Total Posts:34|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Two Guys, a Girl, and a Democracy.

Tiel
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/6/2011 8:56:49 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Topic: Ragnar has this as his signature and it inspire some thought in me.

What do you think about this?

If you simplify a political system to a form that is easily understood, will it lead to understanding the most efficient form of government, regardless on if people like the truth or not?

What are your thoughts on 2 guys, a girl, and a democracy?
"Only the inner force of curiosity and wonder about the unknown, or an outer force upon your free will, can brake the shackles of your current perception."
el-badgero
Posts: 1,045
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/6/2011 9:05:18 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/6/2011 8:56:49 PM, Tiel wrote:
Topic: Ragnar has this as his signature and it inspire some thought in me.

What do you think about this?

If you simplify a political system to a form that is easily understood, will it lead to understanding the most efficient form of government, regardless on if people like the truth or not?

What are your thoughts on 2 guys, a girl, and a democracy?

i think his sig rather ridiculous. democracy always plays a part. and besides that, one guy, one girl, capitalism? where then?
DATCMOTO's moustache makes him look like an eejit...

edit: nah, i'm jealous... God's an eejit definitely though!
el-badgero
Posts: 1,045
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/6/2011 9:14:13 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
oh wait.. capitalism is about non-violence... pffffttt... could i not say the same of democracy? and you'd think with more weight...
DATCMOTO's moustache makes him look like an eejit...

edit: nah, i'm jealous... God's an eejit definitely though!
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/6/2011 9:28:03 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At first I thought this was a dirty joke lol. But, I see now that it is intended to mean that democracy only benefits those in the majority. The signature is flawed because it doesn't account for the fail-safe of American democracy: Should 2 guys , 1 girl and democracy become insufficient to the needs of the country, it can easily change to 22 girls, 1 guy, and democracy just like that.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Lasagna
Posts: 2,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/6/2011 9:40:33 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I would say those who have the power have the money, not those who have the numbers. In fact it is the minority - the rich - that control everything, so the thesis is a complete fail.
Rob
Tiel
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/6/2011 9:42:17 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
My intention for this post are as follows.

If we simplify your chosen government system...

What are the strengths?

What are the weaknesses?

What system has the least amount of weaknesses and the most amount of strengths?
"Only the inner force of curiosity and wonder about the unknown, or an outer force upon your free will, can brake the shackles of your current perception."
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/6/2011 9:51:12 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/6/2011 9:28:03 PM, 000ike wrote:
At first I thought this was a dirty joke lol. But, I see now that it is intended to mean that democracy only benefits those in the majority. The signature is flawed because it doesn't account for the fail-safe of American democracy: Should 2 guys , 1 girl and democracy become insufficient to the needs of the country, it can easily change to 22 girls, 1 guy, and democracy just like that.

Wait, so one of the guys spontaneously becomes 21 girls? What?
Tiel
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/6/2011 9:55:39 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/6/2011 9:51:12 PM, mongeese wrote:
At 8/6/2011 9:28:03 PM, 000ike wrote:
At first I thought this was a dirty joke lol. But, I see now that it is intended to mean that democracy only benefits those in the majority. The signature is flawed because it doesn't account for the fail-safe of American democracy: Should 2 guys , 1 girl and democracy become insufficient to the needs of the country, it can easily change to 22 girls, 1 guy, and democracy just like that.

Wait, so one of the guys spontaneously becomes 21 girls? What?

Reply: Yeah... I was wondering how that happened myself. He obviously missed the meaning of why I posted this. Maybe I was not clear enough though.

I think I was clear in my follow up post as to the meaning of this topic.
"Only the inner force of curiosity and wonder about the unknown, or an outer force upon your free will, can brake the shackles of your current perception."
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/6/2011 10:01:56 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/6/2011 9:55:39 PM, Tiel wrote:
At 8/6/2011 9:51:12 PM, mongeese wrote:
At 8/6/2011 9:28:03 PM, 000ike wrote:
At first I thought this was a dirty joke lol. But, I see now that it is intended to mean that democracy only benefits those in the majority. The signature is flawed because it doesn't account for the fail-safe of American democracy: Should 2 guys , 1 girl and democracy become insufficient to the needs of the country, it can easily change to 22 girls, 1 guy, and democracy just like that.

Wait, so one of the guys spontaneously becomes 21 girls? What?


Reply: Yeah... I was wondering how that happened myself. He obviously missed the meaning of why I posted this. Maybe I was not clear enough though.

I think I was clear in my follow up post as to the meaning of this topic.

22 was a typo, I meant 2. But anyway, I was trying to say that the members in the government can be changed and removed and the majority always shifts. To answer your original question, I don't think that simplifying government such as the quote does would make it any more understandable. We would be able to find which forms of government have the most strengths and least weaknesses without dumbing it down, unless, of course, you're trying to explain the strengths and weaknesses to children.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Rockylightning
Posts: 2,862
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/6/2011 10:12:49 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
2 guys, one girl, and communism.

Everything is shared.

2 guys, one girl, and a totalitarian state.
Only one guy benefits.

2 guys, one girl, and anarchy. Wut?
mongoose
Posts: 3,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/6/2011 10:13:22 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I don't any of you realize what Ragnar meant. He means that if majority rules is always the best option, then gangrape is not only acceptable, but should be encouraged. It's an argument against democracy.
It is odd when one's capacity for compassion is measured not in what he is willing to do by his own time, effort, and property, but what he will force others to do with their own property instead.
Tiel
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/6/2011 10:24:49 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/6/2011 10:13:22 PM, mongoose wrote:
I don't any of you realize what Ragnar meant. He means that if majority rules is always the best option, then gangrape is not only acceptable, but should be encouraged. It's an argument against democracy.

Reply: Yes, I know what he meant. I advocate democracy currently, but had to question myself in regard to his signature.

Let's up the ante a little, to make it more realistic.

Let's say we have 20 men and 10 women...

What government system would you think best to implement?

What would be the inevitable strengths and weaknesses of your chosen system once implemented?

What situations have a high probability of happening given what you currently know about human nature?
"Only the inner force of curiosity and wonder about the unknown, or an outer force upon your free will, can brake the shackles of your current perception."
Lasagna
Posts: 2,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/6/2011 10:32:38 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
There are factors that obviously complicate the situation. For instance, as Constitutional law recognizes, there are certain traits that favor insulation and certain traits that do not. Being black is insular; I have no ties to black people. What do I care if they get hammered with injustice? Being old is not insular. I necessarily have elders and will be an elder someday. Being a woman is not insular; nearly everybody is either a) deeply connected with a woman or b) is a woman. So saying that 2 guys, 1 girl and a democracy favors rape is simplistic beyond logical use, because the two guys don't want their wives, daughters, and mothers raped and they aren't going to vote for that.
Rob
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/6/2011 10:36:07 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I agree with Lasagna. (wow, that's a funny phrase lol)
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/7/2011 12:48:04 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/6/2011 10:24:49 PM, Tiel wrote:
At 8/6/2011 10:13:22 PM, mongoose wrote:
I don't any of you realize what Ragnar meant. He means that if majority rules is always the best option, then gangrape is not only acceptable, but should be encouraged. It's an argument against democracy.

Reply: Yes, I know what he meant. I advocate democracy currently, but had to question myself in regard to his signature.

Let's up the ante a little, to make it more realistic.

Let's say we have 20 men and 10 women...

What government system would you think best to implement?

Minarchy. All are free through voluntary contract.

What would be the inevitable strengths and weaknesses of your chosen system once implemented?

No rape. Weakness: there is a chance that not everyone will get laid, but this will only occur if nobody wants to have sex with them.

What situations have a high probability of happening given what you currently know about human nature?

The men can skip the system, overpower the women, and force upon them slavery.
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/7/2011 1:12:40 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
A republic with a strong constitution would be ideal as opposed to a democracy. Property rights are maintained.

Although the process can be complex. I believe that the government should regulate the economy in a way, however the regulations should be minimal.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/7/2011 1:53:42 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/6/2011 10:01:56 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 8/6/2011 9:55:39 PM, Tiel wrote:
At 8/6/2011 9:51:12 PM, mongeese wrote:
At 8/6/2011 9:28:03 PM, 000ike wrote:
At first I thought this was a dirty joke lol. But, I see now that it is intended to mean that democracy only benefits those in the majority. The signature is flawed because it doesn't account for the fail-safe of American democracy: Should 2 guys , 1 girl and democracy become insufficient to the needs of the country, it can easily change to 22 girls, 1 guy, and democracy just like that.

Wait, so one of the guys spontaneously becomes 21 girls? What?


Reply: Yeah... I was wondering how that happened myself. He obviously missed the meaning of why I posted this. Maybe I was not clear enough though.

I think I was clear in my follow up post as to the meaning of this topic.

22 was a typo, I meant 2. But anyway, I was trying to say that the members in the government can be changed and removed and the majority always shifts.
Why would one of the guys chop his **** off?

There is no such thing as the needs of the country, only the needs of the individual.

Either guy is insufficiently incentivized to be likely to change the nature of the majority unless he takes a very long view.

Two guys, a girl, and a democracy is primarily to be evaluated as a reductio ad absurdum, but it's also a situation that happens every day in certain cities (admittedly usually with more than two guys), unless you're one of those "Only global democracy counts" guys (so it's not as strong a critique of, say, badger, as it is of a someone who believes in self-sufficient communities like Tiel, or of a nationalist-- the moral point remains but the practical situation is less replicable in its particulars).
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/7/2011 1:54:47 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
and yes, American majorities occasionally shift.

That doesn't mean they tend to do so for the better.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/7/2011 6:17:47 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/7/2011 1:53:42 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
There is no such thing as the needs of the country, only the needs of the : : individual.

Yes, yes, and I suppose only people need money, a country cannot possibly need money to build roads, to pay firefighters and policemen, no, a country cannot possibly need security, no of course not, only individuals need that! A country cannot need world standing, no, because only individuals need world standing, a country cannot need a competent government, no of course not.

If there were only the needs of the individuals, then countries would not exist.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
VocMusTcrMaloy
Posts: 189
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/7/2011 7:36:01 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
With two guys and a girl; the two guys aren't necessarily the majority. The girl could be married to one of the guys, so the couple is the majority. The girl could be White, her husband, Black, and the unattached man, White. So now, the couple would make one majority, the two men, another, and the two Whites another. Then we haven't talked about education, income, etc....
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/7/2011 7:43:05 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Two Guys, A Girl and Capitalism

Guys want sex. Girl doesn't. It happens anyway because guys want it and have the power to do it.

The point is?
President of DDO
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/7/2011 2:49:28 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/7/2011 7:43:05 AM, Danielle wrote:
Two Guys, A Girl and Capitalism

Guys want sex. Girl doesn't. It happens anyway if the girl wants their money.
Fix'd
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/7/2011 2:56:16 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/7/2011 7:36:01 AM, VocMusTcrMaloy wrote:
With two guys and a girl; the two guys aren't necessarily the majority. The girl could be married to one of the guys, so the couple is the majority.
The point of the problem isn't what's "necessary," the fact that it's even a possibility is sufficient.

Yes, yes, and I suppose only people need money, a country cannot possibly need money to build roads, to pay firefighters and policemen
That's a road building company and a government, not a country.

A country cannot need world standing
Define.

If there were only the needs of the individuals, then countries would not exist.
Undemonstrated.

This would be a monarchy…the woman would run things!
Again, every day we find this situation in certain parts of certain cities, and often the woman does not end up running things. That's why they call gang rape "gang" rape. Guys get together in a gang, get a house, become the majority there, add a girl, you get rape
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Tiel
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/7/2011 6:13:37 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/7/2011 7:36:01 AM, VocMusTcrMaloy wrote:
With two guys and a girl; the two guys aren't necessarily the majority. The girl could be married to one of the guys, so the couple is the majority. The girl could be White, her husband, Black, and the unattached man, White. So now, the couple would make one majority, the two men, another, and the two Whites another. Then we haven't talked about education, income, etc....

Reply: Good response, and very intelligent.
"Only the inner force of curiosity and wonder about the unknown, or an outer force upon your free will, can brake the shackles of your current perception."
Tiel
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/7/2011 6:23:32 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Opinion: It would seem that numbers don't necessarily mean power and power is the only thing that can keep an order orderly. Power over yourself or power over others.

It seems that the only way to keep and maintain order, no matter the system, is through a benevolent nature of the people who control the most power.

To cut down on the probability of problems arising it would seem that a central order being lead by a leader who is benevolent in nature, would be the best situation. It has the most strengths and the least weaknesses. If one person holds the power to control and organize the system, it can be fixed and maintained more efficiently. If there is a problem within the system, due to the leader's faulty decision making, then the problem is tracked to one source and can be eliminated (fixed) by taking that person out of power.

I would like to hear your thoughts, as my perspective may change due to intelligent feedback.
"Only the inner force of curiosity and wonder about the unknown, or an outer force upon your free will, can brake the shackles of your current perception."
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/7/2011 7:09:51 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/7/2011 6:23:32 PM, Tiel wrote:
Opinion: It would seem that numbers don't necessarily mean power and power is the only thing that can keep an order orderly. Power over yourself or power over others.

It seems that the only way to keep and maintain order, no matter the system, is through a benevolent nature of the people who control the most power.

To cut down on the probability of problems arising it would seem that a central order being lead by a leader who is benevolent in nature, would be the best situation. It has the most strengths and the least weaknesses. If one person holds the power to control and organize the system, it can be fixed and maintained more efficiently. If there is a problem within the system, due to the leader's faulty decision making, then the problem is tracked to one source and can be eliminated (fixed) by taking that person out of power.

I would like to hear your thoughts, as my perspective may change due to intelligent feedback.

Could the person in charge change the voting rules for how to vote him out? If not, how are those voting rules enforced? Through a constitution?
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/7/2011 8:27:11 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Well, obviously, it's best to have a benevolent leader, but one cannot guarantee that a leader will be benevolent. A government also need not be benevolent to maintain control; there's also the 1984 option.
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/7/2011 8:33:56 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/7/2011 2:49:28 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Guys want sex. Girl doesn't. It happens anyway if the girl wants their money.
Fix'd

Guys want sex. Girl doesn't, nor does she want their money. They do her anyway.

I don't see why we must pretend people are perfect and nobody will ever cheat the (your) system.
President of DDO