## Reforming Democracy

For discussions of culture, politics, economics, sociology, law, business and any other topic that falls under the social science remit.

### Re: Reforming Democracy

Eric_The_Pipe wrote:
lizbethrose wrote:
Eric_The_Pipe wrote:Liz, I enjoyed this. It, in many ways, illustrates many of the things I've talked about, particularly the #1/last point.

I enjoyed it as well, Eric, although it really didn't add much to my knowledge base. Sorry. I'm not sure where I learned some of the things I know; perhaps from my study of General Semantics, or maybe it's because I'm an English/Theatre type and have a terrific imagination. (BYW, I thought my idea of color-coded food stamps was pretty innovative even if it was human engineering.)
I can accept all of that, even that the color-coded thing was clever, my problem is that it is human engineering. Which would be done by people, who suck.

lizbethrose wrote:And I'll be sorry when the thread peters out ultimately, as it appears to be doing. I don't think any of us has arrived at a solution--whether it's reforming democracy or demography. History has shown, imm, that theories may be fine--like Sowell's free-market theory--but they don't always work as they're supposed to. A large part of that is the nature of the human animal.
Not really Sowell's, it's been around for a long freaking time.

Adam Smith wrote a book about it a long time ago, "The Wealth of Nations." (1776)

lizbethrose wrote:A free market economy would be great if it weren't for people; the same is true for limiting government's regulatory function--most people just don't let morality get in the way of expediency. Added to that is the drive for 'wealth', not as knowledge, but as evidenced by buying 'power.' Ask people what one thing would make them happiest--9 out of 10 will probably say, "I wish I had the money to . . ."
But, in one, the people that suck only have the power to screw up their own lives. In the government run one, the people who suck are often in charge of everyone else.

lizbethrose wrote:Corporations are no different. New drugs are developed all the time, for example, but prices for drugs don't go down--not even for drugs that have been on the market for decades.
Prove it.

lizbethrose wrote:Generic drugs were supposed to be the answer, but the generic drug manufacturers went through a sort of ecological food chain eating frenzy. Little companies were eaten by bigger companies, which were then eaten by even larger companies--all the way up the chain until corporations absorbed them. Then the big guys fixed prices so as to be 'competitive'--with each other.
FIxed pricing has never been proved to happen in a significant way in a free market. It only happens when the government steps in and allows them to do so.

lizbethrose wrote:I could go on, but I won't bother. I'd only be repeating myself.
I know the feeling.

lizbethrose wrote:It's been. . .
Has it?

lizbethrose wrote:
Enjoy,
NEVER!

lizbethrose wrote:Liz

Me.

You're a victim, if you want to call it that, of human engineering in every aspect of your life, Eric, you know that! It's called advertising. Even if it weren't for advertising, you're still manipulated. You can't buy anything if it isn't for sale and sales are manipulated, not just through ads, but through manufacturers, as well. Even the food on your table or in your fridge is what you're forced to buy, because that's all there is. You may have a lot of choices within those areas, but your choices have been made for you.

And, yes, a 'free market' has been around for ages--from before Adam Smith and the Industrial Age, even. (And I've read The Wealth of Nations.) It's been tried in various forms many times, and it's failed. We've all learned about the Great Depression in the US, but what about the Long Depression from 1873-1878? The problem, if there is one, isn't that there are regulations, but there may be too many regulations. It's like laws. We're quick to make laws which often solve an immediate problem. The laws, however, remain for decades after ward. (I was serious when I said it was against the law in FLA to keep a crocodile in your bathtub.) The multiplicity of regulations and laws can certainly stifle real invention, but that's not the only reason.

I wish I could find what I read about the generic pharmas; that they are consolidating, however, is no secret. As Ucci would day, it takes less than 30 seconds to google everything you'd want to know about it. And they do set prices, although the FDA is cracking down on the practice, now. Price setting is being stopped because the government is stepping in.

As for proving that the price of drugs hasn't gone down even years after it was put on the market, I have my empirical knowledge only. Birth control pills have been on the market for almost 40 yrs. and the price is now much more than many women, even with insurance and generics, can afford. Newer drugs demand extremely high prices; it can cost $87,000 to be treated for HepC, that's the wholesale price and only if a single drug, Sovaldi, is used. It's most often used in conjunction with other drugs. Cancer? It's been around for millennia. The cost of chemotherapy has risen sharply. So has radiation therapy. Some cancer patients and their insurers are seeing their bills for chemotherapy jump sharply, reflecting increased drug prices and hospitals’ push to buy oncologists’ practices and then bill at higher rates. Patients say, “‘I’ve been treated with Herceptin for breast cancer for several years and it was always$5,000 for the drug and suddenly it’s $16,000 -- and I was in the same room with the same doctor same nurse and the same length of time’,” said Dr. Donald Fischer, chief medical officer for Highmark, the largest health plan in Pennsylvania. The manufacturer of Herceptin charges approximately$5,100 per month for the drug. But like other insurers, Highmark found that when hospital systems bought doctors’ practices, chemotherapy costs rose because physicians’ offices were then deemed “hospital outpatient centers” and could charge more for overhead.
--[url]kaiserhealthnews.org[/url] That item is about breast cancer. My sister died of lung cancer, and the costs have gone up there, as well.

For a 72-year old diagnosed with lung cancer in 2000, monthly costs in the first 6 months of care ranged from $2,687 (no active treatment) to$9,360 (chemo-radiotherapy), and varied by stage at diagnosis and histologic type. Patient-liability costs represented up to 21.6% of care costs and increased over the period 1992–2003 for most stage and treatment categories, even when care costs decreased or remained unchanged. The greatest monthly patient liability was incurred by chemo-radiotherapy patients ranging across stages from $1,617 to$2,004 per month.
--http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3150743/

Perhaps those two examples are really examples of human engineering at its finest. Of course, the second comes from a government publication. You'll deny it for that reason.

Yes, Eric, it's been. . .Illuminating, informative, ultimately futile? But it's been, or I've only dreamt it all.

Liz
"Be what you would seem to be - or, if you'd like it put more simply - never imagine yourself not to be otherwise than what it might appear to others that what you were or might have been was not otherwise than what you had been would have appeared to them to be otherwise."
— Lewis Carroll
lizbethrose
Philosopher

Posts: 3556
Joined: Wed Mar 23, 2011 6:55 am
Location: Pacific Northwest

### Re: Reforming Demography

Eric_The_Pipe wrote:I disagree.

You can disagree as much as you want: You have no argument. Demography and economy have much to do with each other, but it is the demography that has the 51%. Or to modify your sig to a metaphor: "In a pure denography, 51 percent of the people get to pee in the economy of 49 percent of the people."

You all want to prefer to live in luxury and therefore not to make the smallest sacrifice.
You all are partly to blame for the disaster that awaits us.
You all say: "After me, the flood."
You all do not want to see anything because you are too luxury horny.

That's a shame.
Last edited by Arminius on Fri Aug 15, 2014 7:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Arminius
ILP Legend

Posts: 5732
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

### Re: Reforming Demography

Arminius wrote: If someone wants to have more or less than one child, he or her would have to pay for it.

See, this is why conservatism exists. Because there are people out there who can, apparently with a straight face, propose a global authority with the power to monitor and regulate the reproductive activities of everybody on the planet; and they see this the 'solution' to the 'problem' of people having as many or as few children as they want to have.
I think there are a lot of moderate liberals out there that see stuff like the above as looney, but don't realize that "Hey I know, how about we let the State own all the means of production!" or "Hey, I know, how about we only allow State law enforcement to have access to firearms!" or other such things are exactly as looney for basically the same reasons.

http://deepfreeze.it/ Curious about corrupt practices in video game journalism? Look no further.

Uccisore
The Legitimatizer

Posts: 13279
Joined: Thu Dec 12, 2002 8:14 pm
Location: Deep in the forests of Maine

### Re: Reforming Demography

Who pays for it, that many people have too many and some people too few children? Who makes sure that it is paid for?

My solution means (amongst others) that less would be paid.

Who has an interest in defending the current circumstances, thus problems?

We could really avoid these problems, if there were no interest in defending them!

Arminius
ILP Legend

Posts: 5732
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

### Re: Reforming Demography

Uccisore wrote:
Arminius wrote: If someone wants to have more or less than one child, he or her would have to pay for it.

See, this is why conservatism exists. Because there are people out there who can, apparently with a straight face, propose a global authority with the power to monitor and regulate the reproductive activities of everybody on the planet; and they see this the 'solution' to the 'problem' of people having as many or as few children as they want to have.
I think there are a lot of moderate liberals out there that see stuff like the above as looney, but don't realize that "Hey I know, how about we let the State own all the means of production!" or "Hey, I know, how about we only allow State law enforcement to have access to firearms!" or other such things are exactly as looney for basically the same reasons.
I am often confused by the lines of logic. At least with gib, the argument was, you allow for basic levels of socialism, why don't you want more. But I always have trouble with people that claim, "The cops are horrible people!" when it is followed with, lets put them in charge of enforcing, "No Smoking" or "You can only make so much money, then the rest is taken." Who do they think is going to be called when someone decides not to play along. Always passing more laws, assuming that people have to follow them, because they are the law.
“Give a man a fish and he will ask for tartar sauce and French fries! Moreover, some politician who wants his vote will declare all these things to be among his ‘basic rights’” – An old saying rewritten by a follower of Thomas Sowell

"It's true that the bastards would win. But we shouldn't shut down a system just because the bastards win. A good system should be like a hamster wheel for bastards hooked up an electric generator. A well designed system is not one that prevents bastards from winning, but one that generates a lot of positive externalities from bastards trying to beat each other. And that's exactly what markets do. Markets entice bastards, they reward bastards, and the bastards love them, but as they operate they generate a lot of good that inadvertently benefits everyone else." - Carleas

The Newest EconPop: Economics of Demolition Man

The man, Thomas Sowell: Wealth, Poverty and Politics

Sowell's Writing

Eric_The_Pipe
Thinker

Posts: 736
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 12:06 pm

### Re: Reforming Demography

Eric_The_Pipe wrote:At least with gib, the argument was, you allow for basic levels of socialism, why don't you want more.

Actually, it was more like: You *seem* to be allowing for some basic level of socialism; is this because you think it's necessary, acceptable, tolerable, or do you want to get rid of even that (this is why I said I was trying to get a better understanding of your position with my questions)?
My thoughts | My art | My music | My poetry

In fact, the idea that there's more differences between groups than there is between individuals is actually the fundamental racist idea.
- Jordan Peterson

Here's a good rule of thumb for politics--attribute everything to stupidity unless you can prove malice.
- Ben Shapiro

right outta high school i tried to get a job as a proctologist but i couldn't find an opening.
- promethean75

Ahh... gib, zombie universes are so last year! I’m doing hyper dimensional mirror realities now.
- Ecmandu

gib
resident exorcist

Posts: 9024
Joined: Sat May 27, 2006 10:25 pm
Location: in your mom

### Re: Reforming Demography

My solution means that less would be paid
// And less state would be made.

That rhymes and makes very much sense.

Arminius
ILP Legend

Posts: 5732
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

### Re: Reforming Democracy

Well, that was a good break--now I want to recap on where we are:

The focus of this thread, despite its title, is the problem of political corruption and how to solve it. I called this thread "reforming democracy" because I implicitly, and without realizing it, made an assumption--that the problem was that the democratic process (by which I mean the manner in which we vote for our presidents or prime ministers, not in that the country is run by 51% of the people) was being undermined. I assumed that the democratic process was adopted as a means of curbing political corruption by way of limiting power, but that as history rolled on, politicians, big companies, lobbyists, and other powerful individuals/groups found clever ways of circumventing the democratic process and thereby gaining levels of power well beyond the limits that democracy was supposed to impose. Therefore, the time is ripe, I thought, to reform the democratic process.

But Liz and Eric, and eventually Ucci, have drawn my attention to the fact that there are other spheres of public life in which to look for the source of the problem--in particular, the economy (and if Arminius is serious about contributing to this thread, we may look at culture too). The main goal remains the same however--how to deal with the problem of political corruption--but we've since moved away from looking at the democratic process.

Later, the thread took another turn: I very quickly discovered the age-old conflict between conservatives and liberals. This was all new to me but tediously familiar to most Americans. This turn was a decisive one, and I'm inclined to say it represents the point at which I discovered the problem of political corruption at least in America (and eventually the solution). What the debate between conservatives and liberals taught me was that we must not merely think of the problem of political corruption as that between a government and its people, but also between factions in the people themselves, each political party being only the tip of an iceberg--90% of the corruption, in other words, is beneath the surface, between the factions of the people themselves, factions which form, out of themselves, and use political parties to represent them and fight against the opposing faction on their behalf.

I posed a question to Ucci earlier in this thread: given this consideration--that a huge bulk of the corruption that occurs in politics stems from warring factions within the people themselves--would it be fair to say that most of the corruption that occurs at the level of politics is carried out by one party against the other, or can one party carry out acts of corruption against the very people they are supposed to serve and represent (I don't think I would get very far asking whether one party carries out acts of corruption against the opposing faction as I'm sure that faction would unhesitatingly say yes, they carry out acts of corruption against us all the time, while the other faction would say no, the acts they carry out are acts of justice). So for example, Obama, in order to win the most votes he can during the weeks before he was elected, might decide to betray the very people whom his party is suppose to represent and server--he decides to make a promise to conservatives and Republican supporters: if you vote for me, I promise to make a concerted effort to ignore or even fight against anti-gun lobbyists (he'd somehow have to peddle this in such a way as to not lose votes on the liberal/democrat side, but you can see what I mean by political corruption against one's own constituents).

Corruption against one's own constituents is something we ought to address if we're still concerned with the government, as a unified block, oppressing or exploiting or abusing the people, as a unified block, (which we should be) but from where I stand now, I see the conflict between the factions that each party represents and serves as far closer to the root of the problem. As I said in an earlier post, if the people can resolve their issues, the problem of political corruption (in terms of the government abusing their power over the people) would be a cinch to solve.

Now, as much as I think we've hit the root of the problem, I think we've also come up with the best solution so far: the conservative ideal of minimizing government; after all, the less government, the less political corruption--and this is especially true if we limit government to those spheres in which they function well (if it functions well at all). Eric and Ucci assure us that the studies to prove this exist--studies showing that the economy thrives best the more free the market--that is, the less the government intervenes. And to those liberals whose main concern is not so much that an economy thrive at her best, but that the worst off in society have at least their basic needs taken care of, conservatives like Eric and Ucci assure us that the best way to approach the worst off and their basic needs is to just allow the free market to thrive--in that way, everyone--even the poor--get richer--and if there are still those who are too poor to afford the basics (food, shelter, health care), then they can rely on charity, for in a truly free market that thrives, there will be enough money to go around that even charities will have enough to feed the poor, to shelter them and to provide adequate health care. It's a glorious utopian vision. Ucci and Eric assure us that studies exist out there to prove that this is not only possible but will happen.

Of course, before we blindly take their word for it, we must get passed the problem of the contaminated information pool--it's not enough to click on their links; we must put in the extra effort of doing our own personal peer reviews of the articles and reports they link us to. And there is a bit of a science behind this--not a perfect one, but it does seem reasonable--for example, Ucci suggests we look out for a pattern: one study comes out suggesting one set of results followed by apologists from the other side trying to explain the data away rather than deny the results, chances are it means those apologists couldn't quite find any flaws in the results or the methods by which they were attained. Eric also suggested some approaches: make sure you can get a clear description of the methods they used to acquire the results (I'm finding that Thomas Sowell is an excellent source of examples of how such investigations into the methodologies of many studies often reveal just how sloppy and flawed those methodologies turn out to be). He also suggested looking at the sample of participants used: internet surveys for example will attract a much different crowd than studies recruiting (and paying) live volunteers.

Now I haven't done this yet--I'm lazy and I can't find the time (but this is a project which I'm considering to have no deadline so I have the rest of my life and I do hope to get some more solid answers before I die)--and so at this point everything that I've gathered from everyone here has only achieved what I call "heterophenomenological" status. Heterophenomenology is a term coined by Daniel Dennette which denotes a scientific approach to studying the mental states of others. The idea is that while it hinges on the reports of others, it takes a completely neutral stance towards the truth or falsehood of those reports; the point is not to get accurate, objective facts about the state of reality based on the reports of the subject but to get a picture, a phenomenology, of the subject's state of consciousness--that is, the world as the subject sees it (in fact, I'm inclined to say the heterophenomenological approach doesn't even depend on the subject telling the truth about his/her own mental states, but on whether a coherent picture of a phenomenological world based on the subject's reports can be painted at all). This is the status that everyone and their contributions to this thread have achieved in my mind. I'm not sure if this comes across as disappointing or offensive (I get the impression many here are overly eager to have me swallow every word they post and believe it wholeheartedly). I apologize if this is so, but I'm not going to change my attitude towards this. But I do want to emphasize that this is not a resting place for me--I do intend, slowly, gradually, to look deeper into the studies to support the claims Ucci and Eric have been making, and if they know they're right, they should have nothing to worry about (though they might have to exercise a bit of patience with me). The up shot is that, as far as the heterophenomenological approach goes, Eric's vision is really very impressive and inspiring--it takes the cake as far as coherency and plausibility go, which goes a long way to instilling hope that we can have a better, happier, more prosperous society with minimal political corruption.
My thoughts | My art | My music | My poetry

In fact, the idea that there's more differences between groups than there is between individuals is actually the fundamental racist idea.
- Jordan Peterson

Here's a good rule of thumb for politics--attribute everything to stupidity unless you can prove malice.
- Ben Shapiro

right outta high school i tried to get a job as a proctologist but i couldn't find an opening.
- promethean75

Ahh... gib, zombie universes are so last year! I’m doing hyper dimensional mirror realities now.
- Ecmandu

gib
resident exorcist

Posts: 9024
Joined: Sat May 27, 2006 10:25 pm
Location: in your mom

### Re: Reforming Demography

Eric_The_Pipe wrote:I am often confused by the lines of logic. At least with gib, the argument was, you allow for basic levels of socialism, why don't you want more. But I always have trouble with people that claim, "The cops are horrible people!" when it is followed with, lets put them in charge of enforcing, "No Smoking" or "You can only make so much money, then the rest is taken." Who do they think is going to be called when someone decides not to play along. Always passing more laws, assuming that people have to follow them, because they are the law.

Liberals don't like cops based on their personal interactions with them. I think when most people are trying to push for some new regulation, they are simultaneously imagining why it shouldn't/won't apply to them. A cop telling them they aren't allowed to do something they want to do is an insult to our dignity- that sort of control is only needed for the unwashed mashes , of which we never consider themselves a part.

http://deepfreeze.it/ Curious about corrupt practices in video game journalism? Look no further.

Uccisore
The Legitimatizer

Posts: 13279
Joined: Thu Dec 12, 2002 8:14 pm
Location: Deep in the forests of Maine

### Re: Reforming Demography

Arminius wrote:My solution means that less would be paid
// And less state would be made.

That rhymes and makes very much sense.

The solution of more restrictions because of the overreach/spending of the government is fixing the problem with a greater problem. Letting go of the problems China is having with their population control (I don't know that the US has the same sec bias, though I could be wrong about that.). There is still a problem of enforcement, it will cost to perform any surgeries. If we are only working on a social security number basis, it is remarkably easy just to not report them on your tax return. If the parent gets pregnant, but does not want to pay for the child, just put the child in a foster home, the price gets put on the government again. If a person can't afford to pay, does killing the child become a bigger option. Especially if they still have to pay even if the child is being taken care by some one else. And I can go on, I am stopping because ideally you get the point.

This would just create one more way for politicians to take advantage in one way or another. I can only increase costs, as it is one more regulation, which included monitoring the regulation, people fighting against it, etc... And the entire time no proof has been provided that it does anything more than mark on more ring of the death toll of the culture that buy's into it. The other cultures that don't, have more kids, and at the very least, take over via human power... Which knowledge, that I am talking about, is based on. The more people the more knowledge, because more experience - This is where wealth comes from.

China keeps up with the us on some levels, almost entirely because of their huge labor abilities... They would be better off if they removed their communist politics, and let their nation, their people, be free....

This idea also puts a limit on the amount of knowledge. We don't what the future holds. These solutions are often promoted by people that assume they understand, they do not. They are a limited human being, like everyone else.
“Give a man a fish and he will ask for tartar sauce and French fries! Moreover, some politician who wants his vote will declare all these things to be among his ‘basic rights’” – An old saying rewritten by a follower of Thomas Sowell

"It's true that the bastards would win. But we shouldn't shut down a system just because the bastards win. A good system should be like a hamster wheel for bastards hooked up an electric generator. A well designed system is not one that prevents bastards from winning, but one that generates a lot of positive externalities from bastards trying to beat each other. And that's exactly what markets do. Markets entice bastards, they reward bastards, and the bastards love them, but as they operate they generate a lot of good that inadvertently benefits everyone else." - Carleas

The Newest EconPop: Economics of Demolition Man

The man, Thomas Sowell: Wealth, Poverty and Politics

Sowell's Writing

Eric_The_Pipe
Thinker

Posts: 736
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 12:06 pm

### Re: Reforming Demography

Eric_The_Pipe wrote:The solution of more restrictions ....

No!

My solution has nothing or merely less to do with restriction because the regulation does not work via state, but via market. Those family managers are not paid by the state, but by the market. The "restriction" you mentioned refers merely to the law of birth control, family planing, population control ("oh", you may think, "China!", but it is not like "China") and not to the regulation itself. China's regulation was and is part of the regulation by a dictatorship. We may wait until the Western countries will have become more dictatorial than China ever was; then this regulation will come anyway, but it will come with more restrictions, with more repressions, depressions, suppresions, ... and so on. Better we do it via market than dictators will do it instead of us and "for us" ( ) via dictatorship.

It is possible to do it via market.

In this case refering to China means distracting from the subject, and refering only to the exceptional cases means the same because those problems are existent anyway and increase exponentially. So we have to find a solution for the problems, or the increased problems will come to us.

Again: My solution leads to less regulation, thus less state, thus less dicatorship because the gigantic and exponentially increasing costs that we have now for ignoring this problems would gradually disappear.
Last edited by Arminius on Sun Aug 17, 2014 3:41 am, edited 3 times in total.

Arminius
ILP Legend

Posts: 5732
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

### Re: Reforming Democracy

Uccisore wrote:See, this is why conservatism exists. Because there are people out there who can, apparently with a straight face, propose a global authority with the power to monitor and regulate the reproductive activities of everybody on the planet; and they see this the 'solution' to the 'problem' of people having as many or as few children as they want to have.
I think there are a lot of moderate liberals out there that see stuff like the above as looney, but don't realize that "Hey I know, how about we let the State own all the means of production!" or "Hey, I know, how about we only allow State law enforcement to have access to firearms!" or other such things are exactly as looney for basically the same reasons.

I've never been to the US and the distance from my Saltus Teutoburgiensis to New York is about 6000 Kilometres (air-line distance). So would you please explain me the seemingly typical US dualism of "conservative"/"liberal" because I think that this dualism is merely a show.

Arminius
ILP Legend

Posts: 5732
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

### Re: Reforming Democracy

Arminius wrote:I've never been to the US and the distance from my Saltus Teutoburgiensis to New York is about 6000 Kilometres (air-line distance). So would you please explain me the seemingly typical US dualism of "conservative"/"liberal" because I think that this dualism is merely a show.

I went through and did a search for "conservativism" in this thread and it begins to take a huge rise in frequency around here: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=185699&start=250#p2477284.
My thoughts | My art | My music | My poetry

In fact, the idea that there's more differences between groups than there is between individuals is actually the fundamental racist idea.
- Jordan Peterson

Here's a good rule of thumb for politics--attribute everything to stupidity unless you can prove malice.
- Ben Shapiro

right outta high school i tried to get a job as a proctologist but i couldn't find an opening.
- promethean75

Ahh... gib, zombie universes are so last year! I’m doing hyper dimensional mirror realities now.
- Ecmandu

gib
resident exorcist

Posts: 9024
Joined: Sat May 27, 2006 10:25 pm
Location: in your mom

### Re: Reforming Democracy

Thank you. But in that text it is not much said about the difference between "conservative in US" and "liberal in US". Please note: I know the meaning of "conservative in US" and "liberal in US" very well; so my question is merely: "Does the difference between "conservative in US" and "liberal in US" really exist?" And my answer is: No - because it is only show (of the rulers, not of the people).

Arminius
ILP Legend

Posts: 5732
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

### Re: Reforming Democracy

Arminius wrote:Thank you. But in that text it is not much said about the difference between "conservative" and "liberal".

Yes, but that's where the discussion gets into conservativism and liberalism pretty thick--it's from that post onward where Ucci and Eric begin explaining to me the difference.

Arminius wrote:Please note: I know the meaning of "conservative in US" and "liberal in US" very well; so my question is merely: "Does the US difference between "conservative" and "liberal" really exist?" And my answer is: No - because it is only show (of the rulers, not of the people).

So you're saying that the "rulers" of the US (The Republicans and the Democrats) are putting on a show for the rest of the world--claiming that the US is divided between liberals and conservative--when really the people themselves could care less about the distinction? Well, unless Eric, Ucci, Liz, and UPF are members of the Republican or Democratic party themselves, I'd say they've demonstrated a very passionate concern about these issues. And why wouldn't the left-wing and right-wing stances that each party presents to the world be representative of the stances of the people themselves, especially when parties like the Republicans and the Democrats come about because the people want to put what they stand for into politics and therefore form these parties to serve and represent themselves?
My thoughts | My art | My music | My poetry

In fact, the idea that there's more differences between groups than there is between individuals is actually the fundamental racist idea.
- Jordan Peterson

Here's a good rule of thumb for politics--attribute everything to stupidity unless you can prove malice.
- Ben Shapiro

right outta high school i tried to get a job as a proctologist but i couldn't find an opening.
- promethean75

Ahh... gib, zombie universes are so last year! I’m doing hyper dimensional mirror realities now.
- Ecmandu

gib
resident exorcist

Posts: 9024
Joined: Sat May 27, 2006 10:25 pm
Location: in your mom

### Re: Reforming Democracy

Gib wrote:So you're saying that the "rulers" of the US (The Republicans and the Democrats) are putting on a show for the rest of the world--claiming that the US is divided between liberals and conservative--when really the people themselves could care less about the distinction?

Yes, I am saying (questioning) that.

They are not powerful enough; so they aren't "putting on a show for the rest of the world", but fore themselves and for the chance to become a president, thus to get more power; but mainly they are staged.

Arminius
ILP Legend

Posts: 5732
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

### Re: Reforming Democracy

Arminius wrote:Yes, I am saying (questioning) that.

They are not powerful enough; so they aren't "putting on a show for the rest of the world", but fore themselves and for the chance to become a president, thus to get more power; but mainly they are staged.

What of people like Eric, Ucci, Liz, and UPF? Are they party members? Are they stooges? Brainwashed?
My thoughts | My art | My music | My poetry

In fact, the idea that there's more differences between groups than there is between individuals is actually the fundamental racist idea.
- Jordan Peterson

Here's a good rule of thumb for politics--attribute everything to stupidity unless you can prove malice.
- Ben Shapiro

right outta high school i tried to get a job as a proctologist but i couldn't find an opening.
- promethean75

Ahh... gib, zombie universes are so last year! I’m doing hyper dimensional mirror realities now.
- Ecmandu

gib
resident exorcist

Posts: 9024
Joined: Sat May 27, 2006 10:25 pm
Location: in your mom

### Re: Reforming Democracy

Counter questions:

Do you know what your boss is doing when he is at home?
And if you don't know it (99% also don't know it) are you then no longer a member of your boss' company?, or are you then "brainwashed"?

Arminius
ILP Legend

Posts: 5732
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

### Re: Reforming Democracy

Arminius wrote:Counter question:

Do you know what your boss is doing when he is at home?

Uh... no. Care to explain where you're going with this?
My thoughts | My art | My music | My poetry

In fact, the idea that there's more differences between groups than there is between individuals is actually the fundamental racist idea.
- Jordan Peterson

Here's a good rule of thumb for politics--attribute everything to stupidity unless you can prove malice.
- Ben Shapiro

right outta high school i tried to get a job as a proctologist but i couldn't find an opening.
- promethean75

Ahh... gib, zombie universes are so last year! I’m doing hyper dimensional mirror realities now.
- Ecmandu

gib
resident exorcist

Posts: 9024
Joined: Sat May 27, 2006 10:25 pm
Location: in your mom

### Re: Reforming Democracy

Are you no longer a member of your boss' company, if you don't know what your boss is doing when he is at home?
Are you brainwashed, if you don't know what your boss is doing when he is at home?

99% of all concern or company members do not know what their boss is doing when he is at home. Are they all brainwashed?

Arminius
ILP Legend

Posts: 5732
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

### Re: Reforming Democracy

Arminius wrote:Are you no longer a member of your boss' company, if you don't know what your boss is doing when he is at home?
Are you brainwashed, if you don't know what your boss is doing when he is at home?

99% of all concern or company members do not know what their boss is doing when he is at home. Are they all brainwashed?

You claimed that the difference between liberals and conservatives doesn't really exist, that it's all a show put on by the leaders of the US; but if the people are brainwashed to believe it's real, and therefore engage in heated discussions on the issue, it becomes real.
My thoughts | My art | My music | My poetry

In fact, the idea that there's more differences between groups than there is between individuals is actually the fundamental racist idea.
- Jordan Peterson

Here's a good rule of thumb for politics--attribute everything to stupidity unless you can prove malice.
- Ben Shapiro

right outta high school i tried to get a job as a proctologist but i couldn't find an opening.
- promethean75

Ahh... gib, zombie universes are so last year! I’m doing hyper dimensional mirror realities now.
- Ecmandu

gib
resident exorcist

Posts: 9024
Joined: Sat May 27, 2006 10:25 pm
Location: in your mom

### Re: Reforming Democracy

The people don't have to be brainwashed, most of them believe it's real anyway. You may call it "brainwashing", I call it "influence" because influence is always there, but "brainwashing" is a very extreme form of all affects. You are influenced but usually not brainwashed by your boss (I hope so ). Party members are influenced but usually not brainwashed by their leadership. People are influenced but usually not brainwashed by their government, their media, ... and so on. This all depends on the societal system and its political system, especially the form of government; and if those systems are extreme, then the probability of brainwashing is very high.

So we have to ask whether the societal situation in the US, or elsewhere, even in the world ( ), is already extreme.

Arminius
ILP Legend

Posts: 5732
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

### Re: Reforming Democracy

So there isn't really such a thing as socialists who believe practically the opposite of everything I do when it comes to economics, culture, and ethics, I've merely been tricked by (who, other conservatives I guess?) into thinking there is? What kind of absurdity is this?

Look, Arminius, you proposed a global beurocracy to dictate the terms under which every human being is allowed to reproduce. I think that's a terrible idea. Unless you want to admit that you don't really think these things, or you're a wizard who can peer into my mind and discern that I don't really disagree with you, there is a difference and it is real. I don't see how it's even up for dispute.

http://deepfreeze.it/ Curious about corrupt practices in video game journalism? Look no further.

Uccisore
The Legitimatizer

Posts: 13279
Joined: Thu Dec 12, 2002 8:14 pm
Location: Deep in the forests of Maine

### Re: Reforming Demography

Uccisore wrote:I think capitalism is good for socialists for example, even if they aren't smart enough to realize it.

Capitalism is the pre-condition for socialism. Without capital there is nothing to share, to redistribute.

Uccisore wrote:So there isn't really such a thing as socialists who believe practically the opposite of everything I do when it comes to economics, culture, and ethics, I've merely been tricked by (who, other conservatives I guess?) into thinking there is? What kind of absurdity is this?

Absurd is what you are saying. I have never said anything about "beurocracy", but you have, and that's absurd "rhetoric".

Uccisore wrote:Look, Arminius, you proposed a global beurocracy to dictate the terms under which every human being is allowed to reproduce.

That's nonsense. I didn't say that. You presume it, and that is terrible. I have said several times that the reproduction should be "regulatied" by the market. The current demographic policy is regulated by a "global beurocracy to dictate the terms under which every human being is allowed to reproduce" (your words) - it is the declared goal of all global institutions to reduce the population. So what I want to do is nothing else than change this dictatorship of gloabl institutions into a market. It is that beurocracy of the global institutions which costs a lot of money.

Maybe you haven't read my posts. I recommend you to do it.

Uccisore wrote:I think that's a terrible idea.

Then you think wrong! Please read my posts!

If we want to make clear what we are talking about, then we have to say what the facts are. And one of the facts is that the global institutions are a global beurocracy and nothing else, and this global beurocracy allows and forbids every human having children by beurocratic policy.

You have no idea, Uccisore. The deep forests in Maine are perhaps too deep, at least deeper than my Saltus Teutoburgiensis.

Another fact is that this theme / topic - reproduction / demography - is a taboo for the people (and not for their rulers). But if we want to talk about it we have to mention the facts. Do you believe that there is no global beurocratic system that dictates the reproduction? If so, then you have really no idea. Excuse me. Ignorance is horrible.

Arminius
ILP Legend

Posts: 5732
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

### Re: Reforming Demography

Arminius wrote:If we want to make clear what we are talking about, then we have to say what the facts are. And one of the facts is that the global institutions are a global beurocracy and nothing else, and this global beurocracy allows and forbids every human having children by beurocratic policy.

Seriously, what the fuck are you talking about? People around me decide to have or refrain from having kids every day, there is no global beurocracy that stops them or requires them at present. Their only external consideration is whether or not they can afford to raise the child- i.e., whether or not they have children is determined by the markets.

Do you believe that there is no global beurocratic system that dictates the reproduction? If so, then you have really no idea. Excuse me. Ignorance is horrible.

Right, and there's no actual difference between conservatives and liberals. Sorry, you're too incoherent for me to really interact with further.

http://deepfreeze.it/ Curious about corrupt practices in video game journalism? Look no further.

Uccisore
The Legitimatizer

Posts: 13279
Joined: Thu Dec 12, 2002 8:14 pm
Location: Deep in the forests of Maine

PreviousNext