Total Posts:18|Showing Posts:1-18
Jump to topic:

The Meritocratic Manifesto - Pt I

Zetsubou
Posts: 4,933
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2010 10:06:55 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
Hello My Brothers and Sisters. I come to speak the truth, of Merit and the pursuit of Omniscience.

My Argument is based against Democracy, Democracy the rule of popular is confined by its own meaning, it's to be preferred because of appeasement of the majority. The most popular can only be in the subjective view of people, what is better than popularity? Being best, the aristocracy*. We define being best with the virtues that give humans value.

Is it Strength? Kratocracy?
Is it Age? Gerontocracy?
Is it Blood? Cronyism?
Is it wealth? Plutocracy?
No it's intelligence/Wisdom.

What gives someone value to rule is the ability to make the correct choice.

The fallacy Of Democracy
Democracy allows Evil and more importantly Stupidity to gain control. That's why a constitution exists the legacy of the intelligent to keep the future successors in check. Pure Democracy is never used because of this fallacy. The very existence of a constitution, right void of democratic choice, is the Meritocracy in progress. Plato the Great thinker who named "demo-cratik" saw this and he too saw the wisdom of Merit. Another great, Aristotal, defined it as: 'democracy is a government in the hands of men of low birth, no property and vulgar employments.', though insulting this is somewhat true, the lesser have a choice, nazis, irrational racists, sexists and point blank retarded. Do you really want to give them contributing Power? Barrack Hussein Obama, that's what the lesser of your society call him without even understanding him.[Not Pro Obama Liberal-Corporatism?]

The Epistemological Argument
How does one define knowledge? Applied Knowledge can be practically defined best by the ability to make least mistakes, commonly called factual knowledge. This is a usual meaning and requirement to be smart or intelligent.

Our one and Only fault
Meritocracy fails because of one thing, like all authoritarian systems it is prone to becoming a despotocratic state, a tyrannical rule run by the same fools we tried to avoid. That's why we suggest a meritocratic oligarchy, we must separate ourselves from our nature, authoritarianism can fail but that's not to say it will always fail.

On Rights
I believe in rights, I'm not fascist. Believe that my authoritarianism is the ultimate protection of these rights. Your rights and believes are free by what we call intelligence, your beliefs no matter how radical and foolish are kept, your freedom of speech in intact. All we asks is that you don't infringe the rights of others according to law. By intelligence we don't mean all disagreement must be eradicated.

I love my brothers and sisters; I believe that you too see our truth, to protect ourselves from ourselves.
End of Part I, the Declaration. By Emmanuel Isaiah -----

* aristocracy - Rule of the best/excellent, not the ancient plutocrat bourgeoisie.
'sup DDO -- july 2013
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2010 10:20:27 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
In case you don't address this in parts 2 and onwards...

You acknowledge the major flaw of a Meritocracy, yet fail to address it.

Meritocracy fails because of one thing, like all authoritarian systems it is prone to becoming a despotocratic state, a tyrannical rule run by the same fools we tried to avoid. That's why we suggest a meritocratic oligarchy,

Sticking oligarchy behind meritocratic does not deny tyranny. Indeed the most likely form of meritocracy would be oligarchial and a oligarchy will most likely be despotic.

Though you have provided a crude explanation as to how intelligence could be assessed, it is overly simplistic, and you would also need to decide how such assessments would be made. You also still need to define how government is structured and how it is held to account. If you don't have the former you are not proposing a system with any value, if you don't have the latter you are proposing tyranny.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2010 10:35:21 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/6/2010 10:06:55 AM, Zetsubou wrote:
What gives someone value to rule is the ability to make the correct choice.

What gives someone the value to rule is whether they're seen as legitimate or not.

The fallacy Of Democracy
Democracy allows Evil and more importantly Stupidity to gain control.

To point out, meritocracy neither disallows "evil" nor does it keep out "stupidity," any more so than Zets says democracy does. It's not hard to point out that the best among us aren't necessarily good, nor are they not necessarily prone to stupidity. Hitler was easily very smart, very cogent and very powerful, yet most here would not say the man exemplified "good," nor that he always made smart decisions. On the contrary, near the end of his life he often made very stupid decisions.

That's why a constitution exists the legacy of the intelligent to keep the future successors in check. Pure Democracy is never used because of this fallacy. The very existence of a constitution, right void of democratic choice, is the Meritocracy in progress.

This is false. Constitutions all over the world are decided by democratic choice. It also cannot be "meritocracy in progress" if its purpose is to throw out the buggers whether they make smart decisions or not.

Plato the Great thinker who named "demo-cratik" saw this and he too saw the wisdom of Merit. Another great, Aristotal, defined it as: 'democracy is a government in the hands of men of low birth, no property and vulgar employments.', though insulting this is somewhat true, the lesser have a choice, nazis, irrational racists, sexists and point blank retarded. Do you really want to give them contributing Power?

Yes, yes I do. Why? Because the decisions of a government will directly effect them. Any person who claims to be on the side of smart government and liberal virtues knows that even the person with the most vile opinion deserves a voice that must be heard. You cannot simply snuff out another person and say that your government will govern on behalf of everyone. Meritocracy claims that these elitists will do exactly that, just without anyone else having a say in it. It's nothing but an excuse for authoritarianism, dressed up as fluffy rhetoric.

Smart governments govern by the people, for the people - not dictate.

The Epistemological Argument
How does one define knowledge? Applied Knowledge can be practically defined best by the ability to make least mistakes, commonly called factual knowledge. This is a usual meaning and requirement to be smart or intelligent.

OK.

Our one and Only fault
Meritocracy fails because of one thing, like all authoritarian systems it is prone to becoming a despotocratic state, a tyrannical rule run by the same fools we tried to avoid. That's why we suggest a meritocratic oligarchy, we must separate ourselves from our nature, authoritarianism can fail but that's not to say it will always fail.

Zets wants to counter meritocracy's inherent authoritarianism with oligarchal authoritarianism... am I right in calling this a double negative?

"Separating yourself from nature" only has the addition push of widening the disconnect between rulers and those they rule over. Why authoritarianism fails is because these authoritarians usually come to power on the backs of people wanting change and seeing these individuals as ones who will listen to them and get things done. As time wears on, it becomes increasingly clear that these rulers aren't in tune with citizens, and that is when the problems start cropping up.

Meritocracy bypasses that first step, since meritocracy is all about ruling those lower beings, not connecting with them.

On Rights
I believe in rights, I'm not fascist. Believe that my authoritarianism is the ultimate protection of these rights. Your rights and believes are free by what we call intelligence, your beliefs no matter how radical and foolish are kept, your freedom of speech in intact. All we asks is that you don't infringe the rights of others according to law. By intelligence we don't mean all disagreement must be eradicated.

Authoritarianism is the quickest way to destroying rights, not protecting them. Individuals are not granted rights by rulers. It's this kind of thought that got the monarchy kicked out or castrated across the world. Individuals make their rights, they fight for them, they die for them, and they march in the streets for them. Intelligence has nothing to do with it; rights aren't about how smart you are, they're about what is just, about resolving conflict, and whether you're intelligent or dumb as a doorknob, you have rights, and you can exercise them. Meritocracy and authoritarianism fails in this regard, because it allows no one to exercise their rights - instead, it exercises simply its own.
Zetsubou
Posts: 4,933
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2010 10:36:46 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/6/2010 10:20:27 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
In case you don't address this in parts 2 and onwards...

You acknowledge the major flaw of a Meritocracy, yet fail to address it.

Meritocracy fails because of one thing, like all authoritarian systems it is prone to becoming a despotocratic state, a tyrannical rule run by the same fools we tried to avoid. That's why we suggest a meritocratic oligarchy,

Sticking oligarchy behind meritocratic does not deny tyranny. Indeed the most likely form of meritocracy would be oligarchial and a oligarchy will most likely be despotic.
Why must it become despotic? There's a chance. Oligarchy is to improve that chance.

Though you have provided a crude explanation as to how intelligence could be assessed, it is overly simplistic, and you would also need to decide how such assessments would be made. You also still need to define how government is structured and how it is held to account. If you don't have the former you are not proposing a system with any value, if you don't have the latter you are proposing tyranny.

I'm working on it. I've got a good idea but I'm assessing it.
'sup DDO -- july 2013
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2010 10:40:41 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/6/2010 10:35:21 AM, Volkov wrote:
At 5/6/2010 10:06:55 AM, Zetsubou wrote:
What gives someone value to rule is the ability to make the correct choice.

What gives someone the value to rule is whether they're seen as legitimate or not.


And legitimacy is simply a euphemistic derivation from force.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2010 10:44:04 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/6/2010 10:40:41 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
And legitimacy is simply a euphemistic derivation from force.

I disagree. Legitimacy is whether individuals will lend their willful support to the government. Authoritarian regimes are only "legit" when installed by their people and continually supported as such, granted that rarely happens. It works the same way for democracies.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2010 10:45:32 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/6/2010 10:36:46 AM, Zetsubou wrote:
At 5/6/2010 10:20:27 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
In case you don't address this in parts 2 and onwards...

You acknowledge the major flaw of a Meritocracy, yet fail to address it.

Meritocracy fails because of one thing, like all authoritarian systems it is prone to becoming a despotocratic state, a tyrannical rule run by the same fools we tried to avoid. That's why we suggest a meritocratic oligarchy,

Sticking oligarchy behind meritocratic does not deny tyranny. Indeed the most likely form of meritocracy would be oligarchial and a oligarchy will most likely be despotic.
Why must it become despotic? There's a chance. Oligarchy is to improve that chance.

Governments will naturally grow to be despotic unless actually prevented from doing so, there is nothing inherent to the word oligarchy that prevents this. In an oligarchy all power falls to a small elite, that is a natural recipe for tyranny.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Zetsubou
Posts: 4,933
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2010 11:00:44 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/6/2010 10:35:21 AM, Volkov wrote:
At 5/6/2010 10:06:55 AM, Zetsubou wrote:
What gives someone value to rule is the ability to make the correct choice.

What gives someone the value to rule is whether they're seen as legitimate or not.
Then that's your ability to see.

The fallacy Of Democracy
Democracy allows Evil and more importantly Stupidity to gain control.

To point out, meritocracy neither disallows "evil" nor does it keep out "stupidity," any more so than Zets says democracy does. It's not hard to point out that the best among us aren't necessarily good, nor are they not necessarily prone to stupidity. Hitler was easily very smart, very cogent and very powerful, yet most here would not say the man exemplified "good," nor that he always made smart decisions. On the contrary, near the end of his life he often made very stupid decisions.
Correct.
However what is intelligent is less inclined to be malevolent.

Cody says: "What is closer to Omniscience is like saying closer to infinity" wrong!

That's why a constitution exists the legacy of the intelligent to keep the future successors in check. Pure Democracy is never used because of this fallacy. The very existence of a constitution, rights void of democratic choice, it's the Meritocracy in progress.

This is false. Constitutions all over the world are decided by democratic choice. It also cannot be "meritocracy in progress" if its purpose is to throw out the buggers whether they make smart decisions or not.
Wrong! and even if true, democratic choice changes.
Gay Marriage. Abolition of Slavery. The Senate, House of Commons, Electoral College.
Plato the Great thinker who named "demo-cratik" saw this and he too saw the wisdom of Merit. Another great, Aristotal, defined it as: 'democracy is a government in the hands of men of low birth, no property and vulgar employments.', though insulting this is somewhat true, the lesser have a choice, nazis, irrational racists, sexists and point blank retarded. Do you really want to give them contributing Power?

Yes, yes I do. Why? Because the decisions of a government will directly effect them. Any person who claims to be on the side of smart government and liberal virtues knows that even the person with the most vile opinion deserves a voice that must be heard. You cannot simply snuff out another person and say that your government will govern on behalf of everyone. Meritocracy claims that these elitists will do exactly that, just without anyone else having a say in it. It's nothing but an excuse for authoritarianism, dressed up as fluffy rhetoric.
This is authoritarianism. As I asked Cody-
"...not oppression, matter of fact it has nothing to do with proportion. If 99 of 100 people where slaving Nazi Klans men and one person was a semi-Objectivist scholar, is that one not correct if he makes rules for that small society that disagree with the dehumanizing nature of the Nazis? Is he malevolent or enslaving if he stops the Nazi's why making these laws that control/inhibit actions? Or does he have no right to rule over the evil and teach them what is right because they disagree. What your currently saying is the latter choice, fater I trust you see what's wrong with that."
If the vile are voted for, does that make them right? Nazi Germany from the Weimar Republic is a prime example.

Smart governments govern by the people, for the people - not dictate.
For the people, the best of the people.
The Epistemological Argument
How does one define knowledge? Applied Knowledge can be practically defined best by the ability to make least mistakes, commonly called factual knowledge. This is a usual meaning and requirement to be smart or intelligent.

OK.

Our one and Only fault
Meritocracy fails because of one thing, like all authoritarian systems it is prone to becoming a despotocratic state, a tyrannical rule run by the same fools we tried to avoid. That's why we suggest a meritocratic oligarchy, we must separate ourselves from our nature, authoritarianism can fail but that's not to say it will always fail.

Zets wants to counter meritocracy's inherent authoritarianism with oligarchal authoritarianism... am I right in calling this a double negative?
Authoritarianism isn't BAD, it's the "Authors" that become BAD.

"Separating yourself from nature" only has the addition push of widening the disconnect between rulers and those they rule over. Why authoritarianism fails is because these authoritarians usually come to power on the backs of people wanting change and seeing these individuals as ones who will listen to them and get things done. As time wears on, it becomes increasingly clear that these rulers aren't in tune with citizens, and that is when the problems start cropping up.
Not always, thats my point.

Meritocracy bypasses that first step, since meritocracy is all about ruling those lower beings, not connecting with them.
A goverment exists to rule. Whats wrong with that? What do we gain by connecting with them.

On Rights
I believe in rights, I'm not fascist. Believe that my authoritarianism is the ultimate protection of these rights. Your rights and believes are free by what we call intelligence, your beliefs no matter how radical and foolish are kept, your freedom of speech in intact. All we asks is that you don't infringe the rights of others according to law. By intelligence we don't mean all disagreement must be eradicated.

Authoritarianism is the quickest way to destroying rights, not protecting them. Individuals are not granted rights by rulers. It's this kind of thought that got the monarchy kicked out or castrated across the world. Individuals make their rights, they fight for them, they die for them, and they march in the streets for them. Intelligence has nothing to do with it; rights aren't about how smart you are, they're about what is just, about resolving conflict, and whether you're intelligent or dumb as a doorknob, you have rights, and you can exercise them. Meritocracy and authoritarianism fails in this regard, because it allows no one to exercise their rights - instead, it exercises simply its own.
We do. If your rights hurt others we'll remove that right.
'sup DDO -- july 2013
Zetsubou
Posts: 4,933
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2010 11:04:54 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/6/2010 10:45:32 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
Zets wrote:
Why must it become despotic? There's a chance. Oligarchy is to improve that chance.

Governments will naturally grow to be despotic unless actually prevented from doing so, there is nothing inherent to the word oligarchy that prevents this. In an oligarchy all power falls to a small elite, that is a natural recipe for tyranny.

Why is everyone so pessimistic? Think of what would happen if we didn't become corrupt. We will grow from our selffish natures.
'sup DDO -- july 2013
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2010 11:10:29 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/6/2010 11:04:54 AM, Zetsubou wrote:
At 5/6/2010 10:45:32 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
Zets wrote:
Why must it become despotic? There's a chance. Oligarchy is to improve that chance.

Governments will naturally grow to be despotic unless actually prevented from doing so, there is nothing inherent to the word oligarchy that prevents this. In an oligarchy all power falls to a small elite, that is a natural recipe for tyranny.

Why is everyone so pessimistic? Think of what would happen if we didn't become corrupt. We will grow from our selffish natures.

We are naturally corrupt and selfish, the best system works with that to derive as much good as it can.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2010 11:12:36 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/6/2010 11:00:44 AM, Zetsubou wrote:
Then that's your ability to see.

Everyone has the ability to see, or to lend support, or fight for a cause.

Correct.
However what is intelligent is less inclined to be malevolent.

That's simply not true. Circumstances and intelligence can help reduce any tendencies, sure, but intelligence by itself does not lend itself to someone being less malevolent.

Wrong! and even if true, democratic choice changes.
Gay Marriage. Abolition of Slavery. The Senate, House of Commons, Electoral College.

That's the point of democratic choice - to change if change is desired.

This is authoritarianism. As I asked Cody-
"...not oppression, matter of fact it has nothing to do with proportion. If 99 of 100 people where slaving Nazi Klans men and one person was a semi-Objectivist scholar, is that one not correct if he makes rules for that small society that disagree with the dehumanizing nature of the Nazis? Is he malevolent or enslaving if he stops the Nazi's why making these laws that control/inhibit actions? Or does he have no right to rule over the evil and teach them what is right because they disagree. What your currently saying is the latter choice, fater I trust you see what's wrong with that."

He dos not have the right to "teach them what is right." No one does. People can only learn for themselves. States can only protect its citizens from harm. Nazis have a right to be heard, no matter what. If you don't like it, you make damn sure you vote against them. That's your choice and your right. What makes you so "good" as to determine these people don't have the same?

If the vile are voted for, does that make them right? Nazi Germany from the Weimar Republic is a prime example.

No but it makes them legitimate. I may not agree with the choices people make but I know that once you take it away, you're setting yourself up for failure, and committing an act worse than they have.

For the people, the best of the people.

So you govern for some, but not for all?

Authoritarianism isn't BAD, it's the "Authors" that become BAD.

You can't separate the "authors" from authoritarianism. It's the root word. Authoritarianism rises and falls on the basis of the rulers.

Not always, thats my point.

So you would risk despotism just because a subjective "not always" enters your mind?

A goverment exists to rule. Whats wrong with that? What do we gain by connecting with them.

Governments exist to serve its citizens, not to rule. It is the individuals who decide the legitimacy and the life of any government. Governments exist to confirm rights - not to give them. And any government that forgoes the conclusion that you do not need to connect to the individuals who decide your fate, is a government that will never last long. Even Lenin recognized that fact.

We do. If your rights hurt others we'll remove that right.

That's subjective and silly. Someone's very existence could be bothering someone else. Do we eradicate existence?

I'll be back in awhile. Goin' to Ikea.
Zetsubou
Posts: 4,933
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2010 11:15:56 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/6/2010 11:10:29 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 5/6/2010 11:04:54 AM, Zetsubou wrote:
At 5/6/2010 10:45:32 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
Zets wrote:
Why must it become despotic? There's a chance. Oligarchy is to improve that chance.

Governments will naturally grow to be despotic unless actually prevented from doing so, there is nothing inherent to the word oligarchy that prevents this. In an oligarchy all power falls to a small elite, that is a natural recipe for tyranny.

Why is everyone so pessimistic? Think of what would happen if we didn't become corrupt. We will grow from our selffish natures.

We are naturally corrupt and selfish, the best system works with that to derive as much good as it can.

It can work, why can't people see that. If you where in control would you manipulate/enslave/control others?
'sup DDO -- july 2013
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2010 11:22:02 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/6/2010 11:15:56 AM, Zetsubou wrote:
At 5/6/2010 11:10:29 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 5/6/2010 11:04:54 AM, Zetsubou wrote:
At 5/6/2010 10:45:32 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
Zets wrote:
Why must it become despotic? There's a chance. Oligarchy is to improve that chance.

Governments will naturally grow to be despotic unless actually prevented from doing so, there is nothing inherent to the word oligarchy that prevents this. In an oligarchy all power falls to a small elite, that is a natural recipe for tyranny.

Why is everyone so pessimistic? Think of what would happen if we didn't become corrupt. We will grow from our selffish natures.

We are naturally corrupt and selfish, the best system works with that to derive as much good as it can.

It can work, why can't people see that. If you where in control would you manipulate/enslave/control others?

Almost certainly yes, and I am a pretty moral fellow. In the absence of checks and balances on my power I would someday grow to abuse it in some fashion.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Zetsubou
Posts: 4,933
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2010 11:36:01 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/6/2010 11:12:36 AM, Volkov wrote:
At 5/6/2010 11:00:44 AM, Zetsubou wrote:
Then that's your ability to see.

Everyone has the ability to see, or to lend support, or fight for a cause.
So?

Correct.
However what is intelligent is less inclined to be malevolent.

That's simply not true. Circumstances and intelligence can help reduce any tendencies, sure, but intelligence by itself does not lend itself to someone being less malevolent.
So your saying ultimate inteligence is malevolent?

Wrong! and even if true, democratic choice changes.
Gay Marriage. Abolition of Slavery. The Senate, House of Commons, Electoral College.

That's the point of democratic choice - to change if change is desired.
What if change is bad, forced Vaccinations, ID database or striations of persistent drug abusers(It came up in the Commons), democracy is only good for the majority.
This is authoritarianism. As I asked Cody-
"...not oppression, matter of fact it has nothing to do with proportion. If 99 of 100 people where slaving Nazi Klans men and one person was a semi-Objectivist scholar, is that one not correct if he makes rules for that small society that disagree with the dehumanizing nature of the Nazis? Is he malevolent or enslaving if he stops the Nazi's why making these laws that control/inhibit actions? Or does he have no right to rule over the evil and teach them what is right because they disagree. What your currently saying is the latter choice, fater I trust you see what's wrong with that."

He dos not have the right to "teach them what is right." No one does. People can only learn for themselves. States can only protect its citizens from harm. Nazis have a right to be heard, no matter what. If you don't like it, you make damn sure you vote against them. That's your choice and your right. What makes you so "good" as to determine these people don't have the same?
Ehh? Seriously? So killing the Jews and enslaving the blakcs is AOK as long as more than 50% of the people are cool with it. If you say yes... wow.
If the vile are voted for, does that make them right? Nazi Germany from the Weimar Republic is a prime example.

No but it makes them legitimate. I may not agree with the choices people make but I know that once you take it away, you're setting yourself up for failure, and committing an act worse than they have.
Why are we "committing an act worse then they have"?

For the people, the best of the people.

So you govern for some, but not for all?
We govern for all, but by the rules of the "Intelligentsia"(Cody).
Authoritarianism isn't BAD, it's the "Authors" that become BAD.

You can't separate the "authors" from authoritarianism. It's the root word. Authoritarianism rises and falls on the basis of the rulers.
Bold.

Not always, thats my point.

So you would risk despotism just because a subjective "not always" enters your mind?
Why do you think we will become a despotism? It's not even likely when you think about it. Would you become corrupt when in rule?
A goverment exists to rule. Whats wrong with that? What do we gain by connecting with them.

Governments exist to serve its citizens, not to rule. It is the individuals who decide the legitimacy and the life of any government. Governments exist to confirm rights - not to give them. And any government that forgoes the conclusion that you do not need to connect to the individuals who decide your fate, is a government that will never last long. Even Lenin recognized that fact.
In that case, we confirm rights. We serve them "but save them from themselves"[I robot, V.I.C.K.Y]. People like goverment are imperfect, if the goverment is more perfect than the people, what's the problem.
We do. If your rights hurt others we'll remove that right.

That's subjective and silly. Someone's very existence could be bothering someone else. Do we eradicate existence?
Murder, terrorism, fraud. You can me Pro-democracy, Objectivist, theist, as long as you're not killing nobody it's all good.
I'll be back in awhile. Goin' to Ikea.
Nice.
I'm off for the next 22 hours.
'sup DDO -- july 2013
Zetsubou
Posts: 4,933
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2010 11:36:51 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/6/2010 11:22:02 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:

Almost certainly yes, and I am a pretty moral fellow. In the absence of checks and balances on my power I would someday grow to abuse it in some fashion.
You lack faith.
'sup DDO -- july 2013
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2010 11:40:03 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/6/2010 11:36:51 AM, Zetsubou wrote:
At 5/6/2010 11:22:02 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:

Almost certainly yes, and I am a pretty moral fellow. In the absence of checks and balances on my power I would someday grow to abuse it in some fashion.
You lack faith.

No I am just aware of human nature.

Someone is only moral because external limits have been placed on them.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Zetsubou
Posts: 4,933
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2010 5:16:05 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/6/2010 11:40:03 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 5/6/2010 11:36:51 AM, Zetsubou wrote:
At 5/6/2010 11:22:02 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:

Almost certainly yes, and I am a pretty moral fellow. In the absence of checks and balances on my power I would someday grow to abuse it in some fashion.
You lack faith.

No I am just aware of human nature.
Human nature isn't definite.

Someone is only moral because external limits have been placed on them.
My rational side says True.
'sup DDO -- july 2013
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2010 2:48:45 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/6/2010 11:04:54 AM, Zetsubou wrote:
At 5/6/2010 10:45:32 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
Zets wrote:
Why must it become despotic? There's a chance. Oligarchy is to improve that chance.

Governments will naturally grow to be despotic unless actually prevented from doing so, there is nothing inherent to the word oligarchy that prevents this. In an oligarchy all power falls to a small elite, that is a natural recipe for tyranny.

Why is everyone so pessimistic? Think of what would happen if we didn't become corrupt. We will grow from our selffish natures.

Selfishness is defined as being concerned with one's own interests. Rational selfishness, as such, would be when one pursues those interests which are consistent with metaphysical facts. Producing, trading, eating, and so forth. Using other people as a means to an end - turning others into tools for one's emotional whims - is the least selfish thing I can think of; in fact, people who have to survive by leeching off of others are some of the most selfless people I can imagine. In the absence of a self which is able to survive, they conduct selfless actions, seeking validation and sustenance through others.

So, why is selfishness corrupt, exactly?