Freethought & Rationalism Archive

excreationist · 07-17-2002, 09:30 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by David Gould:
I think that someone randomly chosen from the adult population to act as dictator with as much power given to them as possible would be the best thing.

They would be restrained from excesses because they cannot influence who next holds the position....

The dictator could use spies and the military to seize absolute power so that no random person is chosen to ever replace the dictator. (e.g. the spies could find out the names and addresses of those who oversee the dictator and they could be assassinated) Then the dictator could build huge palaces and use propaganda to be worshipped (out of fear) by the people. If the military's true allegiance is to those above the dictator rather than to the dictator himself, then those above him have the real power - they would be able to have their own palaces, etc.

David Gould · 07-17-2002, 10:31 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by excreationist:

The dictator could use spies and the military to seize absolute power so that no random person is chosen to ever replace the dictator. (e.g. the spies could find out the names and addresses of those who oversee the dictator and they could be assassinated) Then the dictator could build huge palaces and use propaganda to be worshipped (out of fear) by the people. If the military's true allegiance is to those above the dictator rather than to the dictator himself, then those above him have the real power - they would be able to have their own palaces, etc.

Certainly, the dictator could do that. But he has to convince others to follow him - he has no power base on which to build other than the one his predessor left to him and any personal loyalites there will be to the person he has replaced.

If he brings in friends and so forth to positions of power, so what? The level below them is still made up of people who have no personal loyalty to those who have just been appointed. Sure, this personal loyalty may build over time but they only have five years to take over.

I do not in any way think that the system is perfect - it is merely an idle musing I have had from time to time.

It stems from my personal belief that it is not power that corrupts but the path to power (all the deals et cetera that you have to make to get power, all the compromises, all the favours you owe et cetera).

The chances of the random selector coming out with the kind of person who would want to hold on to power after struggling with the system for a few years with a guranteed large amount of money on retirement would be small, I think. Most dictators who have come to power through hard work over time want to hold on to power because it was their aim from the start to have that power.

But your criticism is valid - it is certainly possible that the dictator might try to do that but it is hard to see how they could do so without others knowing about it and resisting in some way.

excreationist · 07-17-2002, 11:12 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by David Gould:
Certainly, the dictator could do that. But he has to convince others to follow him

I thought the spies and soldiers who work from him would obey all of his orders.... otherwise I guess the spies and soldiers are actually under the command of those who oversee the entire government (and choose new dictators, etc). That means that those above the dictator are really in charge. In democracies, those people (high court judges, governor-generals, etc) would have limited powers and have to follow a constitution - which is voted for by the whole population. Either those above the dictators would be governed by a constitution or they would have no constitution. Even if they had a constitution, they'd want to change parts of it eventually... if the people are left out of that process then just those above the dictator would decide what changes would be made to the constitution. And they would probably want more power/wealth for themselves rather than have the boring old task of making sure a new random dictator is chosen every few years. And it would be quite likely that the dictators would make huge mistakes which would encourage those overseeing the dictators to do away with it altogether and take over. Maybe the dictator would play a ceremonial role, like a monarch who has no power.

Kharakov · 07-17-2002, 11:22 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Pseudonym:

Society stagnates when free thinking is suppressed by the state or religion.

If it's a mystical, anti-science, medievalistic and implausible religion. Quite unlike a one based wholly on science, and some Nietzsche and Wittgenstein, and Atheistic rationalism.

lol, you are hilarious. Seriously, you don't want peoples imagination to be free to create new ideas about how to interact with the universe? Even if the ideas are complete BS they can have some kind of entertainment/ educational value. Anyway- let's go back to the ptolemic system, screw relativity and newtonian physics.

Quote:

Originally posted by Pseudonym:

Hey Kharakov, that's what I was saying. Of my current 3 favorite musicians or groups and 3 favorite writers, at least 2 out of the 3 appear to have been aided by drugs.

"Aided by drugs". That's ludicrous. Their music came out of their own mind, not some inhaled substance. (Perhaps that's why rock music is causing corruption.)
Rock music and anything related would be banned anyway. A very bad influence.

Once again, you bring to mind the Nobel Prize winner Dr. Kary Mullis. He said he doubted he would have come up with the idea for PCR if he had not used hallucinogens before.

While we are designing you new utopia though: maybe you should invent drugs that prevent pleasure/happiness. People should not have pleasure from sex- they should just engage in the act for the service of the state. The pleasure from sex could distract people from their devotion to the state. Any state of happiness that people experience (except when doing work the state has assigned for them) should be eliminated, because it could distract people from their duty to the state.

Only an elite class should be allowed to pursue the distractions of pleasure and happiness- just to see if there is any possible benefit to the state (I, of course, would be one of these dutiful experimenters).

Additionally, all music should be banned, and the only activities anybody should engage in should be scientific study or reading books about how to better serve the state.

-k

ju'iblex · 07-18-2002, 03:31 AM

Quote:

originally posted by emphryio:

I don't like the way ju'iblex is jumping all over psuedonym with the insults.

with all due respect emphryio, i have not made any direct insults to Trebaxian Vir, i have merely communicated the parallels i have drawn between his government and those preceeding it in history. If those are to be considered offensive, i make no apology for drawing comparison of the regimes. I will however, apologise for my sarcasm, unfortunately its something i have a great deal of trouble tempering, and if you feel i have gone too far with it, feel free to call me out on it.

Quote:

And now to Pseudonym:

Of course it didn't work. It's because they didn't execute the consumers. They could have done something better than that, though. They could have kept the beer, whine, and whatnot, and continued selling it, but without any actual alcohol. They wouldn't tell them this, of course.

you choose to dish out the same penalty for sex-offenders and those who use drugs? Something i notice you fail to take into account is the happiness of others, and this is quite obvious because your citizens would be living in pure fear of you. When people en masse do not like something, rebellion, chaos, and governmental overthrow is bound to ensue. Your government, no matter how logical, would be in ruins. Why? Because you did not cater for the irrational, aka the majority. If you do not identify with your citizens, how can you expect to control them?

On a lesser and somewhat irrelevant point, there is no way they could pass off dealcoholised beverages as the real thing. You can definately taste the difference.

You would also have the problem of people building their own stills, highly common in the 20's and a relatively easy thing to do. Black Market would thrive, and no doubt be a contributor in the Trebaxian downfall.

Quote:

Oh, yes. We want depressants like alcohol to help them. That'll work.

you know perfectly well thats not the point.

Quote:

There would be a lot less of everything if people were just done with on the spot.

a lot less citizens, and a lot less labourers and a lot more reasons for dissent in communities when theyre continuously losing family members. And remember, each commune is just one big family, more family to get pissed off at the government.

Quote:

Why? do you disagree?

its irrelevant what my standpoint is, im interested in why you chose yours.

Quote:

It's funny for you to say that when you don't even know what it is....

if its anything like what youve already presented, then there is cause enough for concern.

Quote:

The founding fathers.

and for what reason would the citizens listen to them? Would they start with the same amount of points as everyone else?

Quote:

You cannot critise that which you are completely ignorant of.

then enlighten me.

Quote:

Actually, they would be imprisoned to be treated.

if they are being treated then why wouldnt you allow them into the communes where they could be supported by family members and a positive environment? What is classified as a mental illness? What is the cost of imprisonment? What is the purpose of imprisonment apart from treating them?

Quote:

I hate sex offenders more than anything else. If a man kidnaps a six year old girl, mutilates her genitalia, and posts it on the internet, I see no reason why he should live. I've seen this when searching for "warez".

so you outline punishment based on your own opinions and morality, for a whole society. interesting. why is your sense of morality so superior and worthy of basing the laws for millions on?

Quote:

The cameras would be hidden. We want to identify the criminals. That's one of the most important things.

if the criminals didnt know the cameras were there, then how would this work on a preventative level, as you previously outlined?

Quote:

Males and females would be separated in schools. On top of that, few people would risk being imprisoned.

i myself attend a single-sex school. it in no way restricts anyones access from the opposite sex. You have failed to allow for age difference, and those hours in which the children would not be in school. you also underestimate humanity and the need for social interaction, especially on a sexual level.

Quote:

Only one race would be selected.

how would this work? which one? on what basis? what would the other races do? wouldnt this promote racism, considering all the patriotic propaganda you have around the place?

Quote:

How are they not ignorant? How can a labourer have advanced knowledge in politics? And yet the labourers are absolutely necessary.

im more interested in how you can make such sweeping generalisations.

Quote:

And it will be based on what they learn throughout the course of their life, especially childhood. And guess what they would be learning? Pro-Communism, pro-Atheism, pro-military, pro-science, pro-Trebaxian religion, etc. What will the "differences" be that they are most likely to pick at?

so theyre brainwashed to only believe whatyou believe, <or what the government believes, you say tomato i say...>.

How is it possible to foster the genius you need for the oligarchy in an environment as stagnant as this?

Quote:

Those differences incompatible of, or contradictory to, what they've learned from childhood. This will be a good thing. AND IT WORKS. Look at the Christians. Anti-homosexual, anti-Atheism, anti-Abortionism, etc. All based on their religion, and it is quite an advantage for them and for what they believe in.

thats because its been there for more than 1000 years. It is impossible to do this is modern day society, where people are more likely to question.

Quote:

I am amazed and disgusted by the fact that thou, apparently, dost not think that morals, ethics and whatnot are subjective.

wrong.

Quote:

Thou art disgusted by the fact that I do not adhere to Christian morals, or whatever morals thou art possessed by, and ye therefore, undoubtedly out of thine unalloyed ignorance, think that thy morals and ethics art correct and objective, and mine ideas are incorrect and apalling; and based on what, exactly?

wrong again, and on so many levels.

i believe in subjective morality, hence my morals are in no way superior to everyone else, and hence i have every right to disagree with you.

however, you and your morality, feel that your subjective morality is superior enough to enforce on an entire civilisation, with severe consequences if you do not comply.

Quote:

Thou hast been indoctrinated from birth to think, in part, like a Christian. We are nought but material; thy beliefs seem oddly compatible with belief in a soul.

You better have something really good to back that up with.

Quote:

No, no, no, no.... Only to become a member of parliament (the oligarchy) you have to be great at maths, a science, philosophy and Communism.

and that wouldnt be something you prize in yourself would it? never...

Quote:

NO! I never said they were stupid!

you deny that it was implicit in your tone and words? It comes across pretty strongly that you despise and deride them.

Quote:

I said they are ignorant of maths, a science, philosophy and Communism, lack an interest in maths, a science, philosophy and Communism, lack an inclination to maths, a science, philosophy and Communism, and sometimes altogether dislike maths, a science, philosophy and Communism.

and thus they are worthy of the label "ignorant". Your logic is flawed.

Quote:

Then they'd be, like everyone else, a member of the proletariat. That would be encouraged more than anything else. Can you admit that genius is rare? Then only the rare genius would go fully beyond contribution through physical labour, yet live in the same houses and eat the same food as everyone else. They would contribute through what they have an inclination to. The scientist would contribute through his science, the labourer would contribute through his labour; but the labourer could, if he wanted, be more than a labourer. His needs are provided through his labour, but through his deeds he could progress beyond mere contribution-by-physical-work, if he has the inclinition to the subject of his liking, which he most likely does. Even here in this nation of Canada, most people are labourers. Why do they do work? Food, shelter, etc. Why else do they work? Computer, education, books, etc. It's a lot the same in my system. Their needs, like here, are supplied through their work (though instead of getting a few dollars to buy a loaf of bread, they get the loaf of bread that is of equal worth to the work they'd done). But instead of working for owning the other things, possessions like books and computers, they have it already supplied, for their work, in one of many community centres.

i believe Christopher Lord has already sufficiently dealt with this point.

Quote:

Wrong. No one, including the oligarchy, would have private possessions (beyong sentimental things like photographs).

but theyre not allowed to possess cameras...

Quote:

How do I disgust you? 'Tis not a dictatorship. It is not ran by a Church; it is ran by an oligarchy, which anyone can become a member of. A one-party rule system consisting of wise men and women is more logical than rule by majority, consisting of people who do not even know what they're voting for.

yet another shot at the "ignorant masses". and something you have kept saying but have yet to convince anyone of.

Totalitarianist · 07-18-2002, 08:23 AM

Originally posted by Kharakov:
lol, you are hilarious. Seriously, you don't want peoples imagination to be free to create new ideas about how to interact with the universe? Even if the ideas are complete BS they can have some kind of entertainment/educational value. Anyway- let's go back to the ptolemic system, screw relativity and newtonian physics.

Based on the above, I do not think you are well acquainted with the writings of Wittgenstein and Nietzshce.

Once again, you bring to mind the Nobel Prize winner Dr. Kary Mullis. He said he doubted he would have come up with the idea for PCR if he had not used hallucinogens before.

Yeah, yeah, yeah.... I've heard it all before. I think the negative effects outway the positive ones.

While we are designing you new utopia though: maybe you should invent drugs that prevent pleasure/happiness.

Nah. That's an illogical decision; for the proletariat worketh for the pleasure of eating and reading books; furthermore, procreation, the result of certain pleasures, is absolutely necessary.

However, cocaine can be quite good for the military.

Additionally, all music should be banned, and the only activities anybody should engage in should be scientific study or reading books about how to better serve the state.

Music should not be banned. Do some statistical research on the before and after of countries effected by rock music. It's anti-government, often theistic and spiritual, pro-drugs and alcohol, violent, and it advocates juvenile sex.

To Ju'iblex:

you choose to dish out the same penalty for sex-offenders and those who use drugs?

Actually, they'd be framed by the government or something.

Something i notice you fail to take into account is the happiness of others,

Oh, so it's impossible to be happy without drugs. I see.

and this is quite obvious because your citizens would be living in pure fear of you.

No they would not. They would fear only that which is feared or detested in their religion, like the Christians with their idea of an anti-Christ. They would fear or despise unscientific mysticism and capitalism. If the majority of the oligarchy are against these doctrines, they would change it for the better, out of their own combined wisdom.

When people en masse do not like something, rebellion, chaos, and governmental overthrow is bound to ensue.

What will they not like and why would they not like it?

Your government, no matter how logical, would be in ruins. Why? Because you did not cater for the irrational, aka the majority.

Baseless assertion.

If you do not identify with your citizens, how can you expect to control them?

Of course the oligarchy would identify with the citizens; for they are citizens (and live with citizens in the communes) themselves.

On a lesser and somewhat irrelevant point, there is no way they could pass off dealcoholised beverages as the real thing. You can definately taste the difference.

Every time I ask someone why they like to drink alcohol, they reply thus: "I like the taste." Albeit I doubt their answer, if it is true, only the taste itself would have to be simulated.

You would also have the problem of people building their own stills, highly common in the 20's and a relatively easy thing to do. Black Market would thrive, and no doubt be a contributor in the Trebaxian downfall.

How could there be a blackmarket in a space colony?

a lot less citizens, and a lot less labourers and a lot more reasons for dissent in communities when theyre continuously losing family members.

Sorry, but that's justice.

And remember, each commune is just one big family, more family to get pissed off at the government.

I'm sure they'd despise only the sex-offenders and murderers. Why would they despise the government for carrying out justice?

its irrelevant what my standpoint is, im interested in why you chose yours.

It would be legal because it would be next to impossible.

and for what reason would the citizens listen to them? Would they start with the same amount of points as everyone else?

They would be born to obey them, in the same way that we're born to obey our fathers and government.

then enlighten me.

Read the writings of the afore-mentioned philosophers.

if they are being treated then why wouldnt you allow them into the communes where they could be supported by family members and a positive environment?

The family would come to them. They would live in a positive environment.

What is classified as a mental illness?

You know the answer to that.

What is the cost of imprisonment? What is the purpose of imprisonment apart from treating them?
What could possibly be the purpose of imprisonment apart from treating them?

so you outline punishment based on your own opinions and morality, for a whole society.

I am not concerned with justification or morality; I am concerned with effectiveness. Read The Prince by Machiavelli.
[/b][b]
why is your sense of morality so superior and worthy of basing the laws for millions on?

I never said it was superior. If a society should exist, the members should have a basic code of morality to function properly and carry out their duties as citizens, but disagreements cause alienation, and alienation leads to corruption.

if the criminals didnt know the cameras were there, then how would this work on a preventative level, as you previously outlined?

It would work on an "identifying the criminal" level.

i myself attend a single-sex school. it in no way restricts anyones access from the opposite sex. You have failed to allow for age difference, and those hours in which the children would not be in school. you also underestimate humanity and the need for social interaction, especially on a sexual level.

Of I course I don't. A single-sex school can and does prevent distractions during school hours; and such distractions could lead to sexual intercourse. Are you for or against teen sex?

how would this work? which one? on what basis? what would the other races do? wouldnt this promote racism, considering all the patriotic propaganda you have around the place?

Members of a certain race would be selected to join the colony.

im more interested in how you can make such sweeping generalisations.

"Do people generally lack an inclination to mathematics?"

"Yes," said he.

"Does inclination relate, in any way, to interest?"

"Of course."

"Do people generally despise mathematics?"

"They do," replied he.

"Do they, generally," I said, "despise mathematics because they are not good at it?"

"Yes."

"If they despise mathematics because they are not good at it, then how can they have an inclination to it?"

"I suppose they cannot."

"If they do not have an inclination to, do not have an interest in, and despise mathematics, is it befitting to call them ignorant of mathematics?"

"Yes."

"In their state of being ignorant of mathematics, can they be called a master of mathematics?"

"Of course not," he replied.

"Does mastery imply excellence of a subject?"

He nodded.

"Are excellent things prefered to be produced?"

"Undoubtedly."

"Then when in want if excellence in mathematics, would the best choice be to choose the master of mathematics?"

"Yes," said he, "I understand now."

The same method of reasoning can apply to every subject and discipline, including politics and logic.

so they're brainwashed to only believe whatyou believe

What the government and everyone they know believeth in. Just like here.

How is it possible to foster the genius you need for the oligarchy in an environment as stagnant as this?

How would advances in science and technology be denied? Things that hinder scientific progression and/or are against the government are logically illogical to allow.

thats because its been there for more than 1000 years.

No, it's because they were indoctrinated from birth. Unlike Christianity, though, Trebaxianism is something even a skeptic could believe in. Trebaxianism, I know it sounds peculiar, is a skeptic's religion.

i believe in subjective morality, hence my morals are in no way superior to everyone else, and hence i have every right to disagree with you.

And I believe in efficiency.

however, you and your morality, feel that your subjective morality is superior enough to enforce on an entire civilisation, with severe consequences if you do not comply.

As I've said, "I am not concerned with . . . morality; I am concerned with effectiveness."

You better have something really good to back that up with.

Well, you seem to believe that humans are more than atoms.

you deny that it was implicit in your tone and words? It comes across pretty strongly that you despise and deride them.

I love them because their labour is so necessary.

and thus they are worthy of the label "ignorant".

Read the above dialogue.

but theyre not allowed to possess cameras...

Camera booths.

yet another shot at the "ignorant masses".

How are they not ignorant of certain subjects?

[ July 18, 2002: Message edited by: Pseudonym ]

David Gould · 07-18-2002, 05:02 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by excreationist:

I thought the spies and soldiers who work from him would obey all of his orders.... otherwise I guess the spies and soldiers are actually under the command of those who oversee the entire government (and choose new dictators, etc). That means that those above the dictator are really in charge. In democracies, those people (high court judges, governor-generals, etc) would have limited powers and have to follow a constitution - which is voted for by the whole population. Either those above the dictators would be governed by a constitution or they would have no constitution. Even if they had a constitution, they'd want to change parts of it eventually... if the people are left out of that process then just those above the dictator would decide what changes would be made to the constitution. And they would probably want more power/wealth for themselves rather than have the boring old task of making sure a new random dictator is chosen every few years. And it would be quite likely that the dictators would make huge mistakes which would encourage those overseeing the dictators to do away with it altogether and take over. Maybe the dictator would play a ceremonial role, like a monarch who has no power.

He has absolute power in that it is perfectly legal for him to do anything to anyone else but it is not legal for them to anything to him unless he wants them to.

I have been thinking a little about this and the objection holds in any system - what is to prevent the US military from being personally loyal to Bush and seizing power at his behest? The courts? How exactly? The people? How exactly? The Senate? How exactly? Congress? How exactly?

The dictator can give any order he wants to - whether it will be obeyed or not depends on who he gives it to and what the order is. Remember that long time beauracrats have many means of seeming to obey orders while not actually doing so or of convincing with logic or emotional appeal the order giver to order something else.

The military has to obey the government or face consequences today. That does not mean that all orders are blindly followed.

In Germany, there was a constitution that Hitler had to legally follow. He didn't.

emphryio · 07-19-2002, 08:55 AM

Phone booths. haha, but seriously.

To pseudonym
There are some points here that could be individually discussed for quite awhile. Like drugs. I remember reading a 15 page thread on drugs here awhile ago.

We either have to pull out a few points and only discuss them, or this is too generalized to have any meaning.

I would have been happy keeping things at just the tests and points system to choose the leaders. The communism, the everything's illegal, the finding a way to kill all undesirables, etc, it's too much for me to try to discuss all at once. Each point in and of itself seems like a rather vast topic, (although it might be difficult to bring just one up in a thread, seeing as how they all relate to achieving one common goal.)

Anyway, could you define what you mean by effectiveness? It seems the word could be applied to being good at anything. Do you mean a society that could quickly become very powerful relative to other societies? (A very high gross national product.)

Totalitarianist · 07-19-2002, 10:06 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by emphryio:
Phone booths. haha, but seriously.

To pseudonym
There are some points here that could be individually discussed for quite awhile. Like drugs. I remember reading a 15 page thread on drugs here awhile ago.

We either have to pull out a few points and only discuss them, or this is too generalized to have any meaning.

I would have been happy keeping things at just the tests and points system to choose the leaders. The communism, the everything's illegal, the finding a way to kill all undesirables, etc, it's too much for me to try to discuss all at once. Each point in and of itself seems like a rather vast topic, (although it might be difficult to bring just one up in a thread, seeing as how they all relate to achieving one common goal.)

Anyway, could you define what you mean by effectiveness? It seems the word could be applied to being good at anything. Do you mean a society that could quickly become very powerful relative to other societies? (A very high gross national product.)

"Effectiveness" would be whatever works, regardless of moral justification.

excreationist · 07-20-2002, 01:12 AM

David Gould:
The potential total dictator would need to be charismatic and make the state make criticism illegal (it could be said to be "treason"). There would be a secret police that disposes of any kind of opposition (such as anti-government media). The high ranking people in the military could be persuaded to become loyal through bribes. The dictator could make the country work together by creating a common enemy that they can focus on (e.g. capitalism).

Quote:

what is to prevent the US military from being personally loyal to Bush and seizing power at his behest? The courts? How exactly? The people? How exactly? The Senate? How exactly? Congress? How exactly?

Perhaps the media... it would be all over the news if nosy reporters heard anything about it. This would give people a lot of warning in order to form a resistance, etc.
But if the government slowly took over the media completely, using the excuse that it is making sure people are patriotic, etc, then the government could get away with a lot more things.... and anyone who protested could be disposed of. If anyone tried to defend that person they would be a traitor as well...

I don't know much about politics, but those are just my thoughts...

07-18-2002, 08:23 AM	#46
Totalitarianist Banned Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Canada Posts: 1,234	Originally posted by Kharakov: lol, you are hilarious. Seriously, you don't want peoples imagination to be free to create new ideas about how to interact with the universe? Even if the ideas are complete BS they can have some kind of entertainment/educational value. Anyway- let's go back to the ptolemic system, screw relativity and newtonian physics. Based on the above, I do not think you are well acquainted with the writings of Wittgenstein and Nietzshce. Once again, you bring to mind the Nobel Prize winner Dr. Kary Mullis. He said he doubted he would have come up with the idea for PCR if he had not used hallucinogens before. Yeah, yeah, yeah.... I've heard it all before. I think the negative effects outway the positive ones. While we are designing you new utopia though: maybe you should invent drugs that prevent pleasure/happiness. Nah. That's an illogical decision; for the proletariat worketh for the pleasure of eating and reading books; furthermore, procreation, the result of certain pleasures, is absolutely necessary. However, cocaine can be quite good for the military. Additionally, all music should be banned, and the only activities anybody should engage in should be scientific study or reading books about how to better serve the state. Music should not be banned. Do some statistical research on the before and after of countries effected by rock music. It's anti-government, often theistic and spiritual, pro-drugs and alcohol, violent, and it advocates juvenile sex. To Ju'iblex: you choose to dish out the same penalty for sex-offenders and those who use drugs? Actually, they'd be framed by the government or something. Something i notice you fail to take into account is the happiness of others, Oh, so it's impossible to be happy without drugs. I see. and this is quite obvious because your citizens would be living in pure fear of you. No they would not. They would fear only that which is feared or detested in their religion, like the Christians with their idea of an anti-Christ. They would fear or despise unscientific mysticism and capitalism. If the majority of the oligarchy are against these doctrines, they would change it for the better, out of their own combined wisdom. When people en masse do not like something, rebellion, chaos, and governmental overthrow is bound to ensue. What will they not like and why would they not like it? Your government, no matter how logical, would be in ruins. Why? Because you did not cater for the irrational, aka the majority. Baseless assertion. If you do not identify with your citizens, how can you expect to control them? Of course the oligarchy would identify with the citizens; for they are citizens (and live with citizens in the communes) themselves. On a lesser and somewhat irrelevant point, there is no way they could pass off dealcoholised beverages as the real thing. You can definately taste the difference. Every time I ask someone why they like to drink alcohol, they reply thus: "I like the taste." Albeit I doubt their answer, if it is true, only the taste itself would have to be simulated. You would also have the problem of people building their own stills, highly common in the 20's and a relatively easy thing to do. Black Market would thrive, and no doubt be a contributor in the Trebaxian downfall. How could there be a blackmarket in a space colony? a lot less citizens, and a lot less labourers and a lot more reasons for dissent in communities when theyre continuously losing family members. Sorry, but that's justice. And remember, each commune is just one big family, more family to get pissed off at the government. I'm sure they'd despise only the sex-offenders and murderers. Why would they despise the government for carrying out justice? its irrelevant what my standpoint is, im interested in why you chose yours. It would be legal because it would be next to impossible. and for what reason would the citizens listen to them? Would they start with the same amount of points as everyone else? They would be born to obey them, in the same way that we're born to obey our fathers and government. then enlighten me. Read the writings of the afore-mentioned philosophers. if they are being treated then why wouldnt you allow them into the communes where they could be supported by family members and a positive environment? The family would come to them. They would live in a positive environment. What is classified as a mental illness? You know the answer to that. What is the cost of imprisonment? What is the purpose of imprisonment apart from treating them? What could possibly be the purpose of imprisonment apart from treating them? so you outline punishment based on your own opinions and morality, for a whole society. I am not concerned with justification or morality; I am concerned with effectiveness. Read The Prince by Machiavelli. [/b][b] why is your sense of morality so superior and worthy of basing the laws for millions on? I never said it was superior. If a society should exist, the members should have a basic code of morality to function properly and carry out their duties as citizens, but disagreements cause alienation, and alienation leads to corruption. if the criminals didnt know the cameras were there, then how would this work on a preventative level, as you previously outlined? It would work on an "identifying the criminal" level. i myself attend a single-sex school. it in no way restricts anyones access from the opposite sex. You have failed to allow for age difference, and those hours in which the children would not be in school. you also underestimate humanity and the need for social interaction, especially on a sexual level. Of I course I don't. A single-sex school can and does prevent distractions during school hours; and such distractions could lead to sexual intercourse. Are you for or against teen sex? how would this work? which one? on what basis? what would the other races do? wouldnt this promote racism, considering all the patriotic propaganda you have around the place? Members of a certain race would be selected to join the colony. im more interested in how you can make such sweeping generalisations. "Do people generally lack an inclination to mathematics?" "Yes," said he. "Does inclination relate, in any way, to interest?" "Of course." "Do people generally despise mathematics?" "They do," replied he. "Do they, generally," I said, "despise mathematics because they are not good at it?" "Yes." "If they despise mathematics because they are not good at it, then how can they have an inclination to it?" "I suppose they cannot." "If they do not have an inclination to, do not have an interest in, and despise mathematics, is it befitting to call them ignorant of mathematics?" "Yes." "In their state of being ignorant of mathematics, can they be called a master of mathematics?" "Of course not," he replied. "Does mastery imply excellence of a subject?" He nodded. "Are excellent things prefered to be produced?" "Undoubtedly." "Then when in want if excellence in mathematics, would the best choice be to choose the master of mathematics?" "Yes," said he, "I understand now." The same method of reasoning can apply to every subject and discipline, including politics and logic. so they're brainwashed to only believe whatyou believe What the government and everyone they know believeth in. Just like here. How is it possible to foster the genius you need for the oligarchy in an environment as stagnant as this? How would advances in science and technology be denied? Things that hinder scientific progression and/or are against the government are logically illogical to allow. thats because its been there for more than 1000 years. No, it's because they were indoctrinated from birth. Unlike Christianity, though, Trebaxianism is something even a skeptic could believe in. Trebaxianism, I know it sounds peculiar, is a skeptic's religion. i believe in subjective morality, hence my morals are in no way superior to everyone else, and hence i have every right to disagree with you. And I believe in efficiency. however, you and your morality, feel that your subjective morality is superior enough to enforce on an entire civilisation, with severe consequences if you do not comply. As I've said, "I am not concerned with . . . morality; I am concerned with effectiveness." You better have something really good to back that up with. Well, you seem to believe that humans are more than atoms. you deny that it was implicit in your tone and words? It comes across pretty strongly that you despise and deride them. I love them because their labour is so necessary. and thus they are worthy of the label "ignorant". Read the above dialogue. but theyre not allowed to possess cameras... Camera booths. yet another shot at the "ignorant masses". How are they not ignorant of certain subjects? [ July 18, 2002: Message edited by: Pseudonym ]</p>

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

07-19-2002, 08:55 AM	#48
emphryio Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: WV Posts: 4,369	Phone booths. haha, but seriously. To pseudonym There are some points here that could be individually discussed for quite awhile. Like drugs. I remember reading a 15 page thread on drugs here awhile ago. We either have to pull out a few points and only discuss them, or this is too generalized to have any meaning. I would have been happy keeping things at just the tests and points system to choose the leaders. The communism, the everything's illegal, the finding a way to kill all undesirables, etc, it's too much for me to try to discuss all at once. Each point in and of itself seems like a rather vast topic, (although it might be difficult to bring just one up in a thread, seeing as how they all relate to achieving one common goal.) Anyway, could you define what you mean by effectiveness? It seems the word could be applied to being good at anything. Do you mean a society that could quickly become very powerful relative to other societies? (A very high gross national product.)

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.