Total Posts:32|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

The Biggest Issue in Politics?

FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2013 9:02:19 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
A thought occurred to me.

It seems that all social actions boil down to three different consequences.

Either, an action benefits all parties involved, an action comes at the expense of all parties involved, or an action benefits one party at the expense of another.

By extension, selfishness will always be beneficial if people hold interests in common. And will always be harmful if they hold interests in conflict.

So, based on this, the big question in social relations would appear obvious.

How do we get people to hold more interests in common?
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2013 9:09:33 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/17/2013 9:02:19 PM, FREEDO wrote:
A thought occurred to me.

It seems that all social actions boil down to three different consequences.

Either, an action benefits all parties involved, an action comes at the expense of all parties involved, or an action benefits one party at the expense of another.

By extension, selfishness will always be beneficial if people hold interests in common. And will always be harmful if they hold interests in conflict.

So, based on this, the big question in social relations would appear obvious.

How do we get people to hold more interests in common?

First, a simple correction. The 3rd option should be "some" rather than "one" since many actions affect more than 2 parties.

Going into the actual question, there are a few ways. One is the destruction of the individual (or course, use more positive words). Get people to feel that they are part of the common rather than singular individuals. This really has to be done at an early age (as is getting people to feel that they are individuals). It is all done by parenting and other nurturing influences.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2013 9:47:47 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/17/2013 9:09:33 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
First, a simple correction. The 3rd option should be "some" rather than "one" since many actions affect more than 2 parties.

I actually realized that. But I decided that making the sentence more complicated without actually changing the meaning was unnecessary.

Going into the actual question, there are a few ways. One is the destruction of the individual (or course, use more positive words). Get people to feel that they are part of the common rather than singular individuals. This really has to be done at an early age (as is getting people to feel that they are individuals). It is all done by parenting and other nurturing influences.

We could force everyone to take lots of oxytocin.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2013 9:59:02 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/17/2013 9:47:47 PM, FREEDO wrote:
At 2/17/2013 9:09:33 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
First, a simple correction. The 3rd option should be "some" rather than "one" since many actions affect more than 2 parties.

I actually realized that. But I decided that making the sentence more complicated without actually changing the meaning was unnecessary.

Going into the actual question, there are a few ways. One is the destruction of the individual (or course, use more positive words). Get people to feel that they are part of the common rather than singular individuals. This really has to be done at an early age (as is getting people to feel that they are individuals). It is all done by parenting and other nurturing influences.

We could force everyone to take lots of oxytocin.

Could we really? I mean, such a degree of force would be met with such resistance and ultimate rebellion that I doubt that we could be successful in such forcing. It would probably be better to "sneak" it in, rather than force it in. Maybe mix it with the drinking water or something.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2013 10:06:57 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/17/2013 9:02:19 PM, FREEDO wrote:
A thought occurred to me.

It seems that all social actions boil down to three different consequences.

Either, an action benefits all parties involved, an action comes at the expense of all parties involved, or an action benefits one party at the expense of another.

By extension, selfishness will always be beneficial if people hold interests in common. And will always be harmful if they hold interests in conflict.

So, based on this, the big question in social relations would appear obvious.

How do we get people to hold more interests in common?

They already do.

The question should be - how do we get people to REALIZE that they hold more interests in common than they PERCEIVE?

What do people want?

strong economy
better life for their children
safety
secure retirement
good schools
clean air (purple mountains majesty...whatever)

There are a few issues on which people disagree, and the tactics to achieve the above are a spot of contention, but EVERYONE puts their pants on one leg at a time. We just gotta get the squares to realize that this is as true of gays as it is of anyone else.

So, the biggest issue, in my mind is that people are entitled to their own opinion, AND they feel this opinion, despite how uneducated it might be, is just as valid as the opinion of someone who has made it their life's work to study the same subject on which they are giving the opinion.

What people seem to forget is that they are equally entitled to jam their heads up their own @sses, but so few avail themselves of this entitlement when they really should choose this one over the other one I mentioned.

I post a lot of videos because I like to relate things to art because I think artists have a unique perspective and can often intuit things that non-artists can't, and these things usually go to fundamental aspects of human nature that people seem to ignore, often times.

In this instance, the videos I post go to show that we are truly all the same. In one video, you have Leadbelly singing "Black Girl (Where Did You Sleep Last Night?)". In the other, Dolly Parton and family singing "In The Pines".

It's the same song (mostly). Not only do we all have common wants. We all have common likes and dislikes. I'm atheist, and I have a large contingent of atheist friends, but I have a larger contingent of Christian friends (and a few Pagan friends...BTW - Pagan "spells" and Christian prayer - SAME THING...just different names). They know that they're not going to convert me, and I don't try to convert them (if they want to waste one day a week doing their Christian thing, who am I to care?). With the exception of religion, we get along famously.

Too many people hate too many other people they should be friends with for reasons they don't even understand.
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2013 10:08:27 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/17/2013 9:59:02 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
Could we really? I mean, such a degree of force would be met with such resistance and ultimate rebellion that I doubt that we could be successful in such forcing. It would probably be better to "sneak" it in, rather than force it in. Maybe mix it with the drinking water or something.

Infant vaccinations. And prison populations.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2013 11:13:02 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
almost everyone bases politics on emotions, not overall philosophical questions of well-being. Well-being is usually just used to justify emotions.

Your forgetting that the vast majority of people discuss politics then people on DDO, and those that do discuss politics, usually only do so in their own circles.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,212
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2013 11:19:43 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/17/2013 10:11:36 PM, Mirza wrote:
Simple - ideology. I think religion is a heavy force in this regard.

Also, being attacked by other countries helps to band citizens together. (historically speaking)

911 effect
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,212
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2013 11:21:26 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/17/2013 9:47:47 PM, FREEDO wrote:
At 2/17/2013 9:09:33 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
First, a simple correction. The 3rd option should be "some" rather than "one" since many actions affect more than 2 parties.

I actually realized that. But I decided that making the sentence more complicated without actually changing the meaning was unnecessary.

Going into the actual question, there are a few ways. One is the destruction of the individual (or course, use more positive words). Get people to feel that they are part of the common rather than singular individuals. This really has to be done at an early age (as is getting people to feel that they are individuals). It is all done by parenting and other nurturing influences.

We could force everyone to take lots of oxytocin.

Legalizing pot would be more effective.
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2013 11:22:41 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/17/2013 11:21:26 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
Legalizing pot would be more effective.

Universalize it.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2013 7:53:54 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/17/2013 10:08:27 PM, FREEDO wrote:
At 2/17/2013 9:59:02 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
Could we really? I mean, such a degree of force would be met with such resistance and ultimate rebellion that I doubt that we could be successful in such forcing. It would probably be better to "sneak" it in, rather than force it in. Maybe mix it with the drinking water or something.

Infant vaccinations. And prison populations.

That gets a single dose (well, several doses) but does not really add a permanent intake. I think it would be most important to ad during and shortly after puberty, since that is during other extreme hormonal changes as well as during the typical rebellious stage of people's lives when they like to only think about themselves.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/19/2013 3:17:43 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/18/2013 7:53:54 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 2/17/2013 10:08:27 PM, FREEDO wrote:
At 2/17/2013 9:59:02 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
Could we really? I mean, such a degree of force would be met with such resistance and ultimate rebellion that I doubt that we could be successful in such forcing. It would probably be better to "sneak" it in, rather than force it in. Maybe mix it with the drinking water or something.

Infant vaccinations. And prison populations.

That gets a single dose (well, several doses) but does not really add a permanent intake. I think it would be most important to ad during and shortly after puberty, since that is during other extreme hormonal changes as well as during the typical rebellious stage of people's lives when they like to only think about themselves.

The condition of infants, even only right after birth, have huge repercussions for the rest of their life. See studies about how often infants are kept in physical constant to someone. I imagine giving them a jump start would lay the foundations for highly developed empathetic brain functions later on in life.

Alex Jones seems to think that the inside of juice boxes is laced with chemicals that turn people gay. We could run with that idea.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/19/2013 9:44:03 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/17/2013 9:02:19 PM, FREEDO wrote:
A thought occurred to me.

It seems that all social actions boil down to three different consequences.

Either, an action benefits all parties involved, an action comes at the expense of all parties involved, or an action benefits one party at the expense of another.

By extension, selfishness will always be beneficial if people hold interests in common. And will always be harmful if they hold interests in conflict.

So, based on this, the big question in social relations would appear obvious.

How do we get people to hold more interests in common?

An idea I've been mulling is that the main problem you cite here deals with the economic problem of scarcity. The only real reason why "an action would come at the expense of all other parties involved" is because resources are finite - otherwise, actions would have little to no consequence upon others. Time and space would also be classified as resources here, so the ostensible goal of eliminating scarcity would be to eliminate time and space in how it interferes with others.

I think the digital frontier makes this possible to a large extent. Information is intrinsically "not scarce" as it can be copied with little consequence for either party. Most of the technological advances that have mattered in the past 10-20 years have been digital in nature, many of which involve software as opposed to hardware. This has implications as to what would be "scarce" in that "resources that matter" would become subject less and less to scarcity.

By thus mitigating scarcity, you can get people to hold more interests in common.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/19/2013 9:59:50 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/17/2013 9:02:19 PM, FREEDO wrote:
Either, an action benefits all parties involved, an action comes at the expense of all parties involved, or an action benefits one party at the expense of another.

How about a non-action.

By extension, selfishness will always be beneficial if people hold interests in common. And will always be harmful if they hold interests in conflict.

How do we get people to hold more interests in common?

If you have an interest that infringes on someone else than fvck their interest they can get the hell out.

If the government stayed out of people's lives, conflicts of interest would arise less.

If have an interest that needs to be met then make it happen.

Freedom should appeal to everybody but for some people, freedom is not enough. They want stuff, they want to force their beliefs on others but it always comes at the expense of others.
"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
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/19/2013 10:17:11 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/19/2013 9:59:50 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 2/17/2013 9:02:19 PM, FREEDO wrote:
Either, an action benefits all parties involved, an action comes at the expense of all parties involved, or an action benefits one party at the expense of another.

How about a non-action.

By extension, selfishness will always be beneficial if people hold interests in common. And will always be harmful if they hold interests in conflict.

How do we get people to hold more interests in common?

If you have an interest that infringes on someone else than fvck their interest they can get the hell out.

If the government stayed out of people's lives, conflicts of interest would arise less.

If have an interest that needs to be met then make it happen.

Freedom should appeal to everybody but for some people, freedom is not enough. They want stuff, they want to force their beliefs on others but it always comes at the expense of others.

Oh...I see. THEY are just totally that way, aren't THEY?
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/19/2013 10:32:40 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/19/2013 10:17:11 AM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 2/19/2013 9:59:50 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
How about a non-action.
If you have an interest that infringes on someone else than fvck their interest they can get the hell out.

If the government stayed out of people's lives, conflicts of interest would arise less.

If have an interest that needs to be met then make it happen.

Freedom should appeal to everybody but for some people, freedom is not enough. They want stuff, they want to force their beliefs on others but it always comes at the expense of others.

Oh...I see. THEY are just totally that way, aren't THEY?

Are you suggesting that "I want to stay out of your life and let you live it how you want" is forcing my beliefs onto others?
"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
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/19/2013 10:41:32 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
No question - the War on Drugs. The repercussions of it extend far more than most people realize. Not only is it a huge issue in terms of individual rights, but also taxes, the domain of government, crime (especially violent crime " particularly pertaining to gangs and the mafia which also affect homicide and other illegal transactions like the illegal gun market), etc. Mexico would be a MUCH different place if drugs were legalized, which would affect legitimate trade through NAFTA and especially illegal immigration. Legalizing drugs is about far more than people wanting to get high. Prohibition is screwing over Americans in A LOT of ways. Legalization would NOT automatically lead to more use either. Tobacco use is on a steep decline and that"s legal.
President of DDO
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/19/2013 10:41:48 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/19/2013 10:32:40 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 2/19/2013 10:17:11 AM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 2/19/2013 9:59:50 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
How about a non-action.
If you have an interest that infringes on someone else than fvck their interest they can get the hell out.

If the government stayed out of people's lives, conflicts of interest would arise less.

If have an interest that needs to be met then make it happen.

Freedom should appeal to everybody but for some people, freedom is not enough. They want stuff, they want to force their beliefs on others but it always comes at the expense of others.

Oh...I see. THEY are just totally that way, aren't THEY?

Are you suggesting that "I want to stay out of your life and let you live it how you want" is forcing my beliefs onto others?

That's not what you said. You said that I could go f*ck myself if your interests and mine conflicted.

You said that I needed to exit the A.O. as soon as our interests conflicted.

You said you should be able to force your interests on mine, lest I should be made to exit so you can force your interests on whomever without resistance.

If that's your idea of "you do your thing and I'll do mine.", then yeah...it's pretty oppressive.
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/19/2013 11:06:59 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/19/2013 10:41:48 AM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 2/19/2013 10:32:40 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 2/19/2013 9:59:50 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
If you have an interest that infringes on someone else than fvck their interest they can get the hell out.
Are you suggesting that "I want to stay out of your life and let you live it how you want" is forcing my beliefs onto others?

That's not what you said. You said that I could go f*ck myself if your interests and mine conflicted.

You said that I needed to exit the A.O. as soon as our interests conflicted.

You said you should be able to force your interests on mine, lest I should be made to exit so you can force your interests on whomever without resistance.

If that's your idea of "you do your thing and I'll do mine.", then yeah...it's pretty oppressive.

Conflicted, no. INFRINGE, yes. You apparently don't understand the difference.
"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
Vi_Veri
Posts: 4,487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/19/2013 12:16:53 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/19/2013 11:06:59 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 2/19/2013 10:41:48 AM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 2/19/2013 10:32:40 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 2/19/2013 9:59:50 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
If you have an interest that infringes on someone else than fvck their interest they can get the hell out.
Are you suggesting that "I want to stay out of your life and let you live it how you want" is forcing my beliefs onto others?

That's not what you said. You said that I could go f*ck myself if your interests and mine conflicted.

You said that I needed to exit the A.O. as soon as our interests conflicted.

You said you should be able to force your interests on mine, lest I should be made to exit so you can force your interests on whomever without resistance.

If that's your idea of "you do your thing and I'll do mine.", then yeah...it's pretty oppressive.

Conflicted, no. INFRINGE, yes. You apparently don't understand the difference.

Do you drive a car, Geo?
I could give a f about no haters as long as my ishes love me.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/19/2013 1:21:51 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/19/2013 12:16:53 PM, Vi_Veri wrote:
Do you drive a car, Geo?

Yes, I have a 2012 Green Eco, energy efficient car.
"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
Vi_Veri
Posts: 4,487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/19/2013 5:13:42 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/19/2013 1:21:51 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 2/19/2013 12:16:53 PM, Vi_Veri wrote:
Do you drive a car, Geo?

Yes, I have a 2012 Green Eco, energy efficient car.

You're still polluting my air.
I could give a f about no haters as long as my ishes love me.
YYW
Posts: 36,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/19/2013 6:07:58 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/17/2013 9:02:19 PM, FREEDO wrote:
A thought occurred to me.

It seems that all social actions boil down to three different consequences.

Either, an action benefits all parties involved, an action comes at the expense of all parties involved, or an action benefits one party at the expense of another.

By extension, selfishness will always be beneficial if people hold interests in common. And will always be harmful if they hold interests in conflict.

So, based on this, the big question in social relations would appear obvious.

How do we get people to hold more interests in common?

By stressing individual benefit from collective interests, which is to say that we align individual and collective interests. (It's changing a prisoners dilemma to a stag hunt.)
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/19/2013 6:43:23 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/19/2013 5:13:42 PM, Vi_Veri wrote:
At 2/19/2013 1:21:51 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 2/19/2013 12:16:53 PM, Vi_Veri wrote:
Do you drive a car, Geo?

Yes, I have a 2012 Green Eco, energy efficient car.

You're still polluting my air.

Do you support killing all the cows for flatulence?

The problem is, nobody advocates for pollution. However, just like we can't kill all the cows for flatulence we can't get rid of all fossil fuel burning energy.

We all support working towards a better environment, but we disagree on the way to do it. Quite frankly, the Liberals idea that we should pay Al Gore money and pay carbon taxes to save the earth is absurd. I'm going to drive my car for various needs and the government raising costs is only going to hurt me and not help the environment. The government subsidies to green energy may sound good, but even that has been proven fail as demonstrated by Obama's Sylindra subsidy.
"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
Vi_Veri
Posts: 4,487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/20/2013 12:54:27 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
In other words, no person is an island - something libertarians will never get.
I could give a f about no haters as long as my ishes love me.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/20/2013 12:58:14 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/20/2013 12:54:27 AM, Vi_Veri wrote:
In other words, no person is an island - something libertarians will never get.

Highly understood, however, that premise does not necessitate "therefore big government."
"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
YYW
Posts: 36,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/20/2013 1:10:48 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/20/2013 12:58:14 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 2/20/2013 12:54:27 AM, Vi_Veri wrote:
In other words, no person is an island - something libertarians will never get.

Highly understood, however, that premise does not necessitate "therefore big government."

No, but it does imply "government, to the extent it is necessary."

How, and the degree to which "necessary" translates into policy is probably the biggest debate in politics, presently.