Politicians are faced with impossible choices. They should be elected based on character, because it takes character to make impossible decisions. Of course the character of the voter comes into play and tastes and blah blah blah. Effectively, matter of taste -> popularity contest. People who do not have any character will always have an advantage over people who are of character in what amounts to a popularity contest. The ease at which one can pander to issues or lie assures it. If a single candidate of "low character" taints a political system, the tendency of others to compensate in order to stand a fair chance of winning increases with the number of people doing it. I would think it eventually reaches a "saturation point" at which the power of the system fails and is recycled, a new (maybe an old) power emerges. Such is the way of things?
If I am elected I will reinstitute volunteer to-the-death gladiatorial combat with several million dollars, US citizenship, and a pardon for any non-malicious crimes as the prize for the winners. If I am elected suicide and the use of any drugs will be leagal as long as you are in your own home. You still won't be alowed to drive under the influence though. If I am elected after severe interrogation and torture we will take taliban leaders to ground-zero in New York and chain them there. The citizens may then do what they wish. If I am elected I will personally moon on international television and declare that Saddam, Osama, and all their friends can kiss it.
It is certainly not a losing battle. It is not unreasonable for increasing informed participation in democracy to demand and receive greater accountability from elected leaders. It is not unreasonable for increasing informed popular participation to undermine and replace repressive regimes from within and beneath. It is not unreasonable for such public involvement to "recycle" power as you suggest, while avoiding violence and economic ruin. The "saturation point" I see is not at the moment of change: It is when the majority is apathetic and shallow, abdicating responsibility to understand and act in their collective best interest. The flip interjections above are to me ironically apropos: Self-gratification is clearly inferior to active cooperation in the long-term big picture, when it comes to the pursuit of happiness. Nevertheless, people fall back into apathy often when the political going seems confusing or tough- reverting to political hedonism, inwardness, self-aggrandisement, superficial patriotism, elitism, supremacism; reverting to the instant feel-good, forsaking a striving for dignity, wisdom, and courage. The "nature of the beast", and our destiny, is not encapsulated in politicians. It's in us: Not just our expectations, but in our conscious and concerted actions of learning, thinking, communicating, and accomplishing. Stop croaking monotonously, fatalisticly on the sidelines. Get off your ass and do something- There's a battle to win.
/It is certainly not a losing battle. You're right, it's more cyclical. Winning and losing at the same time. /It is not unreasonable for increasing informed participation in democracy to demand and receive greater accountability from elected leaders. That's highly debatable. Say you have an issue like uhm... llama herding. Are you pro-llama herding? I simply don't care about it yet you expect me to be informed? Just making the point that your investment in issues plays everything on how informed you become. All too often it's difficult to discern what the "issues" are in the first place. /It is not unreasonable for increasing informed popular participation to undermine and replace repressive regimes from within and beneath. You're right, it's not. It's not only unreasonable, but seemingly eventually inevitable. /It is not unreasonable for such public involvement to "recycle" power as you suggest, while avoiding violence and economic ruin. The "saturation point" I see is not at the moment of change: It is when the majority is apathetic and shallow, Actually you're right, that moment precedes the 'moment of change'. /abdicating responsibility to understand and act in their collective best interest. LOL. We are both intelligent humans. Do you think we might agree on what is in the "collective best interest" except on more and a few issues? I doubt it. Further, I honestly think that the "collective best interest" is beyond knowing except on those few fundamental issues, but then it is the mechanism for attaining this interest that becomes the debate. Therein lies the rub. The resultant is what you see around you really. /The flip interjections above are to me ironically apropos: Self-gratification is clearly inferior to active cooperation in the long-term big picture, when it comes to the pursuit of happiness. What if your happiness is derived from your self-gratification? Hype, if one's "self-gratification" is not aligned with "active cooperation in the long-term big picture" then is it possible to attain the latter? /Nevertheless, people fall back into apathy often when the political going seems confusing or tough- reverting to political hedonism, inwardness, self-aggrandisement, superficial patriotism, elitism, supremacism; reverting to the instant feel-good, forsaking a striving for dignity, wisdom, and courage. That is a non-statement as people will allways do what you say they "resort to". The "political going" is always confusing and tough for reasons I've already mentioned. It's mostly the impossible decisions. I want flowers in my neighborhood to be mandatory. You don't. How does one legislate opinion? It's retarded. If men of character do not act as representatives for the ignorant masses, the cycle I've discussed is inevitable. I think it is anyway as when a man of character is trumped by a cheating low-life, well... as I said in the opening post. /The "nature of the beast", and our destiny, is not encapsulated in politicians. It's in us: Not just our expectations, but in our conscious and concerted actions of learning, thinking, communicating, and accomplishing. In your scenario "we" become the politicians and the same cycle is pertinent. Lack of character is the lowest common denominator. Succession of ethics will defeat ethics every time in a battle. /Stop croaking monotonously, fatalisticly on the sidelines. Get off your ass and do something- There's a battle to win. Don't tell me what to do asshole. I don't appreciate your retarded condescension. If you think I'm "croaking monotonously" then please don't clutter of my thread with your sour view. I'm trying to address a problem. You see Hype, if you don't understand a problem fully, you cannot solve it except by luck. I prefer analysis as I think I have a gift for it. If you call that "sittin on the sidelines, croaking monotonously" it's merely evidence that you are of no help in solving any actual problems. If what I'm saying is true, then your simplistic motivational CRAP is really for not. If what I'm saying is true, then a different approach to solving the problem must be considered. I'm not sure what, but something different is the only way out of the cycle. Maybe the cycle is good?
"please don't clutter of my thread with your sour view" I'll try to be clear and sweet. "We are both intelligent humans. Do you think we might agree on what is in the "collective best interest" except on more and a few issues? I doubt it." We (all of us) only need to agree and stake every political career on a few basic principles to dramatically improve almost every situation. Collective Best Interest means rejecting the carnage and devastation of the cycle you are promoting, and replacing it with concerted efforts at eliminating the sources of conflict. "What if your happiness is derived from your self-gratification? Hype, if one's "self-gratification" is not aligned with "active cooperation in the long-term big picture" The CBI provides more opportunity for any personal interests, including self-gratification. There is no conflict there, except that it requires deferring self-gratification for one to to learn anything, including how humans can better coexist. "Are you pro-llama herding? I simply don't care about it yet you expect me to be informed?" In order to participate in a discussion of war and peace, you do need to do a lot of reading. To understand the roots of conflict, you have to understand the detailed history of a region in conflict, even if at first blush you may not find studying other people particularly interesting- But if we wish to cogently discuss events present and future on the Arabian Peninsula, some understanding of camel, if not llama herding, would be part of the prerequisites. "I honestly think that the "collective best interest" is beyond knowing except on those few fundamental issues, but then it is the mechanism for attaining this interest that becomes the debate. Therein lies the rub. The resultant is what you see around you really." We can easily agree on the goals of CBI, and the 'rub" seems to be finding agreement on the necessary effort: Understanding. Understand a situation more fully, and we react more correctly in the dynamics of it. The CBI will increasingly be served as a gathering majority becomes increasingly aware of our connectedness and mutual influence, as a gathering majority actively seeks to understand these connections (in self-interest), and then acts accordingly. This is not a losing battle. "In your scenario "we" become the politicians and the same cycle is pertinent. Lack of character is the lowest common denominator. Succession of ethics will defeat ethics every time in a battle." You lost me there. "I don't appreciate your retarded condescension.' And there- but no need to clarify what's not topical. "I prefer analysis as I think I have a gift for it." Good: Why not gain deeper understanding of issues, deeper understanding of collective benefit in trans-cultural and trans-national relations, analyze, and then, most important of all for a person who really cares (and is not just broaching big issues to bolster self-importance), act in the Collective Best Interest : It's not a losing battle. Apathy loses, action wins. Action based on understanding beats action based on ignorance. "People who do not have any character will always have an advantage over people who are of character in what amounts to a popularity contest. The ease at which one can pander to issues or lie assures it." No it does not. People naturally recognize good character and respond to it. People are learning to discriminate media image from reality, are learning to learn from a wide array of sources. People are gaining access to a more balanced information diet thanks to new technologies. The confusion presently rampant in American democracy is that there are several critical issues we face, that a majority of the public has not learned sufficiently about to understand- So the public is largely unprepared to select and direct politicians. But it doesn't have to stay that way. The problem is not that bad character is somehow overcoming good in our political contests. The problem is that we have all got to learn about each other in order to survive and thrive, in order to demand the right actions from our representatives. Some of us are learning this imperative later than others. For example, the US wields great influence in the world, and enjoys a relatively representative democracy, but is lagging behind in understanding and in the will to understand, and resultantly we just don't know what to do, except panic, and revert to "leadership" to understand and act (preferably with boldness and certainty) in our stead. This regression into political apathy loses the battle. We must reject this to move forward into better days, and we can. It's not a losing battle.
Character??? That's a very simplistic and altogether abusive set of criteria. How exactly does one define this "character"? Now before I'm cast aside as some nihilist let me explain: This is a very blurry and intangible subject. The very word "character" is vague and almost meaningless. In fact all it really means is that one has traits that seperate him/her from the rest of the population. Hitler had character. Of course we would not identify with the values within that character. So in fact if one were to have an exceeding amount of character we would almost always argue that that person is to different from the whole and thus unqualified for office. Now if we were to instead impose the more common usage of character which seems to be synonymous with honest, honorable, virtuous, etc. we also encounter difficulties. How do we determine these things? Most people say that religion is a dictate here. So does religion automatically qualify for character? If this were the case we might expect that every religious leader and every government official to be uniformly of character because none have acheived any such without first claiming devout religious status. Moreover has there ever been a politician who has refrained from lying, stealing, etc.? On record there is not. Apperently if we then apply the common definition of character, it would seem that it is instead the most undesirable trait.
Re: Character??? /That's a very simplistic and altogether abusive set of criteria. How exactly does one define this "character"? Honesty at all costs. A earnest person who takes responsibility for their actions and puts a subjectively reasonable effort into a permanent cycle of personal improvement in some way. /This is a very blurry and intangible subject. I disagree. /The very word "character" is vague and almost meaningless. I disagree. It's pretty simple really. IMO, it's basically a person who is earnest beyond reproach. /In fact all it really means is that one has traits that seperate him/her from the rest of the population. Not in the context I've presented. Not in any vernacular usage either excepting maybe the context "jeez that guy is a character" which is clearly not my usage. /Hitler had character. Hitler was a great leader for his cause. I would say his character might be debatable based on his tendency to lie to people to get his way. IMO, that shirks responsibility and truly lacks character. /Of course we would not identify with the values within that character. They are not necessarily correlated. /So in fact if one were to have an exceeding amount of character we would almost always argue that that person is to different from the whole and thus unqualified for office. That is nonsense. If the crowd consisted of leaders then there would be no such thing as the need for a leader. Leaders are by definition different from the whole. This is what qualifies them for office. /Now if we were to instead impose the more common usage of character which seems to be synonymous with honest, honorable, virtuous, etc. we also encounter difficulties. Of course. /How do we determine these things? Careful analysis and intuition. There is bound to be a significant margin of error. One must simply accept that as a stark reality and attempt to re-evaluate and improve the system over time. /Most people say that religion is a dictate here. I suppose character can be gained through guilt, sure. Technically ethics are the matter in question. /So does religion automatically qualify for character? I assume you mean 'if someone is religious does that mean they're a person of character?" Not by a long shot. /If this were the case we might expect that every religious leader and every government official to be uniformly of character because none have acheived any such without first claiming devout religious status. But it's not the case. /Moreover has there ever been a politician who has refrained from lying, stealing, etc.? I would guess yes but couldn't prove it. /On record there is not. That's a baseless claim. You can't prove it either. /Apperently if we then apply the common definition of character, it would seem that it is instead the most undesirable trait. I think I've demonstrated how you're wrong.
"Hitler had character. " Hitler's character was recognized by many around him- he surrounded himself with thugs and misanthropes, and was in mortal struggle with many thinking Germans throughout his rise to power. Why is Hitler always the example so often raised iconoclastically in argument? Maybe it is sometimes assumed his spectre can rub off on some idea or person you don't agree with. The very tactic reflects on a user's character in my opinion. "Most people say that religion is a dictate here." We are programmed to constantly evaluate character in others: Honesty, honor, virtue- regardless of our religious or irreligious backgrounds. It's an ancient survival trait in any social species. "has there ever been a politician who has refrained from lying, stealing, etc.?" Depending on how far you wish to take this inquisition, not one of us, political or not, can pass your test. Regardless, I can name many political figures past and present have careers unblemished by dishonesty. I think you are offering little more than a cop-out, Teg. "One penalty for refusing to participate in politics is to be governed by your inferiors." -Plato
Hey! I came for an argument, Wes! Get back on the cynic side of the fence dammit Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Then an argument you shall have "We are both intelligent humans. Do you think we might agree on what is in the "collective best interest" except on more and a few issues? I doubt it." /We (all of us) only need to agree and stake every political career on a few basic principles to dramatically improve almost every situation. I agree. 1) Freedom 2) Responsibility 3) Accountability 4) Compassion /Collective Best Interest means rejecting the carnage and devastation of the cycle you are promoting, and replacing it with concerted efforts at eliminating the sources of conflict. That is fantasy. The cycle I present is not escapable through rejection. The only way to solve problems is acceptance followed by what amounts to engineering. IMO, the proposition of rejection amounts to denial. If you fully consider the matter you can see how my position on this issue is based on the principles listed above. It is a matter of responsibilty to recognize and accept the faults of one's self or one's society. "What if your happiness is derived from your self-gratification? Hype, if one's "self-gratification" is not aligned with "active cooperation in the long-term big picture" The CBI provides more opportunity for any personal interests, including self-gratification. Your mistake is that you seem to assert the CBI as something different than the sum of individual best interests. One might consider the CBI as the maximization of the 'best interest' function for each member of a society, maximized within the constraints of the functions. The CBI does not exist except in the minds of those whose interest it comprises. That said you might see how the CBI is really merely unbridled success of self-gratification. /There is no conflict there, except that it requires deferring self-gratification for one to to learn anything, including how humans can better coexist. There is always conflict here as the concepts that comprise the idea of "best interest" varies by at least the number of people on earth. If one takes a broader context one might expand that determination to "varies by at least the number of POV's on earth". The collective best interest in a theoretical limit. If I'm a sadist and you're a masochist, what is our "collective best interest" as defined by a third party? As defined by me? You? It gets into a breakdown of semantics after that. Ugly. "Are you pro-llama herding? I simply don't care about it yet you expect me to be informed?" /In order to participate in a discussion of war and peace, you do need to do a lot of reading. That is unsubstantiated. What if I choose to do a lot of talking? What if I learn by osmosis? What if I'm super-genius and can see through all concepts of war and peace and into some higher context simply unseen by other minds as they cannot relate to the experience? (on a sidenote) How does that relate to the notion of the CBL? /To understand the roots of conflict, you have to understand the detailed history of a region in conflict, even if at first blush you may not find studying other people particularly interesting- Again that's unsubstantiated. It might help sure but most conflict can be fully understood through psychology and a bit of background. There might be other means to the same end that I cannot fathom. Does that mean that it's impossible? /But if we wish to cogently discuss events present and future on the Arabian Peninsula, some understanding of camel, if not llama herding, would be part of the prerequisites. Well, I wasn't talking about that here but if you must bring it up I'd say that my commentary above applies. That is unsubstantiated. I need not know camels to know a man's suffering. "I honestly think that the "collective best interest" is beyond knowing except on those few fundamental issues, but then it is the mechanism for attaining this interest that becomes the debate. Therein lies the rub. The resultant is what you see around you really." /We can easily agree on the goals of CBI That is your fantasy. Show me a basis in reality. /, and the 'rub" seems to be finding agreement on the necessary effort: Understanding. LOL. Pardon but you make my point for me with your lack of what you claim we need. "understanding" is relative and subjective, to claim it as a cureall is a failure to comprehend the use of the word in the pertinent context. Do you see this now? /Understand a situation more fully, and we react more correctly in the dynamics of it. Not if you continue to deny it. Analyze all you want but if you pretend that the bad things aren't your fault or that they simply aren't happening then you'll never really kill the root of the pertinent problem. /The CBI will increasingly be served as a gathering majority becomes increasingly aware of our connectedness and mutual influence, as a gathering majority actively seeks to understand these connections (in self-interest), and then acts accordingly. While that sounds good and all, to consider it more than wishfull thinking is to indulge in fantasy. It is the very function of choice to determine the "best" path for the individuals. Even altruistic choices are made in the same essence. If I choose to save your life I do it because that was my choice of the "best" alternative. Selflessness is the resultant of the ultimate selfishness. With this in mind, please consider that the CBI doesn't really exist as there are some things about you in which I have no interest. Even on the most basic level of interaction such as killing other people, the CBI is nearly impossible to clearly define. Was killing Hitler good? /This is not a losing battle. Unless we understand it's nature - it is. (the exception being that the system might possibly improve by its nature over time for reasons unknown) "In your scenario "we" become the politicians and the same cycle is pertinent. Lack of character is the lowest common denominator. Succession of ethics will defeat ethics every time in a battle." /You lost me there. If we agree to fight with rules being "don't kick nutz" and you have no problem kicking nutz anyway but I follow the rulez, you'll likely win. From there it merely escalates. "I prefer analysis as I think I have a gift for it." /Good: Why not gain deeper understanding of issues, deeper understanding of collective benefit in trans-cultural and trans-national relations, analyze, and then, most important of all for a person who really cares (and is not just broaching big issues to bolster self-importance), act in the Collective Best Interest : It's not a losing battle. LOL. Don't you see that people involve themselves in that which they are compelled to be involved with? Isn't that painfully obvious? That is the root of my entire argument! You can sit back and preach to people what they should or shouldn't do all day long but that doesn't change peoples inherent function: Do what you are compelled to do. You're doing it right now. Me too. /Apathy loses, action wins. Action based on understanding beats action based on ignorance. What a halfassed motivational speech. "People who do not have any character will always have an advantage over people who are of character in what amounts to a popularity contest. The ease at which one can pander to issues or lie assures it." /No it does not. People naturally recognize good character and respond to it. That's entirely over-simplified. People do that sure but that doesn't have any bearing on what I asserted. People also look out for their interests for instance if I perceive it to be in my best interest to argue with you here, I do it. People also don't understand a lot of things. Most people aren't educated, most people aren't equipped to understand the esoterics involved. You are a prime example. You are very intelligent, forthcoming, well-intended, but your failure to really understand the underlying issues would eventually have you mandating morality and endorsing fascism to promote the sucess of your theories. As such YOU would enjoy personal success and perceive from YOUR POV that things were indeed the way you figured from the beginning when a guy like me suffers and dies from the hand of oppression YOU instigated as a means to protect you from the realization that for all your good intentions and for all your intellect - you simply weren't able to understand the problem to begin with. /People are learning to discriminate media image from reality, are learning to learn from a wide array of sources. What evidence do you have of this? What reasoning? You have yet to substantiate ONE of your claims by even competent subsequent reasoning. Sure if that's your opinion fine, but I don't even know if that's relevant if you consider what I just was talking about and all of its implications. /People are gaining access to a more balanced information diet thanks to new technologies. LOL. Sure, SOME people are. Most people I'm pretty sure just listen to whatever it is that pushes the button in their head that they like to have pushed when they experience reporting - for whatever reason. Maybe I like fox news because it's on channel 42 and I've always like the number 42 because of douglas adams. Your assertion is simply baselss and somewhat irrelavent again. There is simply NO WAY to expect the masses to be able to wade through the immense and complex sea of information regarding world events. It's simply too much to ask of most folks. Again you are a prime example. For all your perceived knowledge you really don't get this stuff. If you cannot understand the underlying dymamic your analysis is fatally flawed from the get-go, as you've illustrated for us. Thanks. /The confusion presently rampant in American democracy is that there are several critical issues we face, that a majority of the public has not learned sufficiently about to understand- So the public is largely unprepared to select and direct politicians. I think that's an understatement. Worse, the game is fixed. At this point, most of the people you'd really want for political positions don't want the microscope turned on them as they are not willing to attempt to manipulate the contents under examination. Men of character do not lie and have no need to further justify that which they've identified as a mistake. This makes it a cheaters game. /But it doesn't have to stay that way. Certainly, but it'll take more than a "balanced news diet" to fix it. First you must understand the flaw and then forumalate a plan to overcome it or minimize its effects. /The problem is not that bad character is somehow overcoming good in our political contests. You have not demonstrated this to be so. /The problem is that we have all got to learn about each other in order to survive and thrive, in order to demand the right actions from our representatives. I exactly disagree and find this indicative of why the problem exists in the first place. A man of character cannot be demanded to do anything. He will do the right thing because he sees it as his best interest. If you "demand" that a man of character "do the right thing" but to that man your version of the "right thing" is merely indicative of your lack of understanding of the problem and is in fact "the wrong thing", then you have just shot yourself in the dick. You took a man who could be trusted and you fucked him because he's smarter than you. Nicely done. (note that regardless, the weakest link in the chain (YOU in this case) is characteristic of the flaw in it) I suppose that's probably what's in the CBI?????????? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Can you see my point yet? /Some of us are learning this imperative later than others. How would YOU know Hype? Argument from authority (in terms of epistemology)? /For example, the US wields great influence in the world, and enjoys a relatively representative democracy, but is lagging behind in understanding and in the will to understand, and resultantly we just don't know what to do, except panic, and revert to "leadership" to understand and act (preferably with boldness and certainty) in our stead. Please demonstrate exactly how the US is "lagging behind in understanding" and the context in which that is a reasonable conclusion to reach? Funny really, you just said before we should demand our politicians do what we say and now you say we're reverting to leader in panic from not knowing what to do because we don't understand anything. ROFLMAO. That is entirely convoluted. /This regression into political apathy loses the battle. You have in no way reasonably supported this conclusion. Political apathy isn't even necessarily correlated with functioning, quality governement. Often it is, but I've illustrated how this isn't neccessarily true. /We must reject this to move forward into better days, and we can. To reject is equivalent to denial. You must first accept. Then analyze (which doesn't require the populous, actually they are a detriment to the analysis as they're analysis isn't really relevant compared to an expert's). There must be trustworthy people elected. The system MUST DEMAND IT. I don't know exactly how because it seems as you add constraints you limit the potential greatness of the system. Obviously it's tricky to find the right balance. /It's not a losing battle. I wish I could buy that, but your testimony has only bolstered the original claims. I'll leave you with: It's not necessarily a losing battle, if you can see that the battle that is currently being fought - is.
OK, better late than never. Hype: "Collective Best Interest means rejecting the carnage and devastation of the cycle you are promoting, and replacing it with concerted efforts at eliminating the sources of conflict." Wes: "That is fantasy. The cycle I present is not escapable through rejection. The only way to solve problems is acceptance followed by what amounts to engineering. IMO, the proposition of rejection amounts to denial. If you fully consider the matter you can see how my position on this issue is based on the principles listed above. It is a matter of responsibility to recognize and accept the faults of one's self or one's society." This cycle of human behavior (productivity, peace, cooperation, revenge, collective conflict, destruction, poverty) can be escapable through rejection (not denial). I would counter that it is clearly a matter of responsibility for us to expand and explore the progression of human society, and then see what new solutions to ancient problems become available. There may a difference between us, Wes, in that I believe that society is evolving, and at a much faster pace than our physical forms (at least thus far). Do you? Along the way, not every new generation, and not every new nation better serve the CBI. However, in the long-term, positive evolution of human relations is clearly apparent. We live in a truly unprecedented golden age of information and understanding, still clinging to an acceptance for excruciating suffering among millions, and fretting over a persistent threat of mutually-assured, irreversible destruction. This is increasingly becoming a clearer choice for people and nations, once it is understood that unless deranged, we can all see that understanding not only prevents destruction, but we are ultimately choosing between the two: Understanding, Or destruction. Ponder for one moment which you find preferable: Understanding requires effort and humility, and then more effort and humility, in proportionality to the higher understanding earned. If we are, as I believe, becoming more reasonable in collective human relations, then it is not unreasonable to revisit previously intractable problems, and look for new solutions, considering that we are indeed advancing our collective understanding. This is why I reject your premise that "It's a losing battle". Wes: "Your mistake is that you seem to assert the CBI as something different than the sum of individual best interests. One might consider the CBI as the maximization of the 'best interest' function for each member of a society, maximized within the constraints of the functions. The CBI does not exist except in the minds of those whose interest it comprises. That said you might see how the CBI is really merely unbridled success of self-gratification. hype: "We can easily agree on the goals of CBI" Wes:" That is your fantasy. Show me a basis in reality." OK, pick any place on earth that has been long inhabited. There likely was a time on that ground when people took anything they wanted from other people if they seemed vulnerable. There was a time in that place when if two groups of people simply met at all, they would likely begin killing each other. Over time, humans have reached increasing agreement that life is more enjoyable if someone doesn't knock your door down right now, behead a loved one, and rape you. This was once the extent of politics and foreign policy for our ancestors, but through the evolution of society, instinctively progressing in the collective best interest, life is better now. Gradually, we are learning that not only is collective aggression counterproductive, but also that cooperative improvement of all our lives is mutually beneficial. Gradually, we are learning that happy people, for example, rarely fly airliners into large buildings. Gradually in the American experience, we are learning that supplying weapons of every kind to Israel, encouraging their use, mimicking Israeli occupation, and sponsoring spectacular corruption and division of wealth just does not make people very happy at all. In fact, it makes them desperately angry, and incites very disruptive activities. Such activities are clearly becoming not only more disruptive, but easier to carry out in an integrating and advancing world. Gradually we are learning that although it is rarely (if ever) considered newsworthy today, conflicts are avoided quite frequently. The UN is one example of an organization with a proven record at conflict avoidance, yet it is derided by some irrationally, simply because terrible conflicts still occur. There are prosperous nations that have just said "no" to conflict, but leadership and popular culture in more belligerent countries are uncomfortable taking them seriously: Bullies hate the nerds, but the nerds inherit the earth. hype: "It's not a losing battle." Wes: "I wish I could buy that, but your testimony has only bolstered the original claims. I'll leave you with: It's not necessarily a losing battle, if you can see that the battle that is currently being fought - is. It's not a losing battle.
Hype, I don't really think you addressed anything. I think you avoided pretty much everything I said in order to promote your baseless, idealistic perspective. I can appreciate that you are passionate about it, as I can relate. However, I don't think ignoring the problem or pretending that we can all just "understand" is even remotely realistic. As a matter of fact, it's just idealistic rhetoric. Problem are never really solved until you understand the rules of the system that creates them. What I am merely presenting is what I perceive to be the rules of the system. What you are doing is attempting some kind of motivational speech that isn't really connected to the problems at hand. You THINK it is because you deny the problems in the first place. Now if you really don't think it's a problem, I'll argue about that, but you're not doing that. You're jumping straight to an unrelated (and fantastical) solution which seems to me to be wholly simplistic and in denial of the problems that really plague humanity. If your point is to convince yourself that your opinion is reasonable, maybe you're doing fine - but you have yet to really address anything I've said. It seems you're on a soapbox. I hope you enjoy the view.
Wes, please explain what I did not address, the problems which I denied exist, and the rules of the system which I do not understand. As a quick review, the premise of your thread is that "bad" character, or dishonesty, is intrinsic in politics and politicians; That the basest attributes of humanity always rise to the point of shaping events; That self-interest precludes dramatic improvement in the larger human condition. My response was that principle and character can move a society forward, and that now and through history we are moving positively, toward coexistence and away from conflict; That the collective best interest is gaining ground; That understanding is preferable to destruction; That it's not a losing battle. I will be glad to discuss my differing point of view regarding specific problems, rules, and systems, if you would be so kind as to reiterate what you mean in those regards.
And how exactly fits this development in human timeline ? How exactly is there positive movement , and since when did you start measuring it ? I don't think that I can agree and hope that you can be more specific on what has been positively developped in compare to what used to be , and how those developments have value . At the very least I disagree with the fact that we are moving away from conflict , we just what I believe was the most violent century ever and as we moved in the first 3 years 2 Amerikan wars have been gained and much , much more in all parts of the world , while the rest remained as violent as it was . If we would speak of linear progress it would be toward conflict rather than away from it .
4th one Obviously a logical fallacy here , there are multiple factors relevant to politicians , not merely character and especially not such subjective collection of virtues as you later on imply with it . (Character : Honesty at all costs. A earnest person who takes responsibility for their actions and puts a subjectively reasonable effort into a permanent cycle of personal improvement in some way.) You perfectly show how democracy is the dictatorship of idiots , as they have no understanding of that what ought to be of political value (charachter or otherwise) . I do not see this consequence based on your later given defintion of character . None of the virtues assigned have necesarry decisive impact on popularity contest . I am not denying your observation as sociologically incorrect , but as it being a permanent advantage in a popularity contest I do not see it . Perhaps you meant it more loosely and than I interperted . Honesty and dishonesty may seem opposites in theory , but they both share their use as a tool for rhetorical motivation . I agree that eventually there is a point where the given authority begets a status that cause resettlement of the power , and in this way indeed it is way of things . But when you assign non-character as positive difference in popularity untill it reached this certain point , and if you define character as you do , then im affraid it is not the way of things but the way of the society your experiencing around you , which I see as much resembling in this instance as the society surrounding myself . It depends , who will be losing ? The peoples will get improvement as to them something bad leaves something good comes along , if this proces would accur within a culture that promotes improvement on various relevant levels , the circle of appreciation can actually move upward , it has happened before you know . The only thing that will always be losing is currency in the system itself , it will change , it cannot stay in one way permanent because the society/culture/intellect/character changes and demands improvement (as perceived) . Why is this losing ? I say it's winning , at least it could be winning . I think that since we depend on our humanity as structure , and since it is exactly our consciousness and intellect is decisive in defining us as human , I believe that next to agreement by rhetorics with varying intellect , there can be agreement based on a strict and objective equalization of intelligence through a comprehensive system that has logics at its centre . Could we not agree on mathematics ? Then let's make mathematics our language and discuss reality . Are we not intelligent enough to create a formula in which can be tested weither the input of mechanism has the best output based on the fundamental principles regarding the collective needs agreed upon ? See this another issue that is related to the mal-use of honesty as a relevant matter , he told his truth , can you show me what exactly Hitler propagated that he did not believe in ? How was he being dishonest ? Seems like you were right , agreement at very least is not easily made . What does this suppose to represent ? The 4 states/ways of mind and heart ? stake every political career on a few basic principles to dramatically improve almost every situation. Perhaps I did not understand hypewaders suggestion ? Excuse my ignorance but I have no knowledge whatsoever on this term . Not all POV have equal authority nor do they represent equality in their value by ammount of representation . I agree it will be a bitchy analysis but intelligence as I described earlier surely can find something superior to everything existing today . It would be much bigger of a problem to actually impose it , or to create acceptation . As for your sadist-masochist that was a bad example , clearly the collective best interest is as defined by both as it is the same : sadist beating the masochist . The third party can surely agree with both of them enjoying their being . As for semantical breakdown , mathematics is the solution , language (one more than others......) is a semantical whore and needs to be rid anyways . But isnt the trick to make their involvement in what they are compelled to be involved to function in favor of your ideal ? The solution is to create a context in which they believe to be involved in that what they believe they wish to be involved in , with their ignorance and easyness there is plenty possibility to create an oiled machine that functions perfectly , I think the USA is a perfect example for that through several premisses of involvement that are unquestioned to be true .
