Total Posts:52|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Perfect Society & Worst society

Lukas8
Posts: 31
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2014 6:26:11 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
I wonder how the people imagine their perfect society and their worst society. Its supposed to be your opinion.
lkxambp
Posts: 46
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2014 6:32:52 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/28/2014 6:26:11 AM, Lukas8 wrote:
I wonder how the people imagine their perfect society and their worst society. Its supposed to be your opinion.

The worst society is easy, it would just be complete anarchy with no rules or security.

The perfect society is harder, mostly because any society would have to contend with human problems such as corruption. But I think mine would be a society with some manner of standardised testing on children while they are still very young so all other education from that point could be devoted to getting them ready for whatever the job which most suits their skills and character traits so what each person is doing the job which they are most suited for. This society would obviously need vast amounts of consideration put into the government structure, economics and how pay would work and would probably not be able to survive in the real world, but hypothetically I think a system like that would be best.
Wocambs
Posts: 1,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2014 9:26:09 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/28/2014 6:32:52 AM, lkxambp wrote:
At 10/28/2014 6:26:11 AM, Lukas8 wrote:
I wonder how the people imagine their perfect society and their worst society. Its supposed to be your opinion.

The worst society is easy, it would just be complete anarchy with no rules or security.

But if we're talking about perfect societies here, wouldn't a well-organised anarchist society be it?

The perfect society is harder, mostly because any society would have to contend with human problems such as corruption. But I think mine would be a society with some manner of standardised testing on children while they are still very young so all other education from that point could be devoted to getting them ready for whatever the job which most suits their skills and character traits so what each person is doing the job which they are most suited for

It disheartens me to see that some people dream of a society where everyone is drilled to fulfill a certain role in society from the age of five.

As I said, the perfect society would be an anarchist one composed of 'perfect citizens', I suppose.

The worst would be one not without rules but with many, many rules. It would be a society where everyone is brutally oppressed by one person, but pitted against each other. That's what I think at least.
Juris_Naturalis
Posts: 273
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2014 12:50:55 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/28/2014 9:26:09 AM, Wocambs wrote:
At 10/28/2014 6:32:52 AM, lkxambp wrote:
At 10/28/2014 6:26:11 AM, Lukas8 wrote:
I wonder how the people imagine their perfect society and their worst society. Its supposed to be your opinion.

The worst society is easy, it would just be complete anarchy with no rules or security.

But if we're talking about perfect societies here, wouldn't a well-organised anarchist society be it?

The only problem with this is, if all form of government goes away, what's to stop the genuinely messed up people from wrecking havoc? Would you advocate an independently operated Police/Military? If so, how would you organize it to prevent it from forming another government.
neunari
Posts: 25
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2014 1:41:46 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
I believe the true quality of a society is determined more by the culture and the people living in it rather than an economic system it implements.

A society I would want to live in would have large cultural drawings from peaceful Buddhist philosophy, with a little bit of western values such as capitalistic competitiveness thrown in for good measure.
I'd have Canada's economic system on top of that.

The worst societies I feel are ones where people draw their values heavily from Islam
lkxambp
Posts: 46
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2014 2:27:28 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/28/2014 9:26:09 AM, Wocambs wrote:
At 10/28/2014 6:32:52 AM, lkxambp wrote:
At 10/28/2014 6:26:11 AM, Lukas8 wrote:
I wonder how the people imagine their perfect society and their worst society. Its supposed to be your opinion.

The worst society is easy, it would just be complete anarchy with no rules or security.

But if we're talking about perfect societies here, wouldn't a well-organised anarchist society be it?

The thing is I just don't believe that a society without strict laws and regulations would be able to function as people would be unable to avoid harming themselves and others.
The perfect society is harder, mostly because any society would have to contend with human problems such as corruption. But I think mine would be a society with some manner of standardised testing on children while they are still very young so all other education from that point could be devoted to getting them ready for whatever the job which most suits their skills and character traits so what each person is doing the job which they are most suited for

It disheartens me to see that some people dream of a society where everyone is drilled to fulfill a certain role in society from the age of five.

It would be efficient though wouldn't it?
As I said, the perfect society would be an anarchist one composed of 'perfect citizens', I suppose.

The worst would be one not without rules but with many, many rules. It would be a society where everyone is brutally oppressed by one person, but pitted against each other. That's what I think at least.

I think our difference of opinion may come down to which we think is more important: security or liberty. I would definitely say security and I'd guess that you would say liberty though if I'm wrong please correct me.
fazz
Posts: 1,617
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2014 3:30:14 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/29/2014 2:27:28 AM, lkxambp wrote:
At 10/28/2014 9:26:09 AM, Wocambs wrote:
At 10/28/2014 6:32:52 AM, lkxambp wrote:
At 10/28/2014 6:26:11 AM, Lukas8 wrote:
I wonder how the people imagine their perfect society and their worst society. Its supposed to be your opinion.

The worst society is easy, it would just be complete anarchy with no rules or security.

But if we're talking about perfect societies here, wouldn't a well-organised anarchist society be it?

Depends. If the society is one race, one nationality, isolated and has abundant natural resources like Norway it should indeed be able to be well-organised without a government.
Lukas8
Posts: 31
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2014 4:48:46 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
My worst society would be a chaotic tyranny barbaric theocracy(with feudalism), with religion,crime and violence high and no knowing, with no right of information.

The best society would be an utopia with an democratic scientific green and liberal socialism. Where crime wouldn't exist and life would be fair. The society should have a low population and its economy would work via. "produce always a bit more system", so that the wealth of citizens rises. With a lot of rights and no fear. Unemployment would be cancelled and money shouldn't be inflated and should lose its importance. No corruption with an open government, and the individual should have a dream, that would come true. No propaganda, no dictatorship, common renovations and stimulus spending. An atheist state with science and imagination on its rule, oh and non-nationalism (so that everybody would like to travel).
fazz
Posts: 1,617
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2014 6:05:53 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/29/2014 4:48:46 AM, Lukas8 wrote:
My worst society would be a chaotic tyranny barbaric theocracy(with feudalism), with religion,crime and violence high and no knowing, with no right of information.

The best society would be an utopia with an democratic scientific green and liberal socialism. Where crime wouldn't exist and life would be fair. The society should have a low population and its economy would work via. "produce always a bit more system", so that the wealth of citizens rises. With a lot of rights and no fear. Unemployment would be cancelled and money shouldn't be inflated and should lose its importance. No corruption with an open government, and the individual should have a dream, that would come true. No propaganda, no dictatorship, common renovations and stimulus spending. An atheist state with science and imagination on its rule, oh and non-nationalism (so that everybody would like to travel).

Yes. Indeed.
fazz
Posts: 1,617
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2014 7:21:49 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
It disheartens me to see that some people dream of a society where everyone is drilled to fulfill a certain role in society from the age of five.

Music is Anarchy. Sadness my Religion.

As I said, the perfect society would be an anarchist one composed of 'perfect citizens', I suppose.
Wocambs
Posts: 1,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2014 9:51:05 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/28/2014 12:50:55 PM, Juris_Naturalis wrote:
At 10/28/2014 9:26:09 AM, Wocambs wrote:
At 10/28/2014 6:32:52 AM, lkxambp wrote:
At 10/28/2014 6:26:11 AM, Lukas8 wrote:
I wonder how the people imagine their perfect society and their worst society. Its supposed to be your opinion.

The worst society is easy, it would just be complete anarchy with no rules or security.

But if we're talking about perfect societies here, wouldn't a well-organised anarchist society be it?

The only problem with this is, if all form of government goes away, what's to stop the genuinely messed up people from wrecking havoc? Would you advocate an independently operated Police/Military? If so, how would you organize it to prevent it from forming another government.

I don't really know what you mean by wreak havoc, but yes, there would need to be people who know how to conduct investigations, and probably people able to handle violence too, so you this 'the police', and we can have an army too. I think these could be maintained as genuine anarchist organisations by, first of all, making it so that the great majority of people who fulfill these roles aren't separated from 'the public'. If it is the case that a large proportion of society spends a couple of days a week or a couple of days a month acting as 'the police', then they won't develop the attitude that they 'are the police'. They will instead see it for what it is, which is a community taking the responsibility to deal with a certain kind of problem. Democratic workplaces would also have this effect, of course. Perhaps this seems silly for an anarchist military, but there have been plenty of anarchist militias, and it seems that they function by being democratic and sensible. You don't call for a convention every time you need to give an order, but you do agree what the general strategy is and who the people are who everyone else will be expected to follow in combat. There's nothing authoritarian or anti-democratic about saying that: 'Jim is the best for the role of organising us while in combat, so it makes sense if we all agree to follow what he says when we're out there'.
Wocambs
Posts: 1,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2014 11:03:00 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/29/2014 2:27:28 AM, lkxambp wrote:
The thing is I just don't believe that a society without strict laws and regulations would be able to function as people would be unable to avoid harming themselves and others.

But why do you think that? Authority is not a necessary component of organisation.

It would be efficient though wouldn't it?

"The man whose whole life is spent in performing a few simple operations, of which the effects are perhaps always the same, or very nearly the same, has no occasion to exert his understanding or to exercise his invention in finding out expedients for removing difficulties which never occur. He naturally loses, therefore, the habit of such exertion, and generally becomes as stupid and ignorant as it is possible for a human creature to become. The torpor of his mind renders him not only incapable of relishing or bearing a part in any rational conversation, but of conceiving any generous, noble, or tender sentiment, and consequently of forming any just judgment concerning many even of the ordinary duties of private life" - Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations

You would treat people as automatons. I hardly think this is ideal unless you mean to be the 'free man' who rules them.

I think our difference of opinion may come down to which we think is more important: security or liberty. I would definitely say security and I'd guess that you would say liberty though if I'm wrong please correct me.

What good is your 'security' if the system is mind-numbing, completely lacking in spontaneity or creativity, curtailing of the full development of the human beings who live under it? There is no opposition between 'liberty' and 'security', if you understand security to be that which protects liberty. I think the difference between us is better rendered as the difference between someone who thinks society should be run like a strict school and someone who thinks that society should be composed of free and equal individuals.
lkxambp
Posts: 46
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2014 3:20:47 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/29/2014 11:03:00 AM, Wocambs wrote:
At 10/29/2014 2:27:28 AM, lkxambp wrote:
The thing is I just don't believe that a society without strict laws and regulations would be able to function as people would be unable to avoid harming themselves and others.

But why do you think that? Authority is not a necessary component of organisation.

Because even with all of societies orders, appeals and punishments people still can't stop themselves harming themselves and each other. How much worse do you think it would be without big brother breathing down our necks?
It would be efficient though wouldn't it?

"The man whose whole life is spent in performing a few simple operations, of which the effects are perhaps always the same, or very nearly the same, has no occasion to exert his understanding or to exercise his invention in finding out expedients for removing difficulties which never occur. He naturally loses, therefore, the habit of such exertion, and generally becomes as stupid and ignorant as it is possible for a human creature to become. The torpor of his mind renders him not only incapable of relishing or bearing a part in any rational conversation, but of conceiving any generous, noble, or tender sentiment, and consequently of forming any just judgment concerning many even of the ordinary duties of private life" - Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations

You would treat people as automatons. I hardly think this is ideal unless you mean to be the 'free man' who rules them.
I'm not treating people like robots, I'm just honing them ad refining them into the most efficient possible tools to benefit society. Taking me for example, I am absolutely hopeless at sports. Even after years of PE I don't think I have surpassed what many of my classmates would be with no training at all. On the other hand I am very good at science subjects and maths. Now imagine how much better I could be if they had taken all of the wasted time trying to teach me football (soccer) and just continued teaching me at what I was good at?

I think our difference of opinion may come down to which we think is more important: security or liberty. I would definitely say security and I'd guess that you would say liberty though if I'm wrong please correct me.

What good is your 'security' if the system is mind-numbing, completely lacking in spontaneity or creativity, curtailing of the full development of the human beings who live under it? There is no opposition between 'liberty' and 'security', if you understand security to be that which protects liberty. I think the difference between us is better rendered as the difference between someone who thinks society should be run like a strict school and someone who thinks that society should be composed of free and equal individuals.
I'm not curtailing their creativity. If people want to continue enriching their lives outside of their official education then they can do so.
As for free and equal people, I don't believe in equality, I believe in fairness. And despite what many people think they are not always the same thing.
Wocambs
Posts: 1,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2014 3:49:18 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/29/2014 3:20:47 PM, lkxambp wrote:
Because even with all of societies orders, appeals and punishments people still can't stop themselves harming themselves and each other. How much worse do you think it would be without big brother breathing down our necks?

You have to ask yourself why people need to be ordered around and punished. I think in the right society, the only 'punishment' that would be needed is the punishment of not being a good member of that society. The benefits of being a good member of society would be so clear that you would have to be very, very sick not to see. People commit crimes for all sorts of reasons, but for what you are saying to be true, it would have to be that the main reason people commit crime is that they possess an uncontrollable desire to cause pain to others, and only fear could possibly dissuade them. This does not seem to be true.

I'm not treating people like robots, I'm just honing them ad refining them into the most efficient possible tools to benefit society. Taking me for example, I am absolutely hopeless at sports. Even after years of PE I don't think I have surpassed what many of my classmates would be with no training at all. On the other hand I am very good at science subjects and maths. Now imagine how much better I could be if they had taken all of the wasted time trying to teach me football (soccer) and just continued teaching me at what I was good at?

This is a fair point, but listen to my solution to the exact same problem. I propose that we should learn what we actually want to. Now, not only are you not forced to read poetry, but you aren't forced to learn about ecology as part of a biology course when what you actually want to study is cell biology.

I'm not curtailing their creativity. If people want to continue enriching their lives outside of their official education then they can do so.

The thing is, people do want to enrich their lives. Every single person has aspirations and dreams and interests. Official education is simply counter-productive to that end, because it treats people as vessels to be filled with knowledge, instead of people who will find subjects they like and explore them, with help.

As for free and equal people, I don't believe in equality, I believe in fairness. And despite what many people think they are not always the same thing.

But if you don't think people should be equal, then you have to prove why it is fair that some should have power over others. If it can't be done, then what is fair is that people are equal, in power. When fairness is defined as inequality, then the people who suffer from the inequality will rightly feel that society does not work for them, and you will have the problems that you want to solve with authoritarianism.
lkxambp
Posts: 46
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2014 4:02:33 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/29/2014 3:49:18 PM, Wocambs wrote:
At 10/29/2014 3:20:47 PM, lkxambp wrote:
Because even with all of societies orders, appeals and punishments people still can't stop themselves harming themselves and each other. How much worse do you think it would be without big brother breathing down our necks?

You have to ask yourself why people need to be ordered around and punished. I think in the right society, the only 'punishment' that would be needed is the punishment of not being a good member of that society. The benefits of being a good member of society would be so clear that you would have to be very, very sick not to see. People commit crimes for all sorts of reasons, but for what you are saying to be true, it would have to be that the main reason people commit crime is that they possess an uncontrollable desire to cause pain to others, and only fear could possibly dissuade them. This does not seem to be true.
But the punishment of knowing you are not a good member of society is already a punishment in existence in our society and it does not really appear to be work. and people don't necessarily have to want to cause pain there are other reasons like desperation and lack of self control which will always be a problem as well as just pure stupidity which nothing can help with.

I'm not treating people like robots, I'm just honing them ad refining them into the most efficient possible tools to benefit society. Taking me for example, I am absolutely hopeless at sports. Even after years of PE I don't think I have surpassed what many of my classmates would be with no training at all. On the other hand I am very good at science subjects and maths. Now imagine how much better I could be if they had taken all of the wasted time trying to teach me football (soccer) and just continued teaching me at what I was good at?

This is a fair point, but listen to my solution to the exact same problem. I propose that we should learn what we actually want to. Now, not only are you not forced to read poetry, but you aren't forced to learn about ecology as part of a biology course when what you actually want to study is cell biology.
That just means that everyone is allowed to chose what they want to do but there are some jobs which no one would chose to do if they could avoid it such as being a bin man, but we need bin men so my system can identify those who's ideal contribution to society is as a bin man and get them ready to be an efficient bin collecting machine from an age where they can never dream of anything else. Surely this is kinder than letting them develop dreams than having to crush them?

I'm not curtailing their creativity. If people want to continue enriching their lives outside of their official education then they can do so.

The thing is, people do want to enrich their lives. Every single person has aspirations and dreams and interests. Official education is simply counter-productive to that end, because it treats people as vessels to be filled with knowledge, instead of people who will find subjects they like and explore them, with help.

But again your system lets them find the subjects they most like, mine simply selects the subjects they are most suited to.
As for free and equal people, I don't believe in equality, I believe in fairness. And despite what many people think they are not always the same thing.

But if you don't think people should be equal, then you have to prove why it is fair that some should have power over others. If it can't be done, then what is fair is that people are equal, in power. When fairness is defined as inequality, then the people who suffer from the inequality will rightly feel that society does not work for them, and you will have the problems that you want to solve with authoritarianism.

But if someone is good at leading then I would say they should be given power over others. Is that not fair? If someone puts more into society they should get more out. Is that not fair? If someone has an ideal purpose then they should fulfil that purpose. Is that not fair?
Wocambs
Posts: 1,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2014 4:32:05 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/29/2014 4:02:33 PM, lkxambp wrote:
But the punishment of knowing you are not a good member of society is already a punishment in existence in our society and it does not really appear to be work. and people don't necessarily have to want to cause pain there are other reasons like desperation and lack of self control which will always be a problem as well as just pure stupidity which nothing can help with.

Yeah, and that's why I said being a good, or rather, obedient, member of society doesn't work for everyone under the society we live in, or alternatively, they have been so emotionally compromised under society that they cannot fully take part in it. Desperation can be solved if society provides people with opportunities, and I don't really know what crimes you mean when you refer to a lack of self control. Society today does not work for me. Instead of promoting my interests it has stifled them.

That just means that everyone is allowed to chose what they want to do but there are some jobs which no one would chose to do if they could avoid it such as being a bin man, but we need bin men so my system can identify those who's ideal contribution to society is as a bin man and get them ready to be an efficient bin collecting machine from an age where they can never dream of anything else. Surely this is kinder than letting them develop dreams than having to crush them?

I was talking about learning. Isn't it far more efficient to have people learn what they want to learn instead of learn what they are told to? As for deciding who does what, we do not necessarily need career bin collectors. All we need is enough people who occasionally collect bins. In some cases, dividing labour is basically pointless and counter-productive to what we actually want, which is happy lives.

But again your system lets them find the subjects they most like, mine simply selects the subjects they are most suited to.

Not really. I am putting forward the view of education where people actually become enthusiastic and explore their subject, while you are putting forward the view that we test people endlessly and fill them with pointless facts like empty vessels.

But if someone is good at leading then I would say they should be given power over others. Is that not fair? If someone puts more into society they should get more out. Is that not fair? If someone has an ideal purpose then they should fulfil that purpose. Is that not fair?

If they are good leaders, then people will choose to follow their guidance; the leader here has no power. If someone is more productive than others, then their productivity shall be its own reward, as society shall be wealthier, they shall be more admired, others will improve as an act of reciprocity, and so on. If someone has an ideal purpose, then we would think they would be able to determine what it is far better than standardised tests from the age of five possibly could.
lkxambp
Posts: 46
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2014 4:56:11 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/29/2014 4:32:05 PM, Wocambs wrote:
At 10/29/2014 4:02:33 PM, lkxambp wrote:
But the punishment of knowing you are not a good member of society is already a punishment in existence in our society and it does not really appear to be work. and people don't necessarily have to want to cause pain there are other reasons like desperation and lack of self control which will always be a problem as well as just pure stupidity which nothing can help with.

Yeah, and that's why I said being a good, or rather, obedient, member of society doesn't work for everyone under the society we live in, or alternatively, they have been so emotionally compromised under society that they cannot fully take part in it. Desperation can be solved if society provides people with opportunities, and I don't really know what crimes you mean when you refer to a lack of self control. Society today does not work for me. Instead of promoting my interests it has stifled them.

Lack of self control: murder, drug abuses, most crimes where people allow their desires to overwhelm their willpower. Out of interests what are your interests?

That just means that everyone is allowed to chose what they want to do but there are some jobs which no one would chose to do if they could avoid it such as being a bin man, but we need bin men so my system can identify those who's ideal contribution to society is as a bin man and get them ready to be an efficient bin collecting machine from an age where they can never dream of anything else. Surely this is kinder than letting them develop dreams than having to crush them?

I was talking about learning. Isn't it far more efficient to have people learn what they want to learn instead of learn what they are told to? As for deciding who does what, we do not necessarily need career bin collectors. All we need is enough people who occasionally collect bins. In some cases, dividing labour is basically pointless and counter-productive to what we actually want, which is happy lives.

I think our difference may be that we have fundamentally different views of people. I view people in general as: stupid, lazy, ignorant, selfish and weak. These people cannot be trusted to have complete control over their own lives. Then need guidance, leadership, rules and regulations to direct them, help them and protect them from themselves and others. You appear to have a far more optimistic view or humanity and that means that we will never agree as we disagree about the nature of the problem.

But again your system lets them find the subjects they most like, mine simply selects the subjects they are most suited to.

Not really. I am putting forward the view of education where people actually become enthusiastic and explore their subject, while you are putting forward the view that we test people endlessly and fill them with pointless facts like empty vessels.

But many people wouldn't, how many people do you honestly think would advance their education if they didn't have too? People especially children are too lazy and stupid to understand what they need to do in order to assist society and themselves like you think they would.
But if someone is good at leading then I would say they should be given power over others. Is that not fair? If someone puts more into society they should get more out. Is that not fair? If someone has an ideal purpose then they should fulfil that purpose. Is that not fair?

If they are good leaders, then people will choose to follow their guidance; the leader here has no power.
But could you not be made a better leader if you were taught and trained to become the best you could possible be? And also people resent the people who have to make the tough decisions and that is something which good leaders have to do.
If someone is more productive than others, then their productivity shall be its own reward, as society shall be wealthier, they shall be more admired, others will improve as an act of reciprocity, and so on.
This goes back to our opinion on people.
If someone has an ideal purpose, then we would think they would be able to determine what it is far better than standardised tests from the age of five possibly could.
Not necessarily, we already have a multitude of tests and quizzes designed to analyse your abilities and personality traits to tell you what you are meant for. People already often use them as many people have already realised they cannot trust their own judgement. I would just make these tests more extensive and analytical so that everyone can be made into the best they could possibly be.
Wocambs
Posts: 1,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2014 5:41:19 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/29/2014 4:56:11 PM, lkxambp wrote:
Lack of self control: murder, drug abuses, most crimes where people allow their desires to overwhelm their willpower. Out of interests what are your interests?

Yeah, but we've got to again ask why it is that people murder. The answer would of course be very complex, but it would no doubt conclude that the overwhelming influence is environmental. Certain understandings of 'honour', desires for wealth and power, frustration, alienation etc. come to mind. Drug abuse is a little trickier, I suppose, but again not without cause. I know four addicts that I'm aware of. One was heavily abused as a child, one is transgender, one had his money and children taken away by a wife, and the other is kind of like me except he got prescribed opiates for a long time. In all of these examples I see ways in which society could be altered. My interests, at least, the ones you would probably consider 'worthwhile', are philosophy and politics, and I can say that I am thoroughly alienated from the politics that we have. I was also forced to waste many stressful and frustrating years learning facts that I have now forgotten, other than the ones I want to remember, for the most part.

I think our difference may be that we have fundamentally different views of people. I view people in general as: stupid, lazy, ignorant, selfish and weak. These people cannot be trusted to have complete control over their own lives. Then need guidance, leadership, rules and regulations to direct them, help them and protect them from themselves and others. You appear to have a far more optimistic view or humanity and that means that we will never agree as we disagree about the nature of the problem.

That's not true. It really isn't. I view how humans develop as very dependent on the environment that they live in, so I can actually agree with you that people are stupid, lazy, ignorant, selfish and weak, but I add that this is because they have developed in an environment where these attributes are either encouraged or allowed to develop, perhaps in very subtle and nuanced ways. I support greater participation in democracy and decentralisation of power, but I also view public opinion, e.g. UKIP in the UK, as very, very stupid. This is because I think that by creating a system under which people are heavily encouraged to be more knowledgeable and responsible, they will become more knowledgeable and responsible. So I put it to you that you are trying to solve a problem by solutions that are similar to the cause of the problem in the first place. Take responsibility away from people and subject them to profound control, and they will become more stupid, more ignorant, more lazy, more selfish and more weak.

But many people wouldn't, how many people do you honestly think would advance their education if they didn't have too? People especially children are too lazy and stupid to understand what they need to do in order to assist society and themselves like you think they would.

The evidence you base this hypothesis on is invalid. You conclude that because people are unwilling to learn the boring things that they are effectively forced to learn, that people do not want to learn. I was never taught philosophy or politics at school. I wasn't taught how to walk or talk either. It is completely reasonable to think that in a different environment, one in which originality and exploration of one's interests was encouraged, that people would be so influenced and would be far better learners than they are now. The attitude at school now is that we are being forced to learn things for exams that we hate taking. This is incredibly negative, and the conclusions would surely not hold for an understanding of education which is so radically different and is so empowering and nurturing of the student.

But could you not be made a better leader if you were taught and trained to become the best you could possible be? And also people resent the people who have to make the tough decisions and that is something which good leaders have to do.

I can't really answer this without knowing where you would expect leaders to arise. I believe in the abolition of authority and the replacement of it with organised, participatory, democratic structures. I propose this alongside a restructuring of society so that people would actually be up to the task of making decisions for themselves.

This goes back to our opinion on people.

Yes, and I refer you back to my answer there.

Not necessarily, we already have a multitude of tests and quizzes designed to analyse your abilities and personality traits to tell you what you are meant for. People already often use them as many people have already realised they cannot trust their own judgement. I would just make these tests more extensive and analytical so that everyone can be made into the best they could possibly be.

If people want to design such tests, and people want to take such tests, fine, but I reject the authority and the ideology in which such a system of testing would be based. You've made it quite clear that you're trying to shunt the 'bewildered herd' into the right task so that their stupid, meaningless lives can serve the 'real people' like you as effectively as possible - perhaps you would reject the harshness of that but the thrust of the idea still stands - but I want to make everyone a 'real person'. If it is true that people develop according to the system, then people can be made to be as wonderful as they are currently uninspiring. I'm not trying to depict myself as a superior being, but it seems that you have been influenced by the idea dominant in our society that people have to be relentlessly controlled and disciplined to prevent their evil stupidity wreaking havoc. I don't see myself as an optimist, in fact, contrary to what everyone accuses me of being, I see myself as a realist who sees that the reality is that you develop, to a great extent, according to the culture you live under, which is supported by empirical evidence from every region of the world throughout history.
Material_Girl
Posts: 264
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2014 6:22:03 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Yay, 200th post!

For me, the worst society would be some kind of fascist military dictatorship, except more corporatist than fascism. The government would be essentially run by businesses, which would dodge laws and oppress everyone who isn't on their executive boards. The environment would be being wrecked by all the businesses and their plundering of natural resources. No one would have any control over what they can do with their own bodies and there would be huge amounts of discrimination against ethnic minorities and LGBTQPAs and round-the-clock surveillance. As in China, the ruling party - which in turn is run by businesses - would have its own army, rather than the state having an army, and of course it would have no intention of ever giving up power or allowing an election. Citizens would be brainwashed by nationalistic and militaristic propaganda and forced to consume as part of their "duties." There would be rampant alienation and exploitation of the proletariat, even more than there is today, and no minimum wage laws, social welfare, trade unions or anything else to help and protect workers. Social mobility would be non-existent and any dissent crushed. Just thinking about all this scares me.

As for a perfect society, if this means a society that can never exist because it's too perfect, then I'd say a totally lawless society where everyone just coexists peacefully and there is no idle class, inequality or exploitation, but lawlessness would just lead to some people rising to power and being free at the expense of others, so such a system would be short-lived. The society that I want to work towards is post-dictatorship of the proletariat full communism.
http://commissaress.wordpress.com...

Political Compass
Economic Left: -10.00
Social Libertarian: -7.13

Yes, I am an evil godless commie.
lkxambp
Posts: 46
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2014 2:50:48 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/29/2014 5:41:19 PM, Wocambs wrote:
At 10/29/2014 4:56:11 PM, lkxambp wrote:
Lack of self control: murder, drug abuses, most crimes where people allow their desires to overwhelm their willpower. Out of interests what are your interests?

Yeah, but we've got to again ask why it is that people murder. The answer would of course be very complex, but it would no doubt conclude that the overwhelming influence is environmental. Certain understandings of 'honour', desires for wealth and power, frustration, alienation etc. come to mind. Drug abuse is a little trickier, I suppose, but again not without cause. I know four addicts that I'm aware of. One was heavily abused as a child, one is transgender, one had his money and children taken away by a wife, and the other is kind of like me except he got prescribed opiates for a long time. In all of these examples I see ways in which society could be altered.
How could you change society to prevent these things? Abuse can never truly be stopped because as long as there are violent abusive people there will be abuse, similarly discrimination which I amuse in the reason the transgender person is an addict cannot be stopped as long as people are stupid, and people will always be stupid. And as for having his money and kids taken away that sounds like a very unfair divorce settlement but I'm sure the courts had their reasons to do this.
My interests, at least, the ones you would probably consider 'worthwhile', are philosophy and politics, and I can say that I am thoroughly alienated from the politics that we have. I was also forced to waste many stressful and frustrating years learning facts that I have now forgotten, other than the ones I want to remember, for the most part.
That's why I would remove the pointless facts you have forgotten and replace them with more facts and skills you need to perform your ideal job to benefit society. If as you say people desire to continue to learn what they want then they will be able to peruse their own interests outside of school or maybe if there is some time between learning what they need to know they could chose to be taught what they want to know in school.
I think our difference may be that we have fundamentally different views of people. I view people in general as: stupid, lazy, ignorant, selfish and weak. These people cannot be trusted to have complete control over their own lives. Then need guidance, leadership, rules and regulations to direct them, help them and protect them from themselves and others. You appear to have a far more optimistic view or humanity and that means that we will never agree as we disagree about the nature of the problem.

That's not true. It really isn't. I view how humans develop as very dependent on the environment that they live in, so I can actually agree with you that people are stupid, lazy, ignorant, selfish and weak, but I add that this is because they have developed in an environment where these attributes are either encouraged or allowed to develop, perhaps in very subtle and nuanced ways. I support greater participation in democracy and decentralisation of power, but I also view public opinion, e.g. UKIP in the UK, as very, very stupid. This is because I think that by creating a system under which people are heavily encouraged to be more knowledgeable and responsible, they will become more knowledgeable and responsible. So I put it to you that you are trying to solve a problem by solutions that are similar to the cause of the problem in the first place. Take responsibility away from people and subject them to profound control, and they will become more stupid, more ignorant, more lazy, more selfish and more weak.
An interesting point but as you have pointed out people will often when given a choose will choose the easy and appealing route, that's why they vote UKIP because they seem to propose a very easy solution to all problems and people are too stupid to realise what they say makes no sense. By stopping people being stupid you are changing human nature which while it would be lovely if it were possible I just don't think is possible.
But many people wouldn't, how many people do you honestly think would advance their education if they didn't have too? People especially children are too lazy and stupid to understand what they need to do in order to assist society and themselves like you think they would.

The evidence you base this hypothesis on is invalid. You conclude that because people are unwilling to learn the boring things that they are effectively forced to learn, that people do not want to learn. I was never taught philosophy or politics at school. I wasn't taught how to walk or talk either. It is completely reasonable to think that in a different environment, one in which originality and exploration of one's interests was encouraged, that people would be so influenced and would be far better learners than they are now. The attitude at school now is that we are being forced to learn things for exams that we hate taking. This is incredibly negative, and the conclusions would surely not hold for an understanding of education which is so radically different and is so empowering and nurturing of the student.

But my system would be far more edged towards teaching people what they need to know and what they are already good at, and as most people like the subjects they are good at anyway I do not think the children would find so objectionable.
But could you not be made a better leader if you were taught and trained to become the best you could possible be? And also people resent the people who have to make the tough decisions and that is something which good leaders have to do.

I can't really answer this without knowing where you would expect leaders to arise. I believe in the abolition of authority and the replacement of it with organised, participatory, democratic structures. I propose this alongside a restructuring of society so that people would actually be up to the task of making decisions for themselves.

While it is difficult to know what would be the result of such a reordering I think that making people smart enough to make their own decisions is changing human nature which is not possible
This goes back to our opinion on people.

Yes, and I refer you back to my answer there.

Not necessarily, we already have a multitude of tests and quizzes designed to analyse your abilities and personality traits to tell you what you are meant for. People already often use them as many people have already realised they cannot trust their own judgement. I would just make these tests more extensive and analytical so that everyone can be made into the best they could possibly be.

If people want to design such tests, and people want to take such tests, fine, but I reject the authority and the ideology in which such a system of testing would be based. You've made it quite clear that you're trying to shunt the 'bewildered herd' into the right task so that their stupid, meaningless lives can serve the 'real people' like you as effectively as possible - perhaps you would reject the harshness of that but the thrust of the idea still stands - but I want to make everyone a 'real person'. If it is true that people develop according to the system, then people can be made to be as wonderful as they are currently uninspiring. I'm not trying to depict myself as a superior being, but it seems that you have been influenced by the idea dominant in our society that people have to be relentlessly controlled and disciplined to prevent their evil stupidity wreaking havoc. I don't see myself as an optimist, in fact, contrary to what everyone accuses me of being, I see myself as a realist who sees that the reality is that you develop, to a great extent, according to the culture you live under, which is supported by empirical evidence from every region of the wor
lkxambp
Posts: 46
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2014 2:56:23 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/29/2014 5:41:19 PM, Wocambs wrote:
At 10/29/2014 4:56:11 PM, lkxambp wrote:
Lack of self control: murder, drug abuses, most crimes where people allow their desires to overwhelm their willpower. Out of interests what are your interests?

Yeah, but we've got to again ask why it is that people murder. The answer would of course be very complex, but it would no doubt conclude that the overwhelming influence is environmental. Certain understandings of 'honour', desires for wealth and power, frustration, alienation etc. come to mind. Drug abuse is a little trickier, I suppose, but again not without cause. I know four addicts that I'm aware of. One was heavily abused as a child, one is transgender, one had his money and children taken away by a wife, and the other is kind of like me except he got prescribed opiates for a long time. In all of these examples I see ways in which society could be altered. My interests, at least, the ones you would probably consider 'worthwhile', are philosophy and politics, and I can say that I am thoroughly alienated from the politics that we have. I was also forced to waste many stressful and frustrating years learning facts that I have now forgotten, other than the ones I want to remember, for the most part.

I think our difference may be that we have fundamentally different views of people. I view people in general as: stupid, lazy, ignorant, selfish and weak. These people cannot be trusted to have complete control over their own lives. Then need guidance, leadership, rules and regulations to direct them, help them and protect them from themselves and others. You appear to have a far more optimistic view or humanity and that means that we will never agree as we disagree about the nature of the problem.

That's not true. It really isn't. I view how humans develop as very dependent on the environment that they live in, so I can actually agree with you that people are stupid, lazy, ignorant, selfish and weak, but I add that this is because they have developed in an environment where these attributes are either encouraged or allowed to develop, perhaps in very subtle and nuanced ways. I support greater participation in democracy and decentralisation of power, but I also view public opinion, e.g. UKIP in the UK, as very, very stupid. This is because I think that by creating a system under which people are heavily encouraged to be more knowledgeable and responsible, they will become more knowledgeable and responsible. So I put it to you that you are trying to solve a problem by solutions that are similar to the cause of the problem in the first place. Take responsibility away from people and subject them to profound control, and they will become more stupid, more ignorant, more lazy, more selfish and more weak.

But many people wouldn't, how many people do you honestly think would advance their education if they didn't have too? People especially children are too lazy and stupid to understand what they need to do in order to assist society and themselves like you think they would.

The evidence you base this hypothesis on is invalid. You conclude that because people are unwilling to learn the boring things that they are effectively forced to learn, that people do not want to learn. I was never taught philosophy or politics at school. I wasn't taught how to walk or talk either. It is completely reasonable to think that in a different environment, one in which originality and exploration of one's interests was encouraged, that people would be so influenced and would be far better learners than they are now. The attitude at school now is that we are being forced to learn things for exams that we hate taking. This is incredibly negative, and the conclusions would surely not hold for an understanding of education which is so radically different and is so empowering and nurturing of the student.

But could you not be made a better leader if you were taught and trained to become the best you could possible be? And also people resent the people who have to make the tough decisions and that is something which good leaders have to do.

I can't really answer this without knowing where you would expect leaders to arise. I believe in the abolition of authority and the replacement of it with organised, participatory, democratic structures. I propose this alongside a restructuring of society so that people would actually be up to the task of making decisions for themselves.

This goes back to our opinion on people.

Yes, and I refer you back to my answer there.

Not necessarily, we already have a multitude of tests and quizzes designed to analyse your abilities and personality traits to tell you what you are meant for. People already often use them as many people have already realised they cannot trust their own judgement. I would just make these tests more extensive and analytical so that everyone can be made into the best they could possibly be.

If people want to design such tests, and people want to take such tests, fine, but I reject the authority and the ideology in which such a system of testing would be based. You've made it quite clear that you're trying to shunt the 'bewildered herd' into the right task so that their stupid, meaningless lives can serve the 'real people' like you as effectively as possible - perhaps you would reject the harshness of that but the thrust of the idea still stands - but I want to make everyone a 'real person'. If it is true that people develop according to the system, then people can be made to be as wonderful as they are currently uninspiring. I'm not trying to depict myself as a superior being, but it seems that you have been influenced by the idea dominant in our society that people have to be relentlessly controlled and disciplined to prevent their evil stupidity wreaking havoc. I don't see myself as an optimist, in fact, contrary to what everyone accuses me of being, I see myself as a realist who sees that the reality is that you develop, to a great extent, according to the culture you live under, which is supported by empirical evidence from every region of the world throughout history.
No I completely agree with your description of " trying to shunt the 'bewildered herd' into the right task so that their stupid, meaningless lives can serve the 'real people' like you as effectively as possible" Except that I do not believe that in this system there is such thing as a real person. While some people are more intelligent than others and I flatter myself to say I am one of them, however that is like comparing a dog to a sheep. While you do get exceptional people they are so rare as to be considered almost non existent so there is no point in creating a society to support them. Instead I believe that all people of all skills and abilities should be sorted and organised to support the betterment of society as a whole.
And though people turn out differently depending on their society the one thing I am fairly sure is always true is that people are always stupid.
Wocambs
Posts: 1,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2014 10:07:32 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/30/2014 2:50:48 AM, lkxambp wrote:
How could you change society to prevent these things? Abuse can never truly be stopped because as long as there are violent abusive people there will be abuse, similarly discrimination which I amuse in the reason the transgender person is an addict cannot be stopped as long as people are stupid

Change is possible, isn't it? If you accept that then you basically answer your own question.

That's why I would remove the pointless facts you have forgotten and replace them with more facts and skills you need to perform your ideal job to benefit society. If as you say people desire to continue to learn what they want then they will be able to peruse their own interests outside of school or maybe if there is some time between learning what they need to know they could chose to be taught what they want to know in school.
But my system would be far more edged towards teaching people what they need to know and what they are already good at, and as most people like the subjects they are good at anyway I do not think the children would find so objectionable.

But why shouldn't they pursue their interests in school? I think you've confused the relationship a little bit. Sure, people tend to like what they're good at, but they're far better at what they like. In my final exams at school I got 100% in both biology exams, but that's because I happen to be good at mindlessly memorising facts I have little interest in except as a means to the end of good grades. I don't really see why I should be forced to learn what you tell me I should be learning according to your perception of what I'm good at.

While it is difficult to know what would be the result of such a reordering I think that making people smart enough to make their own decisions is changing human nature which is not possible

You're going to have to prove that it is 'human nature' to be incapable.

No I completely agree with your description of " trying to shunt the 'bewildered herd' into the right task so that their stupid, meaningless lives can serve the 'real people' like you as effectively as possible" Except that I do not believe that in this system there is such thing as a real person. While some people are more intelligent than others and I flatter myself to say I am one of them, however that is like comparing a dog to a sheep. While you do get exceptional people they are so rare as to be considered almost non existent so there is no point in creating a society to support them. Instead I believe that all people of all skills and abilities should be sorted and organised to support the betterment of society as a whole.

I can see how this makes sense from the perspective of someone trying to 'maximise the efficiency' of society, but if society is only as good as it is to its citizens, then I think you propose a bad one. Even if I assume that your measures would achieve what you think it would, we still have a brutally repressive society where value is attached only to your 'productivity' as a member of society.

And though people turn out differently depending on their society the one thing I am fairly sure is always true is that people are always stupid.

How did you come to this conclusion? You live in a society where people are treated as stupid and incapable. They become stupid and incapable. The myth that they are necessarily so is promulgated by the people in power because it directly benefits them. The position you are committed to is that humanity has throughout history and in every culture been as stupid and cruel as they are now, which is clearly untenable.
lkxambp
Posts: 46
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2014 2:32:20 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/30/2014 10:07:32 AM, Wocambs wrote:
At 10/30/2014 2:50:48 AM, lkxambp wrote:
How could you change society to prevent these things? Abuse can never truly be stopped because as long as there are violent abusive people there will be abuse, similarly discrimination which I amuse in the reason the transgender person is an addict cannot be stopped as long as people are stupid

Change is possible, isn't it? If you accept that then you basically answer your own question.

Small changes are possible but a change like stopping people's stupidity is far too large a change to ever take place.
That's why I would remove the pointless facts you have forgotten and replace them with more facts and skills you need to perform your ideal job to benefit society. If as you say people desire to continue to learn what they want then they will be able to peruse their own interests outside of school or maybe if there is some time between learning what they need to know they could chose to be taught what they want to know in school.
But my system would be far more edged towards teaching people what they need to know and what they are already good at, and as most people like the subjects they are good at anyway I do not think the children would find so objectionable.

But why shouldn't they pursue their interests in school? I think you've confused the relationship a little bit. Sure, people tend to like what they're good at, but they're far better at what they like. In my final exams at school I got 100% in both biology exams, but that's because I happen to be good at mindlessly memorising facts I have little interest in except as a means to the end of good grades. I don't really see why I should be forced to learn what you tell me I should be learning according to your perception of what I'm good at.

Because if you learn what you're good at it means you will become the best you could possibly be as you will be the best possible at your ideal job.
While it is difficult to know what would be the result of such a reordering I think that making people smart enough to make their own decisions is changing human nature which is not possible

You're going to have to prove that it is 'human nature' to be incapable.

People are stupid that's a fact, if you can give me an example of a society where people aren't then I will concede the point.
No I completely agree with your description of " trying to shunt the 'bewildered herd' into the right task so that their stupid, meaningless lives can serve the 'real people' like you as effectively as possible" Except that I do not believe that in this system there is such thing as a real person. While some people are more intelligent than others and I flatter myself to say I am one of them, however that is like comparing a dog to a sheep. While you do get exceptional people they are so rare as to be considered almost non existent so there is no point in creating a society to support them. Instead I believe that all people of all skills and abilities should be sorted and organised to support the betterment of society as a whole.

I can see how this makes sense from the perspective of someone trying to 'maximise the efficiency' of society, but if society is only as good as it is to its citizens, then I think you propose a bad one. Even if I assume that your measures would achieve what you think it would, we still have a brutally repressive society where value is attached only to your 'productivity' as a member of society.

Society isn't as good as it's citizens, it's as good as the work put in by it's citizens. Take an ant nest. Individual the ants are each almost worthless, but with each of them performing their ideal role and putting the work in together the collective they form is magnificent. And people are already judged by their productivity to society, my system would just improve everyone's productivity.
And though people turn out differently depending on their society the one thing I am fairly sure is always true is that people are always stupid.

How did you come to this conclusion? You live in a society where people are treated as stupid and incapable. They become stupid and incapable. The myth that they are necessarily so is promulgated by the people in power because it directly benefits them. The position you are committed to is that humanity has throughout history and in every culture been as stupid and cruel as they are now, which is clearly untenable.

Yep I hold to that opinion, maybe not a cruel but definitely as stupid. If you can give me an example of a society which doesn't fit the rule then as I said I will concede the point.
Wocambs
Posts: 1,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2014 3:39:51 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/30/2014 2:32:20 PM, lkxambp wrote:
Small changes are possible but a change like stopping people's stupidity is far too large a change to ever take place.

There's no actual distinction between 'intelligent' and 'stupid', it's a continuum, so you don't have to 'stop stupidity', you just make people more intelligent.

People are stupid that's a fact, if you can give me an example of a society where people aren't then I will concede the point.

In reference to the above point abut stupidity being a continuum, then take any given society in history and compare it with any other society, and you will find that in various ways the societies are more and less stupid than each other, which is to say that they were in some ways more intelligent than each other.

Society isn't as good as it's citizens, it's as good as the work put in by it's citizens. Take an ant nest. Individual the ants are each almost worthless, but with each of them performing their ideal role and putting the work in together the collective they form is magnificent. And people are already judged by their productivity to society, my system would just improve everyone's productivity.

Can you see how comparing humans to worthless ants shows how your proposals are based on misunderstanding of and contempt for humanity? 'Productivity' is meaningless unless there is some actual enjoyment to be had as a result. A society of ants is incomparable to a society of human beings.

Also, people today are not judged by their 'productivity' in the slightest.

Because if you learn what you're good at it means you will become the best you could possibly be as you will be the best possible at your ideal job.

The person who chooses their activity will almost necessarily perform better than when they are forced into an activity. When you are forced into something there is inferior motivation, little innovation, and no enjoyment. You are trying to make the system as efficient as possible, but it's a broken system.

Yep I hold to that opinion, maybe not a cruel but definitely as stupid. If you can give me an example of a society which doesn't fit the rule then as I said I will concede the point.

As I said in my previous response, the burden is on you to demonstrate that all societies and populations throughout history have been equally 'stupid'. Otherwise, it only follows that people can be more or less intelligent, and that societies which encourage intelligence will produce more intelligent people, and societies like yours, which remove all responsibility from the individual, will produce the most stupid people possible, as Adam Smith said.
lkxambp
Posts: 46
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2014 7:24:16 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/30/2014 3:39:51 PM, Wocambs wrote:
At 10/30/2014 2:32:20 PM, lkxambp wrote:
Small changes are possible but a change like stopping people's stupidity is far too large a change to ever take place.

There's no actual distinction between 'intelligent' and 'stupid', it's a continuum, so you don't have to 'stop stupidity', you just make people more intelligent.

Doesn't make it any easier to do.
People are stupid that's a fact, if you can give me an example of a society where people aren't then I will concede the point.

In reference to the above point abut stupidity being a continuum, then take any given society in history and compare it with any other society, and you will find that in various ways the societies are more and less stupid than each other, which is to say that they were in some ways more intelligent than each other.

Societies may be more or less stupid but that is only a comment on the intelligence of the leaders and the system of their governments, the people will have been just as stupid.
Society isn't as good as it's citizens, it's as good as the work put in by it's citizens. Take an ant nest. Individual the ants are each almost worthless, but with each of them performing their ideal role and putting the work in together the collective they form is magnificent. And people are already judged by their productivity to society, my system would just improve everyone's productivity.

Can you see how comparing humans to worthless ants shows how your proposals are based on misunderstanding of and contempt for humanity? 'Productivity' is meaningless unless there is some actual enjoyment to be had as a result. A society of ants is incomparable to a society of human beings.

Who said there would be no enjoyment in my society? I was just pointing out that a cumulation of effort from something weak can make something great.
Also, people today are not judged by their 'productivity' in the slightest.

Of course they are. That's why we view teachers and doctors better than we do bin men and cashiers. Because we view them as more productive and we think they put more into society.
Because if you learn what you're good at it means you will become the best you could possibly be as you will be the best possible at your ideal job.

The person who chooses their activity will almost necessarily perform better than when they are forced into an activity. When you are forced into something there is inferior motivation, little innovation, and no enjoyment. You are trying to make the system as efficient as possible, but it's a broken system.

Not really, if I put a gun to your head and told you to do something or die I think you would put more effort in than if you just chose to do it But even without that remember the main objection children give to learning something is "When will we ever need this?" In my society everything they learn will contribute either directly or indirectly to their future work.
Yep I hold to that opinion, maybe not a cruel but definitely as stupid. If you can give me an example of a society which doesn't fit the rule then as I said I will concede the point.

As I said in my previous response, the burden is on you to demonstrate that all societies and populations throughout history have been equally 'stupid'. Otherwise, it only follows that people can be more or less intelligent, and that societies which encourage intelligence will produce more intelligent people, and societies like yours, which remove all responsibility from the individual, will produce the most stupid people possible, as Adam Smith said.

Of course people can be more or less intelligent, the thing is most of them are on the less side of the spectrum. Your can see the stupidity of people in the UK just by watching the news when it's coming up to election time or talking to a group of people about politics. On the other hand I have no knowledge of people being more intelligent if society trusts them more and would challenge you to prove it.
Wocambs
Posts: 1,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2014 12:12:02 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/31/2014 7:24:16 AM, lkxambp wrote:
Doesn't make it any easier to do.

I wasn't commenting on the difficulty I was commenting on how its actually possible.

Societies may be more or less stupid but that is only a comment on the intelligence of the leaders and the system of their governments, the people will have been just as stupid.

Sorry, but this opinion is rather stupid. Slavery, oppression of homosexuals, suppression of the freedom of speech etc. was not abolished when the government said '99% of you support this oppression, but you're all so goddamn stupid that we're going to abolish it anyway'. Better societies have always been achieved when the people tell the government how stupid and evil it is being. Furthermore, your position contradicts itself, since the government is made up of people, and if 'people' are always equally stupid then no government can possibly be any better or worse than it ever was or will be. This is the bizarre doctrine you're proposing.

Of course they are. That's why we view teachers and doctors better than we do bin men and cashiers. Because we view them as more productive and we think they put more into society.

And someone who falls out of the right vagina and inherits millions is "more productive"? 'We view them as more productive' demonstrates how arbitrary it is.

Not really, if I put a gun to your head and told you to do something or die I think you would put more effort in than if you just chose to do it But even without that remember the main objection children give to learning something is "When will we ever need this?" In my society everything they learn will contribute either directly or indirectly to their future work.

The evidence demonstrates that incentives like 'I won't kill you' and 'I'll give you loads of money if you do it' don't work for anything that isn't completely mindless, which is pretty easy to understand if you think about trying to do something remotely taxing with a gun to your head.

Of course people can be more or less intelligent, the thing is most of them are on the less side of the spectrum. Your can see the stupidity of people in the UK just by watching the news when it's coming up to election time or talking to a group of people about politics. On the other hand I have no knowledge of people being more intelligent if society trusts them more and would challenge you to prove it

Let me demonstrate.

If I keep you in a room from the age of five to thirty-five in which there is nothing to do other than watch Family Guy, do you think you will emerge as intelligent and thoughtful and engaged as you would be if you spent those same years exploring knowledge and engaging in rational discussion and debate? Your proposal is that instead of having someone mindlessly watch Family Guy, we have them mindlessly 'learn what they need to learn' for the job we have selected for them.

You must be truly divorced from reality if you think that its actually a productive use of time to teach kids for twelve years how to be binmen, or to think that pieces of knowledge are anywhere near as important as how to actually think for themselves. Binmen don't need to learn how to be binmen, they need to learn how to analyse informational critically and formulate intelligent opinions so that when some pompous banker comes along and tells them that their suffering is caused not by the people in power, but by people even poorer and powerless than they are, they recognise its bullsh*t. Let's also be clear here, there is no job which is so bizarre that it is complicated enough to require twelve years to learn how to do, and yet is so simple that it can be taught to eight year olds. The reason people don't actually enact the reforms you are proposing is because there's literally no reason to. It doesn't matter what facts you put into an eight or twelve or fifteen year old's head, they're going to be forgotten anyway, in all likelihood. The purpose of educating children should be to teach them how to be critical thinkers, how they can be engaged in the direction their life is going, and to let them explore their interests. You want the exact opposite of all of this.
lkxambp
Posts: 46
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2014 1:57:51 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/31/2014 12:12:02 PM, Wocambs wrote:
At 10/31/2014 7:24:16 AM, lkxambp wrote:
Doesn't make it any easier to do.

I wasn't commenting on the difficulty I was commenting on how its actually possible.

Societies may be more or less stupid but that is only a comment on the intelligence of the leaders and the system of their governments, the people will have been just as stupid.

Sorry, but this opinion is rather stupid. Slavery, oppression of homosexuals, suppression of the freedom of speech etc. was not abolished when the government said '99% of you support this oppression, but you're all so goddamn stupid that we're going to abolish it anyway'. Better societies have always been achieved when the people tell the government how stupid and evil it is being. Furthermore, your position contradicts itself, since the government is made up of people, and if 'people' are always equally stupid then no government can possibly be any better or worse than it ever was or will be. This is the bizarre doctrine you're proposing.

Some people are more intelligent than others and often the more intelligent people rise higher than the less intelligent people. I don't think everyone is incredibly stupid, just the vast majority. I thought we had established that.
Anyway that only proves people are moral not intelligent. Stupid people are actually sometimes more moral as we would see it as they are less aware of the difficulties of imposing moral measures.
Of course they are. That's why we view teachers and doctors better than we do bin men and cashiers. Because we view them as more productive and we think they put more into society.

And someone who falls out of the right vagina and inherits millions is "more productive"? 'We view them as more productive' demonstrates how arbitrary it is.

So we abolish the inheritance system. I'm fine with that. And actually your contempt for such people proves my point that people think less of those who just inherit money instead of putting the work in and earning it.
Not really, if I put a gun to your head and told you to do something or die I think you would put more effort in than if you just chose to do it But even without that remember the main objection children give to learning something is "When will we ever need this?" In my society everything they learn will contribute either directly or indirectly to their future work.

The evidence demonstrates that incentives like 'I won't kill you' and 'I'll give you loads of money if you do it' don't work for anything that isn't completely mindless, which is pretty easy to understand if you think about trying to do something remotely taxing with a gun to your head.

Not in everyone. And in my society those who's performance is enhanced by stress will be located and prepared for high stress jobs.
Of course people can be more or less intelligent, the thing is most of them are on the less side of the spectrum. Your can see the stupidity of people in the UK just by watching the news when it's coming up to election time or talking to a group of people about politics. On the other hand I have no knowledge of people being more intelligent if society trusts them more and would challenge you to prove it

Let me demonstrate.

If I keep you in a room from the age of five to thirty-five in which there is nothing to do other than watch Family Guy, do you think you will emerge as intelligent and thoughtful and engaged as you would be if you spent those same years exploring knowledge and engaging in rational discussion and debate?
On the other hand leave a child in a room with an xbox and an encyclopaedia. Which do you think They will choose?
Your proposal is that instead of having someone mindlessly watch Family Guy, we have them mindlessly 'learn what they need to learn' for the job we have selected for them.

You really think people will resent this system so much? The current system is only resented because people can not see a use for their learning and they are forced to learn things they are not good at and therefore do not enjoy. My system will fix both of these. While at the same time increasing their productivity and usefulness to society.
You must be truly divorced from reality if you think that its actually a productive use of time to teach kids for twelve years how to be binmen, or to think that pieces of knowledge are anywhere near as important as how to actually think for themselves. Binmen don't need to learn how to be binmen, they need to learn how to analyse informational critically and formulate intelligent opinions so that when some pompous banker comes along and tells them that their suffering is caused not by the people in power, but by people even poorer and powerless than they are, they recognise its bullsh*t.
People cannot think critically and allowing them to chose what they want to learn will not improve that. I really do think you fundamentally misunderstand people. Politics and philosophy are vastly complex and difficult subjects and therefore people are willing to leave them to people more intelligent and dedicated than them because they are lazy. By changing that you are talking about changing human nature which is something which you have not offered any evidence for it being possible.
Let's also be clear here, there is no job which is so bizarre that it is complicated enough to require twelve years to learn how to do, and yet is so simple that it can be taught to eight year olds. The reason people don't actually enact the reforms you are proposing is because there's literally no reason to. It doesn't matter what facts you put into an eight or twelve or fifteen year old's head, they're going to be forgotten anyway, in all likelihood. The purpose of educating children should be to teach them how to be critical thinkers, how they can be engaged in the direction their life is going, and to let them explore their interests. You want the exact opposite of all of this.
You don't need to start and end at the same point. For more complex jobs like being a doctor you can begin with the foundations of the job at a young age and then accelerate the progress as they grow older and more able to retain information and learn new skills. For more simple jobs such as being a bin man you can start small end sooner and then expand onto other topics such as home economics or if you really want critical thinking and philosophy. Priority goes to their vocational subjects for their chosen careers but time could be and probably should be allocated for making them into better rounded individuals as you are right thinking is a defence against oppression, I just think a better way to deal with it is to introduce a system of government made of people trained to lead as effectively as possible, instead of having to rely on peoples intelligence.
Wocambs
Posts: 1,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2014 4:01:59 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/31/2014 1:57:51 PM, lkxambp wrote:
Anyway that only proves people are moral not intelligent. Stupid people are actually sometimes more moral as we would see it as they are less aware of the difficulties of imposing moral measures.

Being moral is about making the right decisions, isn't it?

in my society those who's performance is enhanced by stress will be located and prepared for high stress jobs.

- money is no good as motivation for tasks that aren't completely menial

On the other hand leave a child in a room with an xbox and an encyclopaedia. Which do you think They will choose?

I thought you were interested in science. If you left me in a house with an xbox and a stack of philosophy books, it turns out that I start reading philosophy books. If I left you in a room with an xbox and science books, you're telling me you're not going to read them?

You really think people will resent this system so much? The current system is only resented because people can not see a use for their learning and they are forced to learn things they are not good at and therefore do not enjoy. My system will fix both of these. While at the same time increasing their productivity and usefulness to society.

I don't understand how you can despise humanity and yet at the same time think that they're going to love having the course of their entire lives dictated to them and all responsibility removed from them. People resent being forced to learn things they don't want to learn, and your system is going to do absolutely nothing to fix that, while at the same time informing them that they are only useful as drones to carry out tasks. It's quite honestly inhuman.

People cannot think critically and allowing them to chose what they want to learn will not improve that. I really do think you fundamentally misunderstand people. Politics and philosophy are vastly complex and difficult subjects and therefore people are willing to leave them to people more intelligent and dedicated than them because they are lazy. By changing that you are talking about changing human nature which is something which you have not offered any evidence for it being possible.

Sorry, I'm not the one proposing a human nature here, you are. Politics really isn't that hard, which is why there have been such things as popular movements. Popular movements have overwhelmingly been responsible for the betterment of society. Your assertion goes directly against clear evidence. If people were more involved, it only stands to reason they would be better.

if you really want critical thinking and philosophy

Thank you for admitting that you actually desire to create a population more stupid and obedient than the one that currently exists.

I just think a better way to deal with it is to introduce a system of government made of people trained to lead as effectively as possible, instead of having to rely on peoples intelligence.

I don't particularly want to be patronising but you are honestly just applying the logic of our current school system to the whole of society in the most extreme form. The values you extol above all else are unquestioning obedience and servitude. Even the leaders under your system are idiots who have absorbed textbooks and passed exams on 'how to lead'.

If we want a better society, we are going to need better people. Better people do not come into existence by being drilled into obedience for their entire lives to fulfil one purpose.
SebUK
Posts: 850
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2014 2:50:05 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
A minarchist society with a free market that only requires very light regulation , where unemployment is at an all-time low and the economy is booming . Crime would be almost non-existent and parent's would actually be good at parenting, the crime that would exist would be dealt with , with prison but at the same time there would be good rehabilitation problems that would aim to reform the prisoners. The old model of the family is back , and people make sure they are compatible with their partner before they marry them therefore divorce rates would also be at an all-time low. Something similar to the Stefan Molyneux model but I unlike him do believe in a limited government while he is an anarcho-capitalist.
I WILL DECIDE WHAT THIS DEBATE IS ABOUT. I AM SPIRITUAL, NOT RELIGIOYUS. YOU DONT HAVE TO BE RELIGIOUS TO BELIEVE IN GOD, AND YOU DO WORSHIP MONEY IF YOU CARE MORE ABOUT YOUR WALLET THAAN YOU DO THE POOR. YOU ARE A TROLL THAT IS OUT FOR ATTENTUION."- SitaraMusica
Wocambs
Posts: 1,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2014 5:13:56 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/1/2014 2:50:05 PM, SebUK wrote:
A minarchist society with a free market that only requires very light regulation , where unemployment is at an all-time low and the economy is booming . Crime would be almost non-existent and parent's would actually be good at parenting, the crime that would exist would be dealt with , with prison but at the same time there would be good rehabilitation problems that would aim to reform the prisoners. The old model of the family is back , and people make sure they are compatible with their partner before they marry them therefore divorce rates would also be at an all-time low. Something similar to the Stefan Molyneux model but I unlike him do believe in a limited government while he is an anarcho-capitalist.

Sounds a little far-fetched to me. I don't see any reason why unemployment would be at an all-time low, or why the economy would 'boom'. Why would crime be non-existent? You say nothing about economic inequality, which we can only think is a prime motivator of crime. I don't see how or why you'd bring the 'old model' of the family back, or even what it is, or how you'd make people good parents. These perfect societies have to be feasible don't they?