Really, me too. My friend, please reform your point about elite control and children in politics. Just leave out the undemocratic, accusation, stubborn, futility etc. if you now catch my drift
Again, all the best -- lucky for me my well wishes are anonymous, or I might be placed in YouTube jail. ;-) Peace, my friend, return to your solitude.
Surely those "children" and "criminals" in a complete democratic system where everyone has a voice can't be expected to always provide a lucid argument? You will receive comments that are of little value to the discussion. Do you let them speak once and then from then on censor them? Not very democratic!? I challenge you to find me an example of the communist experiment that has not deteriorated into totalitarianism. your version is already headed down that road!
Wasn't an assumption - really more of a statement on the futility of your arguments. Why are you imposing a different level of elite control on my arguments.
I'm sorry, if you're out to prove my futility, I'm not interested to talk in this tone. Try to be more constructive and concentrate on the issue at hand
Not worth my time if you won't be intellectually honest about shortcomings in your arguments. I thought my family was full of stubborn Finns, but you take the cake!
The ultimate function of a culture/society is to produce conflict? To avoid rational discourse?
Without question the times we live in, and the law we are supposed to live by is influential in how we perceive the world, however the same underlying problems occur again and again no matter how the hierarchical structure and restrictions are molded by those in power.
As far as Socrates goes and appealing to logic, the only logic I see today is the logic of mathematics i.e. game theory.
That's how culture works now and not because of biology, evolution or other crap you told me about. It should however be changed so that it is formed in face-to-face debate, not exclusively by the elite. The elite is just trying to silence critiques to its privilege of rule in order to keep its rule.
In my opinion it's highly unlikely to have such a direct democracy as you are suggesting precisely because there are too many people. It is something that can work and has worked on a smaller scale, but as you see now it is just not practical.
This comes down to the question of national borders? What you say is true only if we assume that we'd have to talk face-to-face with 6 million Finnish. But borders are artificial and maintained only as an extension of the Capitalist logic of the ruling class. An alternative is based on demolishing national borders and leaving the determination of the borders of the autonomous political units to everybody who lives in them and around them. It is possible to rule by debate with at least 5 persons.
It's our psychology, and uncontrollable population that has destroyed every political system. There are hundred's of theories out there, but they do not take into account that we just recently came out of the jungle and are expected to behave. It's not going to happen. Are some systems better than others? Yes. However I still don't see a way that they could work on a global scale because of just how many people live on this planet.
Just think of it like this, you have a family, and two children. They aren't so difficult to manage and take care of, but add to that three or four more, and you will begin to realize the situation we are facing. To make matters worse our governments are all interconnected through global commerce which doesn't allow for true representation of the people. It is built on maximized profits at the expensive of human rights, and the freedom of common individuals.
What if the reason for our psychology, overgrowth, the need and practice of patronizing the young and the global Industrial Capitalism is the result of the political system, whereby only a part of the people create biased solutions, which cause our traditions, institutions and rationalities? Then we have to enable free face-to-face debate. Sokrates believed that too. My theory claims that the ultimate function of culture is to stop mere face-to-face debate. Internet is not yet like that
Mass media doesn't exist in a place where everybody are included. It is a symptom of Capitalism, profit driven accumulation of it into the hands of the few. A direct democratic forum makes obsolete and voluntarily overrules all mechanisms of hegemony because the critics would uncover them and them would feel safe participating in the negotiations for personal survival
The reason i am debating this with you is because, as you said, when people hear the ideas of others, they may change their own views, and that is key in aquiring reliable knowledge.
I find your "Best Political system" very interesting. It reminds me of a true democracy, but blended with the ideal version of communism. However, this system that you so gleamingly propose has numerous flaws. Firstly, a system liek this wouldnt be able to deal with global issues. If everyone has a say, even crimenals, then there will be an endless amount of debating, compromising, re-compromising, and absolutely nothing will get done.
In addition, with all this compromising, no one will be satisfied. At least in the modern day United States, as i do not want to speak for other countries which i do not have a genuine knowledge of, our government is capable of pleasing the majority, thought sometimes sacrificed for the good of the nation. Basically, a Republic, not a true democracy, would be the ideal version of a political system. However, in an island nation with a small population, would be the ideal place for your system.
Your argument on inefficiency and unfeasibility due to lack of consensus is untrue and it is based on the wrong assumption that decisions are forced on others. They are in the present, but if they weren't, a freedom would ensue, which would also bring the responsibility of natural survival. The question then is not how likely is a consensus, but how to combine the collective and survival. Should we abandon all society like the Anarchists or actively pursue understanding and agreement?
I understand your point of view, but if society doesn ot reach a consensus in a reasonable manner of time, the nation as a whole would have no choice to be split apart until the populations of the individual regions are small enough that such a system would work. It is not a matter of abandoning all society or to pursue understanding and agreement, it is simply to deal with the rest of the world, which, under this system, would take too long. An example would be the colonies in South America.
Nation state is based on oligarchy and needs to end as soon as people will agree to debate about issues. There are no borders that are not determined together. Would other evil countries invade without a government? So what if they would? Would we be forced into their rule as our population was forced into the rule of Helsinki in the 19th century? No, because 1. Modern mass media denounces that and 2. If we can govern ourselves without an army, there is no insecurity to justify occupation.
Furthermore, my friend, how can you think in dichotomies such as us and the rest of the world? That is a logical fallacy. You can't avoid abandoning other people if you take them as the others. That's why understanding and agreement goes beyond the nation state.
No - just trying to reach beyond the adversarial tone.....good luck
jkmattson 2 years ago
Really, me too. My friend, please reform your point about elite control and children in politics. Just leave out the undemocratic, accusation, stubborn, futility etc. if you now catch my drift
teemuruskeepaa 2 years ago
Again, all the best -- lucky for me my well wishes are anonymous, or I might be placed in YouTube jail. ;-) Peace, my friend, return to your solitude.
jkmattson 2 years ago
What, so you will talk shit as long as I talk back and you try to compete for authority in my room?
teemuruskeepaa 2 years ago
Best of luck - no harm meant, you asked for more argumentative so I complied. ;-)
jkmattson 2 years ago
You aren't being argumentative. You are raving online because you are anonymous and can't get caught.
teemuruskeepaa 2 years ago
Surely those "children" and "criminals" in a complete democratic system where everyone has a voice can't be expected to always provide a lucid argument? You will receive comments that are of little value to the discussion. Do you let them speak once and then from then on censor them? Not very democratic!? I challenge you to find me an example of the communist experiment that has not deteriorated into totalitarianism. your version is already headed down that road!
jkmattson 2 years ago
Wasn't an assumption - really more of a statement on the futility of your arguments. Why are you imposing a different level of elite control on my arguments.
jkmattson 2 years ago
I'm sorry, if you're out to prove my futility, I'm not interested to talk in this tone. Try to be more constructive and concentrate on the issue at hand
teemuruskeepaa 2 years ago
Not worth my time if you won't be intellectually honest about shortcomings in your arguments. I thought my family was full of stubborn Finns, but you take the cake!
jkmattson 2 years ago
No, you are not worth my time with your insults. Maybe you can improve?
teemuruskeepaa 2 years ago
Umm......ever thought about debating whether the sky is blue? Probably just as productive.
jkmattson 2 years ago
Stop writing your assumptions here. We try to be more argumentative.
teemuruskeepaa 2 years ago
The ultimate function of a culture/society is to produce conflict? To avoid rational discourse?
Without question the times we live in, and the law we are supposed to live by is influential in how we perceive the world, however the same underlying problems occur again and again no matter how the hierarchical structure and restrictions are molded by those in power.
As far as Socrates goes and appealing to logic, the only logic I see today is the logic of mathematics i.e. game theory.
DefenceSpeech 2 years ago
That's how culture works now and not because of biology, evolution or other crap you told me about. It should however be changed so that it is formed in face-to-face debate, not exclusively by the elite. The elite is just trying to silence critiques to its privilege of rule in order to keep its rule.
teemuruskeepaa 2 years ago
In my opinion it's highly unlikely to have such a direct democracy as you are suggesting precisely because there are too many people. It is something that can work and has worked on a smaller scale, but as you see now it is just not practical.
DefenceSpeech 2 years ago
This comes down to the question of national borders? What you say is true only if we assume that we'd have to talk face-to-face with 6 million Finnish. But borders are artificial and maintained only as an extension of the Capitalist logic of the ruling class. An alternative is based on demolishing national borders and leaving the determination of the borders of the autonomous political units to everybody who lives in them and around them. It is possible to rule by debate with at least 5 persons.
teemuruskeepaa 2 years ago
It's our psychology, and uncontrollable population that has destroyed every political system. There are hundred's of theories out there, but they do not take into account that we just recently came out of the jungle and are expected to behave. It's not going to happen. Are some systems better than others? Yes. However I still don't see a way that they could work on a global scale because of just how many people live on this planet.
DefenceSpeech 2 years ago
Just think of it like this, you have a family, and two children. They aren't so difficult to manage and take care of, but add to that three or four more, and you will begin to realize the situation we are facing. To make matters worse our governments are all interconnected through global commerce which doesn't allow for true representation of the people. It is built on maximized profits at the expensive of human rights, and the freedom of common individuals.
DefenceSpeech 2 years ago
What if the reason for our psychology, overgrowth, the need and practice of patronizing the young and the global Industrial Capitalism is the result of the political system, whereby only a part of the people create biased solutions, which cause our traditions, institutions and rationalities? Then we have to enable free face-to-face debate. Sokrates believed that too. My theory claims that the ultimate function of culture is to stop mere face-to-face debate. Internet is not yet like that
teemuruskeepaa 2 years ago
Doesnt matter what "sytem" behind, all "political" problems were made by egoism and - i call it- opportunist-dynamics. To many stupid sheeples.
Mass media is the mentor and the center of what to think, say and do. Mass media destroys the best "political system" at once.- if they work as usual.
just my few cents
aerobique 2 years ago
Mass media doesn't exist in a place where everybody are included. It is a symptom of Capitalism, profit driven accumulation of it into the hands of the few. A direct democratic forum makes obsolete and voluntarily overrules all mechanisms of hegemony because the critics would uncover them and them would feel safe participating in the negotiations for personal survival
teemuruskeepaa 2 years ago
The reason i am debating this with you is because, as you said, when people hear the ideas of others, they may change their own views, and that is key in aquiring reliable knowledge.
FruitedLion 2 years ago
I find your "Best Political system" very interesting. It reminds me of a true democracy, but blended with the ideal version of communism. However, this system that you so gleamingly propose has numerous flaws. Firstly, a system liek this wouldnt be able to deal with global issues. If everyone has a say, even crimenals, then there will be an endless amount of debating, compromising, re-compromising, and absolutely nothing will get done.
FruitedLion 2 years ago
In addition, with all this compromising, no one will be satisfied. At least in the modern day United States, as i do not want to speak for other countries which i do not have a genuine knowledge of, our government is capable of pleasing the majority, thought sometimes sacrificed for the good of the nation. Basically, a Republic, not a true democracy, would be the ideal version of a political system. However, in an island nation with a small population, would be the ideal place for your system.
FruitedLion 2 years ago
Your argument on inefficiency and unfeasibility due to lack of consensus is untrue and it is based on the wrong assumption that decisions are forced on others. They are in the present, but if they weren't, a freedom would ensue, which would also bring the responsibility of natural survival. The question then is not how likely is a consensus, but how to combine the collective and survival. Should we abandon all society like the Anarchists or actively pursue understanding and agreement?
teemuruskeepaa 2 years ago
I understand your point of view, but if society doesn ot reach a consensus in a reasonable manner of time, the nation as a whole would have no choice to be split apart until the populations of the individual regions are small enough that such a system would work. It is not a matter of abandoning all society or to pursue understanding and agreement, it is simply to deal with the rest of the world, which, under this system, would take too long. An example would be the colonies in South America.
FruitedLion 2 years ago
Nation state is based on oligarchy and needs to end as soon as people will agree to debate about issues. There are no borders that are not determined together. Would other evil countries invade without a government? So what if they would? Would we be forced into their rule as our population was forced into the rule of Helsinki in the 19th century? No, because 1. Modern mass media denounces that and 2. If we can govern ourselves without an army, there is no insecurity to justify occupation.
teemuruskeepaa 2 years ago
Furthermore, my friend, how can you think in dichotomies such as us and the rest of the world? That is a logical fallacy. You can't avoid abandoning other people if you take them as the others. That's why understanding and agreement goes beyond the nation state.
teemuruskeepaa 2 years ago