laws. After filling up the form, including their SSN or other ID given by their government, they can drop the forms in select tamper proof boxes. It should be made mandatory for every citizen to fill up that form. Just like a driving license record, each citizen will have a record of any such non-participation in law making. The majority opinion of the citizens should be made into law. Not to inconvenience their citizens too much, such law making decisions should be clubbed together and only one form be given to citizens per month.


If forms create too much paperwork and hassles, then use technology! Create machines like ATM's all over the city where every citizen has to use his ID and password to login, select the laws that are being introduced, press his opinion like Yes or No.

There are many such ways to create a perfect model for society. For all that to work, the key thing is population control and education. For example, the above law-making process is impossible in a country like India but perfect in a place like Sweden or Auckland.

Population is a major issue in development. Control it. Give people the power to decide. Keep a control on unnecessary development and protect nature. Create a society of happy, content and good-natured people.
Indi
smartass.id.au wrote:
Firstly I think that Philosophy comes first. Its what you conclude right and wrong to be, before you can make a law about it politically.

So, in a Multicultural society such as Australia(where I come from) we have a basic problem: there are so many different philosophies and religions, so how do you make political life fair?

Maybe you could start with just about the only thing that different religions and philosophies have in common : "Do not do things to others that you would not like to have done to yourself". So possibly that idea of action, or policy, could be the fundamental basis for all political philosophy.

It's not perfect, but the principle is sound.

Another concept is working towards "the greatest good for the greatest number[of people]"

To tell a short story(and make it shorter again) : There once was a wealthy Eastern King who gathered all his scholars together to perform a task that had occured to him as a great idea. He wanted all the knowledge in his library condensed down into a set of books, so he could read only the really important stuff, but the set of books was too big, so he ordered all the knowledge in his vast library reduced down to one book. But that was too big, so he forced his scholars to bring it down to one essay. But the esay was too big, so a sentence, then a word.

That word, that affected every other person, every other living thing, and even the physical structure of the universe was - "SURVIVE!" .

Everything was trying to survive. (quote and story from LRH)

It was also "The Answer to Life, The Universe, And Everything" (Quote from Hitch-Hikers Guide To The Galaxy by Douglas Adams, bbc audio + books)

So every action you take could be weighed up, in a Political Philososphy, against whether it enhanced the overall survival value of that society or not.

An example here in South Australia is the introduction of gambling machines where they were previously illegal. Much money has been wasted(approaching billions) by South Australian citizens. The gambling machines were known to be addictive, and its obvious that they serve no puspose other than some sort of entertainment. They should have remained banned, like the highly addictive drug that they are.

A good political philosophy would conclude that Gambling Machines are good only for the manufacturers and operators, and are not good for the general population.

My point is(got there at last!!) that Philosophy comes first.

You gotta think thru in a structured, logical manner before setting rules in law. Thanks for listening.

Philosophy is, at best, a moving target. Ten different philosophers will give you eleven different philosophies, all with wildly different conclusions about what is right and what is wrong. So if you're going to let philosophy decide the law, the question is... who's philosophy? Alfred Rosenberg's?

To say that all of the various religions and philosophies and religions have the "golden rule" in common is specious. While it is true that most do have some form of it, there are many different forms, with many different implications. For example, the way you have worded it is not the way it is commonly understood in Judaistic religions, like Christianity. And of course, there are dozens of philosophies and religions that don't embrace that idea at all - for example, survival of the fittest. I mention that one specifically because it more closely approximates the idea in the L. Ron Hubbard parable you presented.

And of course, the ethic of reciprocity is a very simplistic and limited rule, despite all the hype it gets. It may work in a perfect world, but not this one. Let's say someone commits a murder. What do you do? You wouldn't want to be locked up, so by the golden rule, you shouldn't incarcerate him. You wouldn't want to be executed, so you shouldn't do that either. In fact, about all you can do is give them a hug and say "there, there" and send them on their way, according to the golden rule. How do you handle a case like that?

Not only does the golden rule fall down on crime and punishment, it fails whenever there's a crisis. After all, wouldn't the society's survival chances increase if the weak were weeded out? The ethic of reciprocity won't help you there. If you were weak you wouldn't want to be weeded out, so you shouldn't do it to them... but on the other hand, if you were strong you wouldn't want to suffer because the weak were holding you back, so you shouldn't hold them back. So if it's properly applied what should happen is the strong should not kill off the weak, and in fact should try to help them even if it lessens their own chances for survival... but the weak should commit suicide willingly. Of course... if the weak aren't willing to do that...? Then what?

The truest test of a political philosophy in my mind is a stress test. In good, plentiful and peaceful times, just about any philosophy will work. The real test is times of crisis. Your philosophy attempts to mesh the ethic of reciprocity with utilitarianism (greatest good for the greatest number) - both of which are problematic in and of themselves. Both philosophies have their own problems - I've already explained the problems with the ethic of recipricity, and you can see here for a stunning example of what's wrong with utilitarianism. But what happens in a time of crisis - when someone must be sacrificed? By the ethic of reciprocity, they should kill themselves willingly, but what if they do not? By utilitarianism, the weakest should simply be lined up against a wall and shot.

And finally, the last bit about the gambling machines. I'm not sure I follow your logic. On the one hand you say "greatest good for the greatest number". That would seem to imply to me that the owners and employees of the companies that manufacture those machines, the owners of the places that profit from owning one of those machines, the countless auxiliary jobs and wealth created, not to mention the jobs created for people to support and cure gambling addictions and those gamblers that don't get addicted but enjoy and maybe even profit from the games... all of those people represent a "greater number" than the few that suffer because of addictions.

What if it really does turn out to be the case that far more people benefit from the gambling machines than suffer? For the greater good, isn't it best to let them suffer? (Or, if you read the story, would you walk away from Omelas?)
Bikerman
A personal philosophy.

Regarding organisation (and implicitly, therefore, government) of peoples.
It seems to me that capitalism is an inappropriate 'philosophy' on which to base a modern technological society for a number of reasons. The most important of these would be that of human freedom. In a capitalist society an individual is 'worth' what (s)he inherits plus what (s)he is able to generate.
For the vast majority this involves selling their labour for currency in one form or another. According to this view, society is held together, not on the basis of common welfare, but by the "invisible hand of the market" implemented through impersonal contracts. Individuals are largely reduced to wage-slaves in this type of system. The early free-market philosopher Adam Smith was clear in his opposition to this potential outcome of free markets and said (1776 - Wealth of Nations):
Quote:
"Civil government, so far as it is instituted for the security of property, is in reality instituted for the defence of the rich against the poor, or of those who have some property against those who have none at all."

In Smith's time the situation was that artisan workers would sell their labour to a particular employer for a set contract or period. Today most people work for one employer and are, therefore, indebted to that employer in a way which Smith himself found repugnant.

Today, the prevaling economic theory, called “neoclassical economics” serves to make exploitation invisible.

Here is a quick summary of Neoclassical Economics.
Production is a process in which no surplus gets produced, nor appropriated, nor distributed.
Quote:

Building on the early formulation of such ideas by Adam Smith, neoclassical economics casts production as a process in which no surplus gets produced, nor appropriated, nor distributed. Instead, production is an harmonious collaboration: workers bring their labor, landlords their land, and capitalists their capital. All three contribute to production and all three share in its fruits according to their contributions: the workers’ share is wages, the landlords’ is rent, and the capitalists’ is profit. It is a world of fairness and harmony. The inability of workers to contribute capital is explained by their failure to save out of their incomes and their resulting lack of capital to contribute to production. The capital in the hands of capitalists is not the fruit of exploitation, of taking a surplus from workers, but rather the fruit of their own virtuous frugality. Capitalism fairly rewards individuals for the contributions each brings to production. More than that, capitalism represents an engine of wealth production, economic growth, and thus the possibility for everyone to become rich. Those who have failed to do so should chiefly blame themselves. To blame capitalism is not a valid social critique but rather the whining of losers.


This has been extended into the current 'world market' philosophy which posits a globalised economy which is largely under the control of non-elected global corporations which are 'accountable' only to shareholders and whose value is measured purely in financial terms.

This is where we are today. Democracy is often quoted as the defining quality of the western powers and used as reason and justification for actions which, when committed by non-democratic states, would be, and are, classified as terrorism.

It is important to realise that representative democracy (as practiced in the US and UK) is severely limited in scope and flawed in execution. Both systems concentrate power in the state and neither system extends the idea and practice of democracy beyond the political sphere and into the economic sphere. It seems to me self-evident that democratic control of one's productive life is at the core of any serious human notion of freedom, and should be at the core of any significant democratic system.

The antithesis of this system is Marxism and it is Marx who actually coined the phrase 'wage slave'. Marxists, one might say, are to capitalism what abolitionists were to slavery.

It is not necessary to document or comment on the success or otherwise of these two competing ideologies since it is evident. It is probably worth commenting, however, that Marxism as typified in the press by the USSR, was a long way from the social system envisioned by Marx himself.

Given the contradictions and structural inequity of Capitalism and the apparent impracticality of Marxism what is the alternative.

My own preference is for anarcho-syndicalism, which can be thought of as 'libertarian socialism' for those who prefer to classify in terms of existing and understood political philosophies.
Current representative democracy concentrates (too much) power in the organs of the state. Further, as long as individuals are compelled to rent themselves on the market to those who are willing to hire them, then there are striking elements of coercion and oppression that make talk of democracy very limited, if even meaningful.

For this reason, anarcho-syndicalists propose a society organized on the basis of organic communities. Generally, this means the workplace and the neighbourhood. From those two basic units there could derive, through federations, a highly integrated social organization which could be national or even international in scope and have the power to make decisions over substantial range. Delegates, however, are always part of the organic community from which they come, to which they return, and in which, in fact, they live. This is the reason for the 'syndicalist' part of the tag.

Anarchism should be explained as well since it has come to mean something negative - chaos or lack of structure, when in fact it means nothing of the sort.
The fundamental idea of anarchism is the primacy of the individual -- not necessarily in isolation, but with other individuals -- and the fulfillment of his freedom. In this sense Anarchism is not disimilar to the founding ideas of the US itself (it was Jefferson's concept that the best government is the government than governs least).

I'll try to sketch a society organised by the ideas of anarcho-syndicalism as best I can.

Let's begin with the two modes of organization and control ; workplace and community.

Workplace.
I posit a network of workers' councils, and at a higher level, representation across the factories, or across branches of industry, or across crafts. This would go on to general assemblies of workers' councils that can be regional and national and international in charter.

Community
I posit a system of government that involves local assemblies -- again, federated regionally, dealing with regional issues, crossing crafts, industry, trades, and so on, and again at the level of the nation or beyond.
Delegation of authority is minimal and participants at any level of government should be directly responsive to the organic community in which they live. The optimal situation would be that participation in one of these levels of government should be temporary, and even during the period when it's taking place should be only partial - ie the members of a workers' council, who are for some period actually functioning to make decisions that other people don't have the time to make, should also continue to do their work as part of the workplace or neighborhood community in which they belong.

This, it seems to me, is a sensible and fair way to organise a post-industrial society, being based on individual freedoms, collective responsibilities and social cohesion.

Regards
Chris

Last edited by Bikerman on Tue Sep 26, 2006 3:48 am; edited 1 time in total
The Philosopher Princess
@ MadeinIndia,

You seem to have put a lot of thought into what is wrong with current political systems and ideas about how to make things better. You have created a smorgasbord of priorities and fixes for various problems.

If you had to give a 3 to 4 line summary of your political principles, what might that include?

In other words, would it be possible for you to reduce everything down to something smaller, that is still consistent with the bigger explanations?

If not, please explain why not. If yes, would you care to do that for us?
Bikerman
The Philosopher Princess wrote:
@ MadeinIndia,

You seem to have put a lot of thought into what is wrong with current political systems and ideas about how to make things better. You have created a smorgasbord of priorities and fixes for various problems.

Well, I cannot claim that anarcho-syndicalism is my own invention Smile. Noam Chomsky and other left-leaning thinkers have influenced my thinking quite markedly in this regard.
Quote:

If you had to give a 3 to 4 line summary of your political principles, what might that include?

In other words, would it be possible for you to reduce everything down to something smaller, that is still consistent with the bigger explanations?

If not, please explain why not. If yes, would you care to do that for us?


I'll try to summarise two major points that I think perhaps most important :

1) Personal freedom. Includes freedom from and freedom to. Examples would be freedom from exploitation and freedom to achieve one's potential. The concept is only meaningful in the post-industrial world when it includes economic freedom as well as legal and social freedoms, otherwise freedom is effectively circumscribed by economic factors (the wage-slave concept).

2) Democracy. The concept is only meaningful in the post-industrial world when the economic forces in society are included under democratic control along with the judicial and social/welfare structures. Otherwise real power is out of the reach of the population and in the hands of non-elected tyrannies (which is what corporations are, technically).

It's a bit oversimplistic but those are the two principles I would highlight as central to my philosophy whilst at the same time most in need of reform.

Regards
Chris

PS - I just read the post again and (silly me) note that it was not intended for me at all. Ho hum....I'll leave this anyway, and next time I'll read more carefully Smile)

Last edited by Bikerman on Wed Sep 06, 2006 4:58 pm; edited 1 time in total
MadeinIndia
Princess, Infact I would have written a book on this topic...to summarize it in 3-4 lines...lemme try!

My political philosophy of the society and government is very simple. I won't quote anything complicated...Life should NOT be complicated...

1) For any society to progress, Education is the most important thing! Every society should make education it's foremost interest.

2) Governments should be created with people who have a vision, who should look at the bigger picture, our role in the nature etc..(How to elect such a government, I will post a seperate post on that)

3) Freedom of the individual should be protected, at the same time everyone should understand that religion creates more problems than helping us. Keep your religion at home and the world will be much peaceful.

4) Finally, Everyone should be reminded about the real joy of living, When we understand and respect the need for the other person to live respectfully, any society will progress. Live and let live...
Bikerman
MadeinIndia wrote:
Continued:

I'd like to develop a couple of points which interest me in this.
Quote:

Earth, including the inhabitants within is very diverse. Human race is one, but their customs, practices and way of life is completely different from one another. So to say that one model is perfect is completely wrong. What is wrong for one is right for the other.

Interesting. Assuming a negligable 'inherent' difference between members of different cultures (ie leaving genetic differences out of it - I would argue that they are not significant), then the differences are the result of environment, custom etc. The more I have travelled the more I have formed the opposite view - ie cultural and social differences are not so different and not so exclusive. I would argue that the differences are comparible with differences in languages.
Chomsky's work in this area led to the realisation that diverse languages are not so diverse after all. Since we know that there is some 'hard-wiring' in the brain of an infant which enables rapid language acquisition, and we also know that a chinese infant raised in New York will speak perfect American and visa-versa, we can conclude that the differences in language are more superficial than is apparent, and that there is some underlying structure which is universal.
I think it is possible to make the same argument for cultural and social norms and mores.
Quote:

Humans are created on this earth for a specific reason, to maintain balance of the nature. We have to understand that unless we keep that balance, world will be thrown into choas as it is happening now.

Why 'created' and 'reason' ? Does there have to be an underlying reason for humans to exist ? A hidden agenda ? Is it not equally valid to assume that we are simply here because two other humans had sex. Your view seems to assume some designed function or even duty for the human species wheras evolution would indicate that we are simply the product of genetic change over time and, as such, are not 'designed' for any other purpose than to survive in our environment.
Balance of nature ? Is there such a thing ? It seems to be a phrase used a lot but with no meaning. Firstly it inherently puts man and his works outside nature. How can that be ? Are we not natural ?
Secondly it implies some sort of equilibrium exists in nature - whereas we know life is constantly changing. The climate and other envirnmental factors change without any intervention from man. It is true that man can affect these factors in a more dramatic and immediate way than other animals, but with or without us there will be ice ages, droughts, floods etc. There is no time that life settles into a balanced equilibrium - as the fossil record shows clearly.
Any extrapolation of this notion of 'balance' into the realms of social policy and philosophy seems to me to ultimately and inevitably lead to stagnation The Platonic vision of this outlined in his 'Republic' seems to me to be a model that we would do well to stay clear of. In fact, all such 'utopean' societies (including Thomas Moore's coining example) are dead ends.
Humans seem to have a natural longing for stability which may well be an ofshoot of our innate pattern seeking. We automatically try to find patterns in our surroundings - to the extent that it can sometimes mislead us into seeing patterns where non exist. This seems to spill over into social life - people become stressed by too much change. As we get older (in my own experience, anyway) this increases and we become more 'conservative'. I think we do well to be aware of this and realise that it does not necessarily mean that no change is a good thing. If you arrive then the journey is over. Life is a journey and to arrive is, I think, to die.
I think that this principle needs to be remembered when designing strutures in societies.

Just some thoughts to stir the pot...

Regards
Chris
raghu.steppenwolf
Here's my two cents on this really big question: a quote.

"To discuss which form of government is best is a debate for fools;
That government is the best which is administered best!"
rwojick
First off, as an American, I must talk as if it were us and no one else that existed in the world(wink).

I think the good news is that we have the blueprint, however, with the women's help that was ushered in by Family Courts, today NO ONE KNOWS HOW TO READ BLUEPRINTS!

We start with the self evidence truths. All men are created equal and have the God given right to life, liberty and the persuit of happiness.

Next, comes the Bill of Rights. Each person has these rights and they increase as the person grows into adulthood.

The key words are "Congress shall make no law that violates" the Rights given in the Constitution. So, our rights are like a bubble, or a shield that we all have.

Our system was born as a system that was a reaction to "going before the king". The law is the authority in our system and our leaders take an oath to that law.

If a bad law gets created, and this happens (perhaps daily), then this law is UnConstitutional (by bad, I mean it violates the Bill of Rights) and then this can be argued in Court.

This system provides that the laws come from the people by the lawmaking process and then lawyers and Judges INTERPRET those laws for the people. See the circle? And the lawmakers and judges and lawyers are also part of "the people".

I'd say that is the nutshell, then we have the contest in Court but I'll save that for a later date.
Bikerman
raghu.steppenwolf wrote:
Here's my two cents on this really big question: a quote.

"To discuss which form of government is best is a debate for fools;
That government is the best which is administered best!"


That sounds like an Abe Lincoln misquote.

Thomas Pain's quote on a similar line was was :
Quote:
That government is best which governs least.


Care to name the source for your quote ?

I totally disagree with it, of course, since it leads to the conclusion that beaurocratic government is always best, regardless of ideology, which is, to put it mildly, a bit contentious.

Regards
Chris
LeviticusMky
To go a bit off the wayside, my political philosophy rewards intelligence, and it's not a democracy in the strictest sense of the word.

To start off, let me first articulate that Democracy was not considered a viable political format when it was invented by the Greeks. Plutocracies and Aristocracies in their myriad of forms were considered the only real solutions to governance, and were implemented to great effect in the republics of ancient Greece and Rome. I tend to agree with this, but only in principle, I will explain.

America in particular has done very well by Democracy (or the representative form, at least), and has thrived. However, a good analogy would be the problem of the group of people in a room with a severely injured person. Say this severely injured person is not faring well, and needs treatment, would you take a vote on how to deal with them, or just ask the doctor?

I feel that we would be better served by true Aristocracy, which would be what asking the doctor entails. Aristocracy has been bastardized over the years to mean a number of things that it wasn't supposed to. Initially the definition of Aristocracy was "Rule by the best" meaning, the best of the populace would rule the others. Of course this leaves way too much open for interperetation, and what you end up with is people saying that they have a Divine Right to be King/Queen and the peasants end up with zero rights.

However, Aristotle invented Aristocracy to mean that the people would have their laws made by them that know the subject matter of the law. As an example, scientists would decide what the laws surrounding science would be, and Educators would decide what the laws restricing education would be. Monetary theorists and Economists would decide how money was to allocated, and criminologists would decide how to administer the prison and law enforcement systems.

Of course this is an ideal situation, and the question becomes thus: Who gets to decide which scientists and economists get to make the decisions?

Well, that is where I try and sprinkle a bit of Democracy into the mix. If aristocracy is neccessary to make the state run smarter, then democracy is required to ensure that the rights of the people are held up.

I mentioned earlier that my ideal political system would reward intelligence, it is in the democratic process that this would come into play. Bear in mind that this is not real democracy, as not all people have equal rights in this system, but all have equal protection under the law.

The populace would be divided up into three distinct classes. The top class would be those who have some kind of high-level education. (as in a college degree) They would be the people with the ability to vote in national elections, electing representatives to fill seats in all of the aristocratic areas (education, finance, military, etc.). People who have median levels of education (as in a High School diploma) would be allowed to vote in state elections, but not national elections. Those without a diploma would be allowed to vote in local city and county matters but not in state-wide or national matters.

Yes, this does take away rights, and yes there are problems with this structure, but I feel that they are far less crippling than the problems that we face in a representative democracy that we reside in today, where all of the political power is in the hands of those with the money.

Essentially all I propose is to not reward monetary wealth as we do in America today, but instead to reward willingness to learn and excel. Call it a Democratic Aristocracy.
Bikerman
LeviticusMky wrote:

To start off, let me first articulate that Democracy was not considered a viable political format when it was invented by the Greeks. Plutocracies and Aristocracies in their myriad of forms were considered the only real solutions to governance, and were implemented to great effect in the republics of ancient Greece and Rome. I tend to agree with this, but only in principle, I will explain.

Crikey – it’s been years since I last picked up Aristotles ‘Politics’ so I’m rusty. Nontheless I want to take issue with you, so feel free to slap-down any mistakes I may make due to faulty remembrances.
Quote:
The origin of the Athenian democracy of the fifth and fourth centuries can be traced back to Solon, who flourished in the years around 600 BC.
Cleisthenes established the world's first democracy (500 BC), with power being held by an assembly of all the male citizens.
In 411 and again in 404 Athenian oligarchs led counter-revolutions that replaced democracy with extreme oligarchy.

It is certainly true to say that Greek philosophers argued over demokratia (people-power) but there were various viewpoints. Most Greeks agreed that it could only work for city-states of a certain size (otherwise no room for everyone at the Forum) and many writings quantify this to around 50,000 population.
I think that you are more particularly referring to Plato and his writings since he certainly took an anti-democracy line which was largely adopted later by Aristotle.
Quote:

America in particular has done very well by Democracy (or the representative form, at least), and has thrived. However, a good analogy would be the problem of the group of people in a room with a severely injured person. Say this severely injured person is not faring well, and needs treatment, would you take a vote on how to deal with them, or just ask the doctor?

I don't accept that this is a good analogy (or even analogous at all to be truthful). It is certainly anthropomorphism (equating the state to a human) but I don’t think it is a good metaphor and I don’t think valid comparisons can be made.
Even if it were a valid analogy it is clearly biased since it assumes as a given that the state is critically ill. If the state was not ill then would you ask the doctor for advice?
Do you see my point?
Quote:

I feel that we would be better served by true Aristocracy, which would be what asking the doctor entails. Aristocracy has been bastardized over the years to mean a number of things that it wasn't supposed to. Initially the definition of Aristocracy was "Rule by the best" meaning; the best of the populace would rule the others. Of course this leaves way too much open for interpretation, and what you end up with is people saying that they have a Divine Right to be King/Queen and the peasants end up with zero rights.

The original meaning actually was first coined in Athens. It was a term applied to young citizens who led armies from the front line with their swords up. It later came to be defined as the slave holding class of ex-military men and this is the general meaning in Greek terms. It later (medieval times) comes to mean ‘nobility’ but this is not too far from the original concept since in Athenian democracy the non rulers also had zero rights.
Quote:

However, Aristotle invented Aristocracy to mean that the people would have their laws made by them that know the subject matter of the law. As an example, scientists would decide what the laws surrounding science would be, and Educators would decide what the laws restricting education would be. Monetary theorists and Economists would decide how money was to allocated, and criminologists would decide how to administer the prison and law enforcement systems.

Hmm.That is one interpretation of his 'Politics' but I think it misses some central points and is not actually correct. He actually defines several types of 'constitution' and classes each as deviant or correct. This would be summarised as:
System...........Correct.............Deviant
One Ruler.........Kingship...........Tyranny
Few Rulers.......Aristocracy.......Oligarchy
Many Rulers.......Polity.............Democracy

In this, of course, he borrows largely from Plato and 'Republic'. Aristotle didn't actually say very much about aristocratic governance (bits in Politics 3 and 7, I seem to remember). It is surprising to me that so much has been written about his particular contribution to this debate since. There is a good (I think) treatment of this here:
http://members.tripod.com/~batesca/aristo.htm

On the central point - Aristotle stated that monarchy was best, aristocracy next and third best was constitutional republic. Since (he said) it was unlikely that the monarch would be a 'perfect person' he regards this as unattainable. He uses the same argument for aristocracy since he regarded the contemporary notion of Aristocracy to be corrupted. Therefore he argues that the best 'attainable' form of government is constitutional republic.
At no point have I read your interpretation that
Quote:
the people would have their laws made by them that know the subject matter of the law.

I may have missed this passage or reference in his writings...could you reference it so I can have a look?

It strikes me that your interpretation of Aristotle leads you to a definition of governance which is what we would now call Meritocracy. Would that be fair?
Quote:

The populace would be divided up into three distinct classes. The top class would be those who have some kind of high-level education. (as in a college degree) They would be the people with the ability to vote in national elections, electing representatives to fill seats in all of the aristocratic areas (education, finance, military, etc.). People who have median levels of education (as in a High School diploma) would be allowed to vote in state elections, but not national elections. Those without a diploma would be allowed to vote in local city and county matters but not in state-wide or national matters.

OK - this is elective, or collegiate, meritocracy I think. The immediate problems that spring to mind for me would be:
1) You seem to have aggregated law making with profession. Does this mean that each profession makes laws for itself with no central legislature ? Or are you saying that there would be a central legislature formed of the ‘aristocratic areas’ and their representatives? In both cases I’m not clear who would be voting for what. Anyone with a degree votes, OK, but what for? Teachers? Generals? Or do they vote for a legislative council (but how could they since how would the makeup be determined?). Do you see my problem ? I don’t know how you get from your aristocratic areas to a central legislative body. Most societies have a central legislative body as an entity unto itself which makes ALL legislation covering all fields. I don’t understand how your system fits together…
2) Education is a difficult and controversial way to measure attainment. Would your ‘aristocratic areas’ include crafts as well as professions? How does the brilliant General with only a school certificate fit into the scheme? He is in the military area but not a voter…could he be elected? What about the education area – would that include playgroup and kindergarten teachers without a higher degree, or only High school and university teachers/lecturers? Where do the non graduate professions fit in. Do plumbers sort out building regulations on plumbing? How are they elected? I’m genuinely confused.

3) What function would state and local elections serve?
Quote:

Yes, this does take away rights, and yes there are problems with this structure, but I feel that they are far less crippling than the problems that we face in a representative democracy that we reside in today, where all of the political power is in the hands of those with the money.

Hmm. I’ll await the details above before further comment since I haven’t yet understood your proposal properly.

Best wishes
Chris

Last edited by Bikerman on Tue Sep 26, 2006 3:54 am; edited 1 time in total
salman_500
MadeinIndia wrote:
Princess, Infact I would have written a book on this topic...to summarize it in 3-4 lines...lemme try!

My political philosophy of the society and government is very simple. I won't quote anything complicated...Life should NOT be complicated...

1) For any society to progress, Education is the most important thing! Every society should make education it's foremost interest.

2) Governments should be created with people who have a vision, who should look at the bigger picture, our role in the nature etc..(How to elect such a government, I will post a seperate post on that)

3) Freedom of the individual should be protected, at the same time everyone should understand that religion creates more problems than helping us. Keep your religion at home and the world will be much peaceful.

4) Finally, Everyone should be reminded about the real joy of living, When we understand and respect the need for the other person to live respectfully, any society will progress. Live and let live...



well i have seen u rite alot here and i see that in all your posts your blaming a couple of things that are leading to a disaster in the society.... first your saying lack of education.......

i agree that education should be our interest but as you can in todays world everything costs money and money is what the government'S dont have... and ecven if they do they are using it for the defense of there own.. making weapons of mass distruction and preapare for a so called World War III instead of working to stop it... another thing that in other parts of diferent countries people are more backward.. and they think education is not supposed to exist.... as in India and Pakistan and other similar "Under Developed" countries....

ok secondly u say that the government should be made of people with bigger vision etc.... how do we know or how does the government elector comitee know whos the right person for a specific postion.. no one knows the true identity of a person.... hypocrites are the crisis here..... one may seem good but may be the worst person for the job....

and Religion... well religion is the part your wrong about...... before i start to lecture.... as u read about many religion..... can you just go through it in your mind and see what every religion teaches us......peace, friendliness, education, diference between good and bad...... every religion no matter what it is... Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Budhisim.... every religion teaches man right.... no religion will tell a person to murder or commit other un-ethical crimes..... religion always tells a man to be good.... instead of keeping religion into our homes, if it was implemented on the government.... do you think major thinks like corruption, murder, or other thing will still exist... if the whole country becomes a religious Mosque, Church or Mantir, then everyone would care for each other and nothing wrong would go on..... if government people were to be selected and religios people with the roght profession were selected, i dont think bad stuff wuld happen....

finall your 4th point... this is again religion... i f religion was implemented on the society people would really start to live in a global village..... where every1 would care for the other person.......

hope i cleared som points here.... Very Happy
Bikerman
salman_500 wrote:

i agree that education should be our interest but as you can in todays world everything costs money and money is what the government'S dont have... and ecven if they do they are using it for the defense of there own.. making weapons of mass distruction and preapare for a so called World War III instead of working to stop it... another thing that in other parts of diferent countries people are more backward.. and they think education is not supposed to exist.... as in India and Pakistan and other similar "Under Developed" countries....

Your comments on Pakistan and India are insulting, innacurate and ignorant. I suggest you check your facts before labelling them 'backward' and commenting on their attitude to education.
For your information India turns out some of the best educated graduates and post graduates in the world - especially in science and technology - and despite a huge population and massive poverty the adult literacy rates are currently over 60% and rising fast.
You may wish to read something about it before commenting further. I would suggest a quick search on Wikki would be a good starting point.
Quote:

and Religion... well religion is the part your wrong about...... before i start to lecture.... as u read about many religion..... can you just go through it in your mind and see what every religion teaches us......peace, friendliness, education, diference between good and bad...... every religion no matter what it is... Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Budhisim.... every religion teaches man right.... no religion will tell a person to murder or commit other un-ethical crimes..... religion always tells a man to be good.... instead of keeping religion into our homes, if it was implemented on the government.... do you think major thinks like corruption, murder, or other thing will still exist... if the whole country becomes a religious Mosque, Church or Mantir, then everyone would care for each other and nothing wrong would go on..... if government people were to be selected and religios people with the roght profession were selected, i dont think bad stuff wuld happen....

It depends how you define religion does it not ?
If you define them as their organised churches and mosques then you are quite wrong. History is replete with examples of churches encouraging their congregations to kill and commit other crimes. You might like to read up on, :
Witch trials and burnings in Europe from 13th century onwards
Crusades (both islamic and christian church doctrine)
Catholic Inquisition from 14th century onwards
Jewish expulsions in Europe

to name but 4.

Quote:

finall your 4th point... this is again religion... i f religion was implemented on the society people would really start to live in a global village..... where every1 would care for the other person.......

1) How do you 'implement' a religion on a society ? Can you force people to have faith ?
2) The examples above are from times when the countries concerned were exactly as you wish for - single faith, almost 100% membership.
Quote:

hope i cleared som points here.... :D


Not really.

Chris.
MadeinIndia
Bikerman wrote:
Why 'created' and 'reason' ? Does there have to be an underlying reason for humans to exist ? A hidden agenda ? Is it not equally valid to assume that we are simply here because two other humans had sex. Your view seems to assume some designed function or even duty for the human species wheras evolution would indicate that we are simply the product of genetic change over time and, as such, are not 'designed' for any other purpose than to survive in our environment.
Balance of nature ? Is there such a thing ? It seems to be a phrase used a lot but with no meaning. Firstly it inherently puts man and his works outside nature. How can that be ? Are we not natural ?
Secondly it implies some sort of equilibrium exists in nature - whereas we know life is constantly changing. The climate and other envirnmental factors change without any intervention from man. It is true that man can affect these factors in a more dramatic and immediate way than other animals, but with or without us there will be ice ages, droughts, floods etc. There is no time that life settles into a balanced equilibrium - as the fossil record shows clearly.


With due respect, I guess we are not discussing how humans were created or environmental issues. I definitely don't know if humans are created for an agenda or simply existed. But as you clearly said, man can affect many factors in a more dramatic and immediately way than other animals, I strongly feel that we have to behave responsibly. That is the crux of my point.

There is a lot of philosophy going on, quotes by some famous people being written and some high power language being used, but no one seems to write what THEY think is the right system?

Next. Going to LeviticusMky...

LeviticusMky wrote:
The populace would be divided up into three distinct classes. The top class would be those who have some kind of high-level education. (as in a college degree) They would be the people with the ability to vote in national elections, electing representatives to fill seats in all of the aristocratic areas (education, finance, military, etc.). People who have median levels of education (as in a High School diploma) would be allowed to vote in state elections, but not national elections. Those without a diploma would be allowed to vote in local city and county matters but not in state-wide or national matters.


Lot of people must have heard about the Caste system, it's advantages or disadvantages etc. Now the caste system is almost abolished from the Hindus in India as it is not viable in the current social situations. But it worked for thousands of years.

The Bhagavad Gita, an ancient Hindu text, thousands of years old, much older than Greeks or any other civilization says the following...

http://www.friesian.com/caste.htm

Bhagavad Gita wrote:


The works of Brahmins, Ks.atriyas, Vaishyas, and Shudras are different, in harmony with the three powers of their born nature.

The works of a Brahmin are peace; self-harmony, austerity, and purity; loving-forgiveness and righteousness; vision and wisdom and faith.

These are the works of a Kshatriya: a heroic mind, inner fire, constancy, resourcefulness, courage in battle, generosity and noble leadership.

Trade, agriculture and the rearing of cattle is the work of a Vaishya. And the work of the Shudra is service.



In a nutshell...

1. The society in India WAS divided into four parts, Brahmins, Khatriyas, Vaishyas and Sudras.

The job of Brahmins is to take care of spirituality, service of god etc.
The duty of Khatriyas was to protect and rule.
Vaishyas were involved in Business
Sudras were involved in Service and other menial jobs.

Everyone was proud of their jobs. Everyone respected the other persons profession. Even the King had advisors comprising of Brahmins and Vaishyas. This system worked properly for thousands of years..but not anymore...

LeviticusMky's theory will NOT work in the current scenario as people are more informed, more empowered around the globe. For someone to feel inferior than someone else will lead to wide scale disturbances and a complete chaos in the society.

Going to Salman Bhai's comments...

salman_500 wrote:
agree that education should be our interest but as you can in todays world everything costs money and money is what the government'S dont have... and ecven if they do they are using it for the defense of there own.. making weapons of mass distruction and preapare for a so called World War III instead of working to stop it... another thing that in other parts of diferent countries people are more backward.. and they think education is not supposed to exist.... as in India and Pakistan and other similar "Under Developed" countries....


Let me point out one thing first. India is not a Under Developed country. It is one of the richest countries in the world!

Let's compare India and Pakistan. Both achieved Independence at the same time. India chose democracy and remained with democracy. Most of the Pakistan's life was under dictatorship, even currently.

Pakistan chose to become an Islamic country, India a secular country. See the difference today where the two countries stand. A country which chose religion in it's administration fell under Dictatorship many times, almost got declared a failed state by World Bank when luckily 9/11 happened for them and US funds started flowing in.

India chose secularism and inspite of many problems, stuck with it and see where the country is today. Almost all the tech jobs are with Indians and every country is outsourcing their jobs to India. Development in Space Technology, Nuclear Technology, Information Technology and EDUCATION! Indian IIT's (Indian Institute of Technology) world famous for churning out some of the most intelligent people in the world are envied globally. So that's why I keep harping about the importance of Education. You don't need to have millions to educate your people. You need the drive and the vision! To look at the future...

How to elect a proper government...that's what we all are discussing about right...a proper government is a proper society...I did write a few lines above...care to go through it again?

Coming to religion....I strongly think that religion should be kept out of governance...I guess you follow the faith of Islam judging by your name...See the society in Saudi..a country ruled by strict Islamic laws...One of the most regressive and cruel societies in the world, Saudi is infact a blot on humanity.

I understand all religions talk about peace but why is it that whenever you bring religion outside, blood flows? And how do you say which religion that everyone should follow? That's not democracy!

To cut a long story short....Instead of all the mumbo jumbo...The objective of humanity is to live in peace, freedom to follow their dreams, to be ruled justly and achieve progress(with proper checks and balances included).

Last edited by MadeinIndia on Tue Oct 10, 2006 1:33 pm; edited 1 time in total
salman_500
Bikerman wrote:

Your comments on Pakistan and India are insulting, innacurate and ignorant. I suggest you check your facts before labelling them 'backward' and commenting on their attitude to education.
For your information India turns out some of the best educated graduates and post graduates in the world - especially in science and technology - and despite a huge population and massive poverty the adult literacy rates are currently over 60% and rising fast.

MadeInIndia wrote:
Let me point out one thing first. India is not a Under Developed country. It is one of the richest countries in the world!


well first of all i live in pakistan... i see all that happens in inda and all that happens in pakistan.... 1 thing i clear to u guyz is that both countries are under developed.... well ill ask you one thing.. how do u define as "developed" or "developing".... if u think that that india is developed or developing... here is your answer dude !




this is a daily routine of pplin India !!

...... a developed country is this




Bikerman wrote:
It depends how you define religion does it not ?
If you define them as their organised churches and mosques then you are quite wrong. History is replete with examples of churches encouraging their congregations to kill and commit other crimes.


well thats christianity... i was thinking with an islamic point of view... and even if you look in hinduism... nothing tells to kill.... and in Saudi Arabia, religion is forced upon ppl...anmd i tell you, ppl live very happily ther....



Bikerman wrote:
Not really.

Chris.


well... think again maybe...
Bikerman
salman_500 wrote:

well first of all i live in pakistan... i see all that happens in inda and all that happens in pakistan.... 1 thing i clear to u guyz is that both countries are under developed.... well ill ask you one thing.. how do u define as "developed" or "developing".... if u think that that india is developed or developing... here is your answer dude !


Developing, yes, backward, no...and for someone who lives in the region I would have expected a better knowledge than you appear to have. I stand by all my previous comments.
Quote:

well thats christianity... i was thinking with an islamic point of view... and even if you look in hinduism... nothing tells to kill.... and in Saudi Arabia, religion is forced upon ppl...anmd i tell you, ppl live very happily ther....

Well. With that comment you lose any right to have a view taken seriously and I lose any interest in further talking to you. Saudi Arabia is somewhere I have visited and you are so wrong that I wouldn't even know where to start. It is one of the most repressive nasty regimes in the world.

Chris

Last edited by Bikerman on Mon Sep 11, 2006 4:02 pm; edited 1 time in total
rwojick
As you can see, the discussion goes all over the place. So, how do you contain it. Well, in the US a law does not become a law until it is written. So, the blank sheet of paper would be the 'prejudice", all judging and no written standard, and then when you place a standard on it (law), then it becomes, well, a law.

How did we "contain" it? With the given of all are created equal and have the right to life, lib, and the persuit of happiness. Then, you have the "List of Rights (Free Speech, Freedom of Religion, Free Press, etc) and then any laws made thereafter cannot deny these rights. If they do, they are unconstitutional.

When the US told Iraq to write their own Constitution while under duress we did them a disservice. We should have set them up with a copy of our Bill of Rights and said, "here, start with this".

This above "contains" the discussion. If your Politics are within the Bounds then you are free and legal. Outside the Bounds? Use your free speech to convince others where there is a law that you find to be illegal. Assault someone in your "protest" and you "break one of the written laws".

Who would not want all of the freedoms in the Bill of Rights? Which golfer does not want to make his next 5 foot putt?

First contain, then discuss, or, I fear you are taking a trip to "womanland".
Bikerman
Fair comment and I apologise for diverting from topic. I let anger get in the way of rational judgement which is always a mistake.

Chris.
Lennon
ONE QUOTE: A perfect society is unacheivable with imperfect citizens.
rwojick
However, the Constitution of the United States does not demand perfection, it simply demands that if you are ever going to err you should NEVER do so on the side of the accuser.

The defendant is the beneificary of every matter in doubt within the proof to make him guilty and if, after that, the outcome is in doubt, then the defendant is the beneficiary of that doubt too.

"Better 40 guilty people go free than one innocent man be convicted". I read that when I was 1 1/3 years old...
McMuffin
Lennon wrote:
ONE QUOTE: A perfect society is unacheivable with imperfect citizens.


That is not the question.
The point of this topic is to point out your ideal government system.
That does not say it has to be perfect (as I agree with your quote, it IS impossible to create a perfect society).

Anyhow, here is my vision on how "the best" government would look like:
(Note: this is not a fully thought-out plan that could be implemented in an imaginary state at an instant, just some things I'd like to see in a government system)

{The Government}
The government should actually be quite passive, not (or at least, not very much) taking care of social things , like getting payed when you don't have a job (don't know the English word), or at least not very much, of course things are different when you are permanentely sick), and things like free daycare for your kids etc.
When the government SHOULD be active, is when the laws are broken.
Then they'll have to be very strict and stike very hard.

{Voting}
I'll also go for a semi-democratic voting system.
Don't you think it is, softly speaking, a bit stupid that the vote of a professor counts as much as the vote of a cleaner?
I don't want to take away the right to vote from the lower educated people, but I think some votes should be "woth more" than other votes.
The main (and very large Razz) problem with this is that there is no universal "grading" method, to look how much the vote of person should count.
IQ test can NOT be used for thi purpose, as IQ is a very unreliable standard (yes, of course there is difference between an outcome of 80 and one of 140, but there are too many different tests, they don't focus on all aspects a human can be proficient in, and the relativation of IQ is also pretty lousy, so "calculating" the weigth of a vote with IQ is unreliable, and should actually not be done at all, since not everything a human can be good at is graded with it)

Also, this would take away (at least a bit) the anonymity of the voting persons.

{Conclusion (sort of)}

As I said, this is by no means a complete version of a political system, just the rough outline.
And, because the lack of the "standard test method" (that will probably never exist Sad ), this system (or at least the voting part) will never be realised.

THat's my 3.14 cents (mmm pie)

- McMuffin
Bikerman
McMuffin wrote:
d.

{Voting}
I'll also go for a semi-democratic voting system.
Don't you think it is, softly speaking, a bit stupid that the vote of a professor counts as much as the vote of a cleaner?
I don't want to take away the right to vote from the lower educated people, but I think some votes should be "woth more" than other votes.
The main (and very large :P) problem with this is that there is no universal "grading" method, to look how much the vote of person should count.
IQ test can NOT be used for thi purpose, as IQ is a very unreliable standard (yes, of course there is difference between an outcome of 80 and one of 140, but there are too many different tests, they don't focus on all aspects a human can be proficient in, and the relativation of IQ is also pretty lousy, so "calculating" the weigth of a vote with IQ is unreliable, and should actually not be done at all, since not everything a human can be good at is graded with it)

My old philosophy lecturer used to moan about this.
Quote:
I have spent 30 years learning, exploring ideas, refining them against theory and experience and my vote is cancelled out by some spotty youth who thinks a liberal is measure of drink at happy hour

The problem is always the same though. Once you decide on a tiered system then someone has to decide what the criteria will be. You should also consider this. Even if IQ were a perfect measure of intelligence would you want a society run by (say) the 10% who represent the most intelligent people ? What they would wish for may be unacceptible to the 90% in which case you will soon develop a divided and unstable system.

One last thought. There is a decision making system called the Delphic Poll which relies on a group of 'average' people considering a problemreaching a consensus on something they know nothing special about. The requirements are :
Anonymity - the group members do not in general know each other and represent a cross section of expertise within the forecast area.
Feedback - members are informed of current consensus but not harassed by arguments. majority and minority opinions can be maintained. There is a second (and possibly subsequent) stage poll after results from the first stage are processed.
Statistical Response - answers are shown as the median prediction of the group as well as the dispersion of opinions.

An example question could be something like :
how many nappies were used in China in 1999.

The answer from the delphic poll is normally much more accurate than you would think. It can be used as an argument for not specialising too much and including as many as possible in decision making...

Cheers
Chris
make_life_better
LeviticusMky wrote:
To go a bit off the wayside, my political philosophy rewards intelligence, and it's not a democracy in the strictest sense of the word.


Of course, this leaves open the question of who defines intelligence, and how you compare or measure it...

LeviticusMky wrote:
...snip...

America in particular has done very well by Democracy (or the representative form, at least), and has thrived. However, a good analogy would be the problem of the group of people in a room with a severely injured person. Say this severely injured person is not faring well, and needs treatment, would you take a vote on how to deal with them, or just ask the doctor?


Isn't that a dangerous way of doing things? Aren't you assuming that the doctor has the necessary knowledge or experience, is right, has good intentions, and so on. It also disregards the views of the others in the room, who may have valid and useful experience. What if the room was in a hospital or medical conference?

Is this not also somewhat lazy - what is to stop most people most of the time just not bothering to think for themselves, because there is almost always the equivalent of "the doctor" to make decisions for them?

LeviticusMky wrote:
...snip...

I mentioned earlier that my ideal political system would reward intelligence, it is in the democratic process that this would come into play. Bear in mind that this is not real democracy, as not all people have equal rights in this system, but all have equal protection under the law.


Those with the most intelligence should be able to use their money most effectively and with least waste - so shouldn't we therefore give more money to those less fortunate in "intelligence" to help make up for their relative disability?

LeviticusMky wrote:
The populace would be divided up into three distinct classes. The top class would be those who have some kind of high-level education. (as in a college degree) They would be the people with the ability to vote in national elections, electing representatives to fill seats in all of the aristocratic areas (education, finance, military, etc.). People who have median levels of education (as in a High School diploma) would be allowed to vote in state elections, but not national elections. Those without a diploma would be allowed to vote in local city and county matters but not in state-wide or national matters.


How do you deal with those people who aren't suited to the education system as it is run in your proposed society? What about those who choose to go out and do productive work rather than sit and think in ivory towers? Lots of really smart or wise people that I know never bothered with university or college. Wouldn't your system reject or devalue their different but valid views?

LeviticusMky wrote:
Yes, this does take away rights, and yes there are problems with this structure, but I feel that they are far less crippling than the problems that we face in a representative democracy that we reside in today, where all of the political power is in the hands of those with the money.

Essentially all I propose is to not reward monetary wealth as we do in America today, but instead to reward willingness to learn and excel. Call it a Democratic Aristocracy.
rwojick
Your having one person's votes count more than another's caught my eye, but I think that one person's "vote" counting as "one" is pretty pure in a digital sense.

The problem in the US is that so many people play the system out of bounds. "We are fighting terrorism and we have no evidence". Well, evidence is that commodity that proves your case. If you have none then why not come back again if and when you get some.

So, if you are a smart person, as you allude to, then the weight of your position would be taken into account at the ballot box when you convince others.

I've noticed that no one will define "terrorism" or the word "terrorist" in print, yet we talk about it and fight it every day in the news. I think Donald Rumsfeld would be very hard pressed to come up with a written definition that would not include himself.

We went to war with no "evidence". Therefore it was not "evidident" who the enemy was. And this is what Donald is always complaining about, "we do not know who the enemy is".

The best way to fight terrorists is, "Don't be one yourself".
Lennon
The problem with any democracy is that the vote is cast with an element of ignorance, indifference and lack of intelligence/enlightenment on the subject. How many people are qualified to vote for/against embryonic stem cell research? Are they aware of cell line and animal embryonic stem cell research? Who should vote, the majority who hasn't the depth of understanding required or the minority who are qualified and experienced but unrepresentative of the whole population.

In fact an ideal government is impossible unless your ideals allow failures. If there are failures then it requires legislation, and the question of judgement becomes a problem. Is it a case of innocent until proven guilty, or guilty until proven innocent. For the former is western thought, the latter often found in islamic states. Who is also qualified to makes that decision. So now the ideal government cannot , CANNOT exist.

I might as well enter my utopian government, like a commonwealth of nations, a common wealth of people, all individually minded but of perfect discipline, where legislation is no longer required, and so being perfect the re will be perfect understanding of the situation, with a perfect choice made by all members towards the common good.

Outside the perfect, utopian ideals, I cannot, cannot single out any system above the ot