|
Arglebargle III posted:Cost/benefit analysis is itself part of an ideological framework. Sounds like this thread needs a poop metaphor. Do you want a poop metaphor? Oh yeah you're getting a poop metaphor! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rzXPyCY7jbs
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2015 19:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 14:26 |
|
|
QuoProQuid posted:During the last debate, Huckabee decried recent actions of the Supreme Court and accused them of transforming democracy into rule by "philosopher-kings." I can never tell when someone is being sarcastic about the Republic. Look at Huckabee, though, supporting rule by the dumbest. At least he knows where his bread is buttered. Every time someone bitches about the supreme court ruling on marriage equality, I imagine they still bitch about Brown v Board of Education when they're alone or sure they're surrounded by the 'right sort' of people. Edit:How can someone seriously claim that religious tradition overrules the constitution and then complain about philosopher kings?! I really can't tell if some of these people are straight up disingenuous liars or deluded idiots immune to cognitive dissonance. The Bloop fucked around with this message at 19:22 on Sep 24, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2015 19:18
|
|
|
Sexigarchy.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2015 19:27
|
|
|
Thump! posted:Sexigarchy. 20% of the people doing 80% of the governing
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2015 19:30
|
|
|
PlantHead posted:I always like the idea of a national lottery, where every year x number of lucky/unlucky members of the public get to be in parliament. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AcBTOU7RvbU
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2015 19:47
|
|
|
The answer is robot overlord AND Doom, which works out nicely as Doom has a supply of Doombots who can operate independently of Doom, so we get the robot overlord, then Doom finds out, smashes it, builds a new and better Doombot, overlord, repeat.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2015 23:19
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:This is literally impossible. No it's not this simple. Part of the problem is that our language intertwines a few things into the word ideology. Part of ideology is a person's overarching ideas, goals and moral guidelines. We can't operate as humans without these. But the other aspect is the implementation of those goals and the extent to which we allow utility to enter the equation. So while we can never separate politics, or existence for that matter from ideology, we can (and must) still classify people or ideas as being more or less ideological. This is what lets us identify the ideology of say strict "non aggression" libertarianism as being outside the norm. Because while most people share the goal "reduce aggression" they are far less "ideological" in how they want that to be achieved.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2015 01:01
|
|
|
Can someone explain to me the difference between Libertarianism and Communism because both seem to have an endgame consisting of "and then everyone is nice to each other and no more state is needed."
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2015 02:30
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:Can someone explain to me the difference between Libertarianism and Communism because both seem to have an endgame consisting of "and then everyone is nice to each other and no more state is needed." [Coming off a 1 week probation for probing this question] They're for idiots looking for a diversion from real life.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2015 02:51
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:No it's not this simple. Part of the problem is that our language intertwines a few things into the word ideology. Part of ideology is a person's overarching ideas, goals and moral guidelines. We can't operate as humans without these. But the other aspect is the implementation of those goals and the extent to which we allow utility to enter the equation. So while we can never separate politics, or existence for that matter from ideology, we can (and must) still classify people or ideas as being more or less ideological. Maybe you need a better word.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2015 04:03
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:Can someone explain to me the difference between Libertarianism and Communism because both seem to have an endgame consisting of "and then everyone is nice to each other and no more state is needed." Perhaps the journey is the destination. Communists generally believe that the purpose of the state is to generate the material conditions for a post scarcity society and eliminate the frictional barriers between the economic and social relationship of people, especially as it pertains to labor product and property. It is believed that once this is achieved, a state is no longer needed to generate the material conditions: a true post scarcity society would not need institutional systems that exist to apportion scarce resources amongst a population. As a collectivist ideology, the state would be used to encourage and promote understanding of the strength of the commons and the failure of individualism to address social necessities, thus even a post scarcity society would still understand the need to provide and care for those who cannot do so themselves. Libertarianism (or more correctly, the current big 'L' right libertarianism) believes in the immediate and systematic dismantling of the state as it is already unnecessary and was never necessary. It believes in the natural (laissez faire capitalism / individualist) market/economic social relationship as a guiding force for providing structurally equitable and meritocratic distribution of scarce resources. wealth, and power. It requires deontological adherence to a moralistic belief in the natural state and natural laws that govern human behavior, and is inherently an individualistic ideology (as opposed to left libertarianism and anarchism which believe in the abolition of the state through a society guided by collectivist struggle for survival, more akin to communism). Again, there is no appeal to inherent altruism, it is a reliance on the ultimate rule of rationality.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2015 15:11
|
|
|
Representative democracy, with strong, constitutionally-mandated countermajoritarian principles. Western liberal democracy, in other words. It's far from perfect, but easily the least bad system yet. Advocating 'benevolent dictatorship' without a way to ensure continued benevolence (a contradiction in terms) is little different from saying 'trust god.'
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2015 17:26
|
|
|
For more complexity, I don't think Communism or Capitalism count as Political systems. They are economic systems; policies that could be adopted by a ruling body, whatever form that body may take. Political systems would be grouped like: Direct-based Democracy Representative-based Democracy Oligarchy Monarchy Anarchy (Terms like plutocracy, despotism, and parliamentarism are various flavors of the above.) And each of these can have either a Constitutional or Absolutist bent depending on whether the ruling body obeys well-defined limits that are very difficult to change. Communism and Socialism happen to be strongly associated with ideologies that advocate Direct Democracy and Anarchism, but in a literal sense, a monarch could enforce Socialist policies towards property ownership if he wanted.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2015 17:31
|
|
|
lol people who say we aren't "good enough" for communism or stateless societies We very clearly aren't "good enough" for capitalism or states
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2015 18:16
|
|
|
Is this discussion possible without saying "with X economic system in addition to"
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2015 18:42
|
|
|
"How ridiculous are the ideas of the individualists of the Rousseau School and of the Proudhonian mutualists who conceive society as the result of the free contract of individuals absolutely independent of one another and entering into mutual relations only because of the convention drawn up among men. As if these men had dropped out of the skies, brining with them speech, will, original thought, and as if they were alien to anything of the Earth" - Bakunin
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2015 18:52
|
|
|
Is a quantum state form of government possible? The answer to every political gripe is a both yes and no, until the government waveform collapses then every other political state is destroyed, then we start over.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2015 18:54
|
|
|
Melted_Igloo posted:Is a quantum state form of government possible? You should publish this before Deepak Chopra steals it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2015 19:49
|
|
|
Veskit posted:Is this discussion possible without saying "with X economic system in addition to" They are part and parcel- monarchies go with feudalism, parliamentary democracy with capitalism, hunter-gatherer bands with anarchism. The other state systems we've tried under capitalism, like dictatorships, don't last too long
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2015 19:51
|
|
|
Mofabio posted:They are part and parcel- monarchies go with feudalism, parliamentary democracy with capitalism, hunter-gatherer bands with anarchism. The other state systems we've tried under capitalism, like dictatorships, don't last too long Capitalism degenerates into kleptocracy or corporatism without checks on capital's power. That is the real danger of Citizens United. I'd still much rather live with a mixed economy tending toward market than a command economy, mind. TheImmigrant fucked around with this message at 20:09 on Sep 25, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2015 20:01
|
|
|
TheImmigrant posted:Capitalism degenerates into kleptocracy or corporatism without checks on the capital's power. That is the real danger of Citizens United. That's what I'm saying, social democracies with marginal attention paid to working class concerns are extremely effective at throwing water on revolutionary fire, meaning more stable
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2015 20:09
|
|
|
Still arguing that random chance makes the best ruler. A probably of choosing correct policy equal to the number of options is better odds than democracy, dictatorship, or an AI get.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2015 22:23
|
|
|
The best political system depends on what you consider best. Misanthropic types, like sex tourists, will consider representative democracy the apex because it significantly impedes the populace from having political power while retaining an illusion of them having a say. Violent and vindictive people will prefer dictatorships, which institutionalize the opportunity for them to exercise their desires.
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2015 22:29
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Still arguing that random chance makes the best ruler. This sounds like horseshit. Amusing horseshit, but still horseshit. Sorry, now because random both red and green lights mean go and lead is mandatory in milk. Whoopsie. Good thing no one's in charge or it would certainly be worse!
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2015 22:44
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:Maybe you need a better word. What? Trent posted:This sounds like horseshit. Amusing horseshit, but still horseshit. At least appreciate how jaded he is. Effectronica posted:The best political system depends on what you consider best. Misanthropic types, like sex tourists, will consider representative democracy the apex because it significantly impedes the populace from having political power while retaining an illusion of them having a say. Violent and vindictive people will prefer dictatorships, which institutionalize the opportunity for them to exercise their desires. You really are one of my favorite posters.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2015 23:33
|
|
|
The best political system is one where I personally benefit the most from it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2015 23:51
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Still arguing that random chance makes the best ruler. no that's staedtler
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2015 00:21
|
|
|
Huxley's Brave New World seems like a sweet deal for everyone.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2015 00:47
|
|
|
McDowell posted:Huxley's Brave New World seems like a sweet deal for everyone. Jobs, drugs and sex.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2015 00:59
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Jobs, drugs and sex. And if you want no part of it you can just go live on one of the Savage Reservations
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2015 01:04
|
|
|
Theocratic integralism is the way to go. Everyone knows their place, courtesy of thenomonic legal principles, and everyone plays a unique role in society. Also, spiffy uniforms and a Fearless Leader.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2015 01:06
|
|
|
McDowell posted:And if you want no part of it you can just go live on one of the Savage Reservations I always wondered what the epsilon parties would look like. Juggalo parties I presume.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2015 01:10
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:I always wondered what the epsilon parties would look like. Juggalo parties I presume. Possibly. Apparently Huxley didn't really conceive of genetic engineering - he thought they would make epsilons or whatever by putting alcohol in the growing tanks for controlled FAS.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2015 01:22
|
|
|
surrender to the will of the night
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2015 01:34
|
|
|
Where I am emperor and am allowed to have fossil fuel CEOs/higher ups locked in a room that is pumped with methane and CO2
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2015 02:34
|
|
|
This seems like a pretty hard question to answer in a vacuum. Are we talking about political systems for the world in general, or some sort of absolute best, or what?
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2015 07:13
|
|
|
The gay agenda.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2015 08:41
|
|
|
The current system where the National Restaurant Association and the National Rifle Association are two of the most powerful special interest groups. Guns and double cheeses stacked high.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2015 09:43
|
|
|
Can we give Athenian Democracy another try, that was pretty fun (but let women in).
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2015 09:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 14:26 |
|
|
There is a sense (a slight sense, perhaps, but a real one) in which the legal system of the Roman Republic was superior to ours in that, because patronage was the fabric of their society, they had more checks on ascribed power than we do, since they correctly assumed every senator, praetor, and consul was going to use their power to advance their own personal agenda. But no, George Washington is Cincinnatus--we can trust the President to do what's right! I mean yes this is mostly a joke post, but on the other hand, since we don't have a parliamentary system, the Speaker of the House really probably should be more like a Tribunate of the Plebs. Remove holds from the Senate, and bring back the sacrosanct Veto. e: also where the gently caress is Grumblefish?
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2015 14:54
|
|
