Reforming Democracy

Gib, one must explain every and any little thing to you, my little son.

Okay.

• The reasonably fair distribution of children. The invisible accent are the adverb „reasonably" and the adjective “fair”. Currently the distribution of children is absolutely unfair, and if it is right (and it is right - because fertility, intelligence / competence, and wealth are correlated) that everyone wants to copy himself / herself, then it is fair that both the less-productive people and the more-productive people can do it. Currently the less-productive people merely produce children and nothing else, and for that they get money from the state, thus the taxpayers who have few or no children (so in the end there are merely less-productive people). Do you think that that is fair? If yes, then we can end our conversation. Do you think it will be alright if we will have merely less-productive people, so that the whole human population will be less-productive which actually means unproductive? If you say “yes”, then you have to say “yes” too when it comes to this question: Will machines completely replace all human beings?.

• The reasonably fair distribution of children increases the wealth of the less-productive people - right, Gib - but of the more-productive people too. Both condition each other. If the less-productive people are poor and have more children than the more-productive people and have to be supported by the more-productive people (and that all is the case), then the trend is that the more-productive also become poor and less-productive. One has always to consider the time too, for example to differ in “short time”, “middle time”, and “long time”. What I am reffering to is mainly the middle and especially the long time because this “global society” lives and thinks merely for a very short time, at the cost of our children, as I already said (here).

• The reasonably fair distribution of children leads to more peace because that distribution is reasonably fair. The invisible accent are the adverb „reasonably" and the adjective “fair”, Gib. The huge majority of people who are wealthy don’t want war, they just want wealth. Human beings are luxury beings, and if the luxury of the present time is reached, then they are - by the majority - satisfied (I am not speaking of the rulers, the upper class, which is a special case because of its power which has been increasing exponentilally, horribly). Normal people are mostly satisfied when they have reached the luxury which they think has to be reached at a time. They are peaceful. War is an issue of the upper class, not of the middle class, and of the lower class because of their poorness, envy, unhappiness, resentment.

• The reasonably fair distribution of children leads to more competence because the reasonably fair distribution of children leads to more intelligence, Gib (for you I have edited it in my last post, see: 2.2.2.). It is proven that fertility, intelligence / competence, and wealth correlate with each other.

Aa) If you have no children and want to be a more-productive, then the probability is high that you have much time for being a more-productive.
Ba) If you have many children and want to be a more-productive, then the probability is high that you have less time for being a more-productive.
Ab) If you have no children and do not want to be a more-productive, then the probability is high that you are not a more-productive.
Bb) If you have many children and do not want to be a more-productive, then the probability is high that you have less time for being a more-productive and that you are not a more-productive because you do not want to be a more-productive.

No - because they also add up.

Egoism is on both sides, Gib. You can’t eliminate egoism but merely extreme egoism, thus egomania.

The history of the Western societies shows how the trend will be for the other societies in the future, but there is one problem: it will not be the same but merely a similar devolopment because the other societies belong to other cultures, and if they know the history of the Western culture, then they also know what to do in order to become modern but not Western. They don’t want to live the Western way of life, they have a different tradtition. More and more of them resist the Western way of life.

You can have many children and be a very egomanian pigheaded fellow. You can have no children and be a very egomanian pigheaded fellow. It depends on which culture you belong to, which mindset / mentality and feelings / affects you have.

The scapegoat is not always the typical Western middle class “bourgeois”, Gib.

Yes and no - because in that case the more-productive people have to pay less taxes, less charges, less surcharges etc… It is logical. So both the more-productive people and the less-productive people will become more wealthy, if those of the less-productive who have become part of the more-productiveare more that those of the more-productive people who have become part of the less-productive people. And that is the casethe case. So a solution of the demographical problem is necessary.

It seems the falling apart process has already begun, though. If it falls apart in the next century it will be because of mistakes already made by the oldsters, and not the fault of the millenials, animals though they may be.

Anyway, isn’t everybody an animal at that age?

Those so-called “Millenials” will make even more mistakes beacuse made mistakes lead to more mistakes, especially then, if a society is a modern society which means: velociferic, accelerated in any case, expanded in any case, greedy in any case, too fat, too ugly ,… and so on, … and so on …, Uglypeoplefucking.

An animal …

God help you if you write a book… leaving all loose ends to be tied together by the read.

Oh, you’re imagining a welfare system. That’s the missing element… but I was supposed to know that anyway.

You don’t need a one child/adult rule for that. Just eliminate welfare.

Well, if we’re talking about depending on welfare as a part of planned parenthood, then no it isn’t fair.

Well, now that I know you’re talking about eliminating the welfare state, it makes sense.

Sure, we’ll go with that.

It’s been proven, eh? What’s the explanation? That parents/teachers can afford to spend more one-on-one time with children?

The logic is dazzling.

Um… ok.

Never said it was.

Well, that’s clear now that you mentioned getting rid of the welfare state.

If the current system we have seems to be the best to you, why are you asking to change it?

What do you think I have been talking about … well, perhaps “think” wasn’t the right word.

Gib, the welfare state is not a new penomenon. If I showed you the welfare state of the 19th century (for example the German state during the time when Bismarck was Reichskanzler), you would have asked: that was a welfares state? Yes, it was, and Bismarck’s welfare state was the first and the best one. What I want to say is that we have to consider that this welfare state has changed and unfortunately become a huge monster. But my main point is not the welfare state allone but also and first of all the justice of generations (remember: demography is my theme here). The problem is that this modern “society” lives and thinks merely for a very short time, at the cost of the offspring, as I already said (here and here). This includes not only the debts but also the demographic disaster and the pollution of the whole planet Earth. So the pictures again:

The welfare state must not be eliminated but reduced. If we wanted to find back to a pure or nearly pure society of humans (and not to rush in a “society” of machines and half-machines and human slaves or even no humans), then the welfare state as a monster would not be needed anymore. But the most people want the contradiction, the oxymoron, because with the machines and more and more machines the welfare state will be needed more than ever before but eliminated. That’s a “good” outlook for our offspring, isn’t it, Gib?

Well, yeah. i was just getting at the fact that it’s not as if everything was going great until now, and the current generation (millenials or whatever you want to call them) are going to be the ones who fuck it all up. The point would be it’s already a shitshow - and the old are as much to blame as the young.

Not sure what’s funny, but i’m glad i can amuse.

The greatest single mistake that brought so much of this into the modern world was made in 1913. From that time to this, each generation only gets worse (and not by accident). What brought about the 1913 incident was spawned during the “enlightenment era” by specific theorists who decided to infect the world with their cure, of course without having the slightest clue as to how to verify it first.

But if you want to trace it back even further, it goes back around 10-12,000 years when man discovered how to use a “super-language”, a means to communicate that is above natural language so as to form an early version of the Ubermensch of that time (depicted as the “monolith” in the film 2001) and eventually led to what has been named “the original sin of Adam and Eve” (being inherited by each generation) about 6000 years ago. The “gods” (social engineers) had screwed things up almost as badly as they are now but eventually, some 4-6000 years later designed and formed “Ahdam”, a presumed solution and dam for the bullshit they had created. But we see how their “solutions” work out.

No offense to the “gods” of our day, but seriously, you guys need some very serious supervision.

Yes. That is why it is always becoming increasingly difficult for each generation to come out of that trap. That is no accident.

Because it’s not good enough.

James, I’m all open to suggestions, but you gotta help me understand how your vision works. You can think of me as stupid, or in need of a lot of hand holding if you like, but help me out here. So far, you seem to have suggested that we replace all our current laws with “personal” laws, if I may call it that (but of which I still don’t agree is a law), and I say all you’ll get out of that is warlords taking over the community through fear tactics. The ball’s now in your court–explain to me why I’m wrong.

Baseless assertions as far as I can tell.

Of course not. I never said it was. I just thought you were saying that your one child/adult rule alone would redistribute the wealth.

What is the “justice of generations”? Is that just your one child/adult rule?

The justice of generations means that any generation should not live under worse conditions than its former generation.

Again: Currently there is a crazy expropriation of all by all, of everyone by everyone, of anyone by anyone, and especially of the future generations by the current generations.

Debts and a polluted planet mean an extreme egoism, an egomania, a life at the cost of our offspring.

We live at the cost of our children, our grandchildren, …, in short: our offspring.

If a society lives at the cost of its future, then this society is in a suicidal mood. A suicide of a society means that there is no offspring anymore. And our society says: „We are a global society“. That’s lunatic.

So the justice of generations is very important.

At least a little bit beacuse I have had the following association:

1. “hippie generation” (“make love not war”, “peace”): “pygmy chimpanzees” (“bonobos”);
2. “post hippie generations”:
   2.1) “post hippie generation 1”: “chimpanzees”;
   2.2) “post hippie generation 2”: “orang-utans”;
   2.3) “post hippie generation 3”: “gorillas”.
   That’s why I laughed.

Do the humans really regress? If so, then it’s not funny.

Ah, then I agree wholeheartedly.

After twenty six pages, are we any close here in finding democracy?

I want somebody here to make me a believer.

Alas, we can’t give you what you want, LM, but I’m getting a hell of a good education from this thread.

Thanks.

Why can’t you?

Well, first of all, spell out in specific detail what it is you want. I’m not quite clear on that, but I know I can’t give it to you.

I think that we can safely surmise that the only way to eventually get a democracy is to coerce people into it, then turn them loose.

Until people learn how to govern themselves, there can be no actual democracy. Until that time, people think that the purpose of laws is to coerce other people into obedience. And as long as people are being coerced there can be no democracy and very limited learning concerning how to govern oneself void of coercion. The mentality remains “What am I supposed to do”, that of a child, rather than “what needs doing”, that of a mature adult. The result of that mentality is that people empower rulers who can’t help but take advantage and ensure that they remain rulers empowered with coercion. So it will be a very long time before there is ever a true democracy. A republic is the closest thing you could get to a democracy and even that loses authority to an empire.

Then either it isn’t the best or you are never satisfied.

Well, I wasn’t, but I have to admit…

Case in point^^
A) stop CHANGING laws until you know what laws you would make for merely yourself regardless of your situation.

B) every law you make to coerce others is another law for you to be confined by (which is why the USA is no longer a free country). Realize that in reality it is always other people making the laws upon you regardless of your situation.

C) the purpose of a government is NOT to coerce those other people into obedience (and thus usurp domination), but rather merely to arbitrate otherwise individually difficult situations to discern (such as who goes first at a 4 way stop intersection).

D) for those who actually can think very deeply; find the law(s) that you would always be willing to obey because it is always to your benefit to do so. Show others who couldn’t have figured out what that was so that if they can at least understand that law, they too will obey it for the same reason (aka. “no coercion” necessary). The more people obeying that law, the more people there are benefiting without needing so many other laws of coercion. Eventually build the laws of the land around that one law and the land becomes un-coerced, democratic, and truly free.

E) think “Golden Rule” but add abstract and then specific details when making laws that are going to coerce you into the will of other people.

Note that (D) & (E) are only for deeply thinking people. It is much like Bigus’ issue with me. I can tell him how to solve his problem, but he doesn’t really want it solved enough so as to make the slightest attempt to understand what I am saying. So he can’t even determine whether what I say is right or wrong. His argument is that such solutions are “up there” and thus don’t count. Similarly, how one governs himself is one of those “up there” thoughts and thus most people can’t even imagine it when they try and very seldom try. So they have to be shown. Demonstrations are required because explanations are a bit useless.

So people continue to make laws disregarding their own final objective. And those laws then prevent them from being shown or ever seeing what they need to see in order to get to the point where they actually can and will govern themselves, “democracy”. That is why it will be a very long time before there is actually any democracy. The monkeys making the laws blind themselves to their own freedom. Although one should note that AI machines can handle it for themselves quite nicely, without human interference (which will be handled as well).

If this is true, we’re going to have to wait for a genetic leap.

It’s the best we currently have. You want to propose something better, so let’s hear it.

This is reminiscent of Kant’s categorical imperative. Is that what you’re getting at?

Makes sense, but it has to be said that most of the laws we live with are laws that we willingly go along with and agree on anyway, which makes the description of “coercion” questionable. But I see what you’re saying in principle.

This is the troublesome spot–I’m assuming that when you say there is no coercion, it means there is no law enforcement. And if it is not the government’s job to coerce others into conforming to the law (their own law?), then there’s nothing stopping a brute from taking advantage of the coercion-free environment and stealing, raping, and murdering. The government stepping in to arbiter with “now, now, that’s not fair,” isn’t going deter him.

I don’t think there can be a single law like that–if for no other reason than that everyone’s different–everyone has different life circumstances, lives in different environments, has different genetic propensities, works in different occupations, has different social ties… so what works for one person won’t always work for everyone. This doesn’t make working in harmony with one another impossible per se, but it is the basis on which conflicts of interest arise, and if reason and civility cannot reconcile people’s differences, there can sometimes be a tendency to resort to war, sometimes in a panic.

But I can see how laws get reinstitutionalized–that’s one part I was missing.

This one, I need a bit of clarification on. Why would we make laws that are going to coerce me into the will of others when the whole point is to do away with coercion?

This might address my issue with point D)–the differences between people. If people are intelligent and deep thinking enough, mature, patient, and even tempered, then they might be able to resolve their differences through reason and diplomacy, and arrive at a mutually beneficial arrangement. This is never guaranteed of course, but the more intelligent and cooperative of the human race should be able to pull it off in most cases.

Sounds like Eric’s quote in my sig.

And this seems to be the fatal flaw in your vision. If it wasn’t for humanities shortsightedness, a model like yours might actually have a chance of working.