Total Posts:27|Showing Posts:1-27
Jump to topic:

Systemism

FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/7/2010 11:09:40 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
I am now officially coining the term "Systemism".

Sure, during a Google search I've seen it used a few times before but it has in no way become a popularized term. I'd like to do that now, and by my definition of it.

The First Tenant of Systemism is:

Every conscious entity with the ability to feel both happiness and non-happiness logically has from thence a direct, intrinsic and unalienable purpose to pursue the former.

The Second Tenant of Systemism is:

The way in which happiness can be most logically obtained is through an integrated system on an individual's environment which applies the desired outcome of the first tenant universally. That is, a system which causes the most happiness for every individual contained within it.

The Basic Statement of Systemism:

Happiness is purpose and knowing how to best obtain it is morality.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/7/2010 11:27:10 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/7/2010 11:09:40 PM, FREEDO wrote:
The Second Tenant of Systemism is:

The way in which happiness can be most logically obtained is through an integrated system on an individual's environment which applies the desired outcome of the first tenant universally. That is, a system which causes the most happiness for every individual contained within it.

What if System 1 would make A feel really happy and B feel only rather happy and System 2 would make A feel only rather happy and B really happy?
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/7/2010 11:47:42 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Ensure comfortable living, not happiness. As Reasoning pointed out, it wouldn't work otherwise. People will always have ideological differences, but all can agree on comfortable living.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/7/2010 11:51:32 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/7/2010 11:27:10 PM, Reasoning wrote:
At 3/7/2010 11:09:40 PM, FREEDO wrote:
The Second Tenant of Systemism is:

The way in which happiness can be most logically obtained is through an integrated system on an individual's environment which applies the desired outcome of the first tenant universally. That is, a system which causes the most happiness for every individual contained within it.

What if System 1 would make A feel really happy and B feel only rather happy and System 2 would make A feel only rather happy and B really happy?

Whichever makes each individual more happy. It isn't a majority thing. It would imply a minimal standard of living for all. That may sound Socialist but it's not, it simply means smaller groups of people shouldn't be abused just because it makes the majority happier.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
PoeJoe
Posts: 3,822
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/7/2010 11:59:35 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/7/2010 11:51:48 PM, FREEDO wrote:
At 3/7/2010 11:44:31 PM, PoeJoe wrote:
This looks a lot like Objectivism.

It's very similar.

...how is it different?
Television Rot: http://tvrot.com...
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/8/2010 12:00:22 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/7/2010 11:47:42 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Ensure comfortable living, not happiness. As Reasoning pointed out, it wouldn't work otherwise. People will always have ideological differences, but all can agree on comfortable living.

Comfortable living doesn't bring happiness?

I think your mistaking this for a purely political philosophy. It's meant to be applied to all social situations.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
Puck
Posts: 6,457
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/8/2010 12:04:23 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/7/2010 11:59:35 PM, PoeJoe wrote:
At 3/7/2010 11:51:48 PM, FREEDO wrote:
At 3/7/2010 11:44:31 PM, PoeJoe wrote:
This looks a lot like Objectivism.

It's very similar.

...how is it different?

He makes it intrinsic. :P
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/8/2010 12:04:43 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/7/2010 11:59:35 PM, PoeJoe wrote:
At 3/7/2010 11:51:48 PM, FREEDO wrote:
At 3/7/2010 11:44:31 PM, PoeJoe wrote:
This looks a lot like Objectivism.

It's very similar.

...how is it different?

Objectivism is very specific.

Systemists don't necessarily have to be Atheist or Minarchist.

In fact, if anything in terms of politics, it may imply economic moderation. A Systemist should be looking for a system which provides the best average of both the highest maximum standard of living(Capitalism) and the highest minimum standard of living(Socialism).
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
Puck
Posts: 6,457
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/8/2010 12:07:50 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/8/2010 12:04:43 AM, FREEDO wrote:
At 3/7/2010 11:59:35 PM, PoeJoe wrote:
At 3/7/2010 11:51:48 PM, FREEDO wrote:
At 3/7/2010 11:44:31 PM, PoeJoe wrote:
This looks a lot like Objectivism.

It's very similar.

...how is it different?

Objectivism is very specific.

Systemists don't necessarily have to be Atheist or Minarchist.

In fact, if anything in terms of politics, it may imply economic moderation. A Systemist should be looking for a system which provides the best average of both the highest maximum standard of living(Capitalism) and the highest minimum standard of living(Socialism).

If your goal is to maximise happiness how does equal moderation when you confirm it's less than to another alternative?
PoeJoe
Posts: 3,822
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/8/2010 12:07:55 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/8/2010 12:04:43 AM, FREEDO wrote:
At 3/7/2010 11:59:35 PM, PoeJoe wrote:
At 3/7/2010 11:51:48 PM, FREEDO wrote:
At 3/7/2010 11:44:31 PM, PoeJoe wrote:
This looks a lot like Objectivism.

It's very similar.

...how is it different?

Objectivism is very specific.

Systemists don't necessarily have to be Atheist or Minarchist.

In fact, if anything in terms of politics, it may imply economic moderation. A Systemist should be looking for a system which provides the best average of both the highest maximum standard of living(Capitalism) and the highest minimum standard of living(Socialism).

Well, I'd disagree with your definitions of Capitalism and Socialism, but...

So, "Systemism" is just Democracy spun around to sound cool?
Television Rot: http://tvrot.com...
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/8/2010 12:07:56 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/8/2010 12:06:03 AM, Puck wrote:
Also, more utilitarian than not.

Your probably right. It's like a middle ground between Egoism and Utilitarianism.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/8/2010 12:09:44 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/8/2010 12:07:55 AM, PoeJoe wrote:
At 3/8/2010 12:04:43 AM, FREEDO wrote:
At 3/7/2010 11:59:35 PM, PoeJoe wrote:
At 3/7/2010 11:51:48 PM, FREEDO wrote:
At 3/7/2010 11:44:31 PM, PoeJoe wrote:
This looks a lot like Objectivism.

It's very similar.

...how is it different?

Objectivism is very specific.

Systemists don't necessarily have to be Atheist or Minarchist.

In fact, if anything in terms of politics, it may imply economic moderation. A Systemist should be looking for a system which provides the best average of both the highest maximum standard of living(Capitalism) and the highest minimum standard of living(Socialism).

Well, I'd disagree with your definitions of Capitalism and Socialism, but...

So, "Systemism" is just Democracy spun around to sound cool?

No no no. Like I said to Reasoning, "Whichever makes each individual more happy. It isn't a majority thing. It would imply a minimal standard of living for all. That may sound Socialist but it's not, it simply means smaller groups of people shouldn't be abused just because it makes the majority happier."
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
Puck
Posts: 6,457
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/8/2010 12:10:03 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/8/2010 12:07:56 AM, FREEDO wrote:
At 3/8/2010 12:06:03 AM, Puck wrote:
Also, more utilitarian than not.

Your probably right. It's like a middle ground between Egoism and Utilitarianism.

What's not util about it? You want to maximise happiness - and propose the best economic system is that which achieves it.
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/8/2010 12:10:34 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/8/2010 12:07:50 AM, Puck wrote:
At 3/8/2010 12:04:43 AM, FREEDO wrote:
At 3/7/2010 11:59:35 PM, PoeJoe wrote:
At 3/7/2010 11:51:48 PM, FREEDO wrote:
At 3/7/2010 11:44:31 PM, PoeJoe wrote:
This looks a lot like Objectivism.

It's very similar.

...how is it different?

Objectivism is very specific.

Systemists don't necessarily have to be Atheist or Minarchist.

In fact, if anything in terms of politics, it may imply economic moderation. A Systemist should be looking for a system which provides the best average of both the highest maximum standard of living(Capitalism) and the highest minimum standard of living(Socialism).

If your goal is to maximise happiness how does equal moderation when you confirm it's less than to another alternative?

I'm not sure what your asking.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
Puck
Posts: 6,457
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/8/2010 12:11:37 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/8/2010 12:09:44 AM, FREEDO wrote:
At 3/8/2010 12:07:55 AM, PoeJoe wrote:
At 3/8/2010 12:04:43 AM, FREEDO wrote:
At 3/7/2010 11:59:35 PM, PoeJoe wrote:
At 3/7/2010 11:51:48 PM, FREEDO wrote:
At 3/7/2010 11:44:31 PM, PoeJoe wrote:
This looks a lot like Objectivism.

It's very similar.

...how is it different?

Objectivism is very specific.

Systemists don't necessarily have to be Atheist or Minarchist.

In fact, if anything in terms of politics, it may imply economic moderation. A Systemist should be looking for a system which provides the best average of both the highest maximum standard of living(Capitalism) and the highest minimum standard of living(Socialism).

Well, I'd disagree with your definitions of Capitalism and Socialism, but...

So, "Systemism" is just Democracy spun around to sound cool?

No no no. Like I said to Reasoning, "Whichever makes each individual more happy. It isn't a majority thing. It would imply a minimal standard of living for all. That may sound Socialist but it's not, it simply means smaller groups of people shouldn't be abused just because it makes the majority happier."

Well if it makes them happier to do so.. Problem is your standard is relativistic.
Puck
Posts: 6,457
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/8/2010 12:12:28 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/8/2010 12:10:34 AM, FREEDO wrote:
At 3/8/2010 12:07:50 AM, Puck wrote:
At 3/8/2010 12:04:43 AM, FREEDO wrote:
At 3/7/2010 11:59:35 PM, PoeJoe wrote:
At 3/7/2010 11:51:48 PM, FREEDO wrote:
At 3/7/2010 11:44:31 PM, PoeJoe wrote:
This looks a lot like Objectivism.

It's very similar.

...how is it different?

Objectivism is very specific.

Systemists don't necessarily have to be Atheist or Minarchist.

In fact, if anything in terms of politics, it may imply economic moderation. A Systemist should be looking for a system which provides the best average of both the highest maximum standard of living(Capitalism) and the highest minimum standard of living(Socialism).

If your goal is to maximise happiness how does equal moderation when you confirm it's less than to another alternative?

I'm not sure what your asking.

Maximising a position by advocating mediocrity in some degree is not compatible.
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/8/2010 12:13:04 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/8/2010 12:10:03 AM, Puck wrote:
At 3/8/2010 12:07:56 AM, FREEDO wrote:
At 3/8/2010 12:06:03 AM, Puck wrote:
Also, more utilitarian than not.

Your probably right. It's like a middle ground between Egoism and Utilitarianism.

What's not util about it? You want to maximise happiness - and propose the best economic system is that which achieves it.

I would think it implies a little more selfishness. It's base is actually selfishness, instead of claiming to do what is best for all for it's own sake.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/8/2010 12:14:20 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/8/2010 12:11:37 AM, Puck wrote:
At 3/8/2010 12:09:44 AM, FREEDO wrote:
At 3/8/2010 12:07:55 AM, PoeJoe wrote:
At 3/8/2010 12:04:43 AM, FREEDO wrote:
At 3/7/2010 11:59:35 PM, PoeJoe wrote:
At 3/7/2010 11:51:48 PM, FREEDO wrote:
At 3/7/2010 11:44:31 PM, PoeJoe wrote:
This looks a lot like Objectivism.

It's very similar.

...how is it different?

Objectivism is very specific.

Systemists don't necessarily have to be Atheist or Minarchist.

In fact, if anything in terms of politics, it may imply economic moderation. A Systemist should be looking for a system which provides the best average of both the highest maximum standard of living(Capitalism) and the highest minimum standard of living(Socialism).

Well, I'd disagree with your definitions of Capitalism and Socialism, but...

So, "Systemism" is just Democracy spun around to sound cool?

No no no. Like I said to Reasoning, "Whichever makes each individual more happy. It isn't a majority thing. It would imply a minimal standard of living for all. That may sound Socialist but it's not, it simply means smaller groups of people shouldn't be abused just because it makes the majority happier."

Well if it makes them happier to do so.. Problem is your standard is relativistic.

True. I would try to subject each system to as much scientific scrutiny as possible.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
Puck
Posts: 6,457
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/8/2010 12:16:49 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/8/2010 12:13:04 AM, FREEDO wrote:
At 3/8/2010 12:10:03 AM, Puck wrote:
At 3/8/2010 12:07:56 AM, FREEDO wrote:
At 3/8/2010 12:06:03 AM, Puck wrote:
Also, more utilitarian than not.

Your probably right. It's like a middle ground between Egoism and Utilitarianism.

What's not util about it? You want to maximise happiness - and propose the best economic system is that which achieves it.

I would think it implies a little more selfishness. It's base is actually selfishness, instead of claiming to do what is best for all for it's own sake.

The two are not incompatible - under your system presumably to maximise individual achievement would require compromise to negate conflict. Utilitarianism just under another name. :P
Puck
Posts: 6,457
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/8/2010 12:18:28 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/8/2010 12:14:20 AM, FREEDO wrote:
At 3/8/2010 12:11:37 AM, Puck wrote:
At 3/8/2010 12:09:44 AM, FREEDO wrote:
At 3/8/2010 12:07:55 AM, PoeJoe wrote:
At 3/8/2010 12:04:43 AM, FREEDO wrote:
At 3/7/2010 11:59:35 PM, PoeJoe wrote:
At 3/7/2010 11:51:48 PM, FREEDO wrote:
At 3/7/2010 11:44:31 PM, PoeJoe wrote:
This looks a lot like Objectivism.

It's very similar.

...how is it different?

Objectivism is very specific.

Systemists don't necessarily have to be Atheist or Minarchist.

In fact, if anything in terms of politics, it may imply economic moderation. A Systemist should be looking for a system which provides the best average of both the highest maximum standard of living(Capitalism) and the highest minimum standard of living(Socialism).

Well, I'd disagree with your definitions of Capitalism and Socialism, but...

So, "Systemism" is just Democracy spun around to sound cool?

No no no. Like I said to Reasoning, "Whichever makes each individual more happy. It isn't a majority thing. It would imply a minimal standard of living for all. That may sound Socialist but it's not, it simply means smaller groups of people shouldn't be abused just because it makes the majority happier."

Well if it makes them happier to do so.. Problem is your standard is relativistic.

True. I would try to subject each system to as much scientific scrutiny as possible.

So you going to force populations into what? You can't 'science' populations in this sense. No control groups, you can't account nor control for all variables.
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/8/2010 12:26:22 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/8/2010 12:16:49 AM, Puck wrote:
At 3/8/2010 12:13:04 AM, FREEDO wrote:
At 3/8/2010 12:10:03 AM, Puck wrote:
At 3/8/2010 12:07:56 AM, FREEDO wrote:
At 3/8/2010 12:06:03 AM, Puck wrote:
Also, more utilitarian than not.

Your probably right. It's like a middle ground between Egoism and Utilitarianism.

What's not util about it? You want to maximise happiness - and propose the best economic system is that which achieves it.

I would think it implies a little more selfishness. It's base is actually selfishness, instead of claiming to do what is best for all for it's own sake.

The two are not incompatible - under your system presumably to maximise individual achievement would require compromise to negate conflict. Utilitarianism just under another name. :P

Your right.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/8/2010 12:28:26 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/8/2010 12:18:28 AM, Puck wrote:
At 3/8/2010 12:14:20 AM, FREEDO wrote:
At 3/8/2010 12:11:37 AM, Puck wrote:
At 3/8/2010 12:09:44 AM, FREEDO wrote:
At 3/8/2010 12:07:55 AM, PoeJoe wrote:
At 3/8/2010 12:04:43 AM, FREEDO wrote:
At 3/7/2010 11:59:35 PM, PoeJoe wrote:
At 3/7/2010 11:51:48 PM, FREEDO wrote:
At 3/7/2010 11:44:31 PM, PoeJoe wrote:
This looks a lot like Objectivism.

It's very similar.

...how is it different?

Objectivism is very specific.

Systemists don't necessarily have to be Atheist or Minarchist.

In fact, if anything in terms of politics, it may imply economic moderation. A Systemist should be looking for a system which provides the best average of both the highest maximum standard of living(Capitalism) and the highest minimum standard of living(Socialism).

Well, I'd disagree with your definitions of Capitalism and Socialism, but...

So, "Systemism" is just Democracy spun around to sound cool?

No no no. Like I said to Reasoning, "Whichever makes each individual more happy. It isn't a majority thing. It would imply a minimal standard of living for all. That may sound Socialist but it's not, it simply means smaller groups of people shouldn't be abused just because it makes the majority happier."

Well if it makes them happier to do so.. Problem is your standard is relativistic.

True. I would try to subject each system to as much scientific scrutiny as possible.

So you going to force populations into what? You can't 'science' populations in this sense. No control groups, you can't account nor control for all variables.

What I mean is I'll be observing and collecting as much data as I can. Not forcing anyone.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/8/2010 6:45:01 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/7/2010 11:09:40 PM, FREEDO wrote:
I am now officially coining the term "Systemism".


Your wording is clumsey and awkward and it is a recycled idea.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.