Staredit Network

Staredit Network -> Serious Discussion -> Failure of the Democratic System in America
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Yenku on 2006-12-15 at 16:38:23
Ahhh, I beg to differ. I am quite with it, you ask me about any significant event and I will tell you much about it. I think there needs to be change, but I've come to the point where I live my life and enjoy EVERY minute.
So, recap, I am more with it than the ignorant, yet I also know whats better for society. Sounds good to me.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by green_meklar on 2006-12-15 at 19:43:35
QUOTE
It's true. If you are ignorant you never see the impending doom until it hits you, in which case you are not usually in a state to feel.

Not being in a state to feel anything is not something I'm personally looking forward to.
QUOTE
Why do you think the most intellectual among us, such as DTBK, are pained by the horrors of the world whereas on the opposite side of the spectrum you Syphon enjoying life to the fullest?

So far I haven't seen much evidence that this kind of thing is necessarily true. On the contrary, many of the dumb, ignorant people seem to be the ones who are always running into problems.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Centreri on 2006-12-15 at 20:02:00
State of happiness has nothing to do with it. You could be happy because you just got into Harvard and still know about the horrors of the world, or you can be happy because you just got a new shipment of crystal meth.

Now, people who are always happy are either constantly high, ignorant, or selfish.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by green_meklar on 2006-12-15 at 20:13:53
But is their condition desirable? If one person is 1 happy for 40 years and another person is 0.6 happy for 80 years, which one would you prefer to be? If you have a choice between being 1 happy for your entire life or being 0.9 happy while working towards ways of becoming 1.5 happy, which would you choose?

Starting to get what I mean?
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Loser_Musician on 2006-12-15 at 20:21:31
Failure of the democratic system in America? America's "failed" system has made it have,

A - One of the highest standards of living in the history of the entire world

B - One of the most powerful militiaries in the history of the entire world

If America's a failure, then what's all the other places?
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Centreri on 2006-12-15 at 20:36:00
Americans have a vast supply of resources, people specializing in different things from all over the world, and.. I have no idea, but the education here is terrible, I've seen it firsthand.

green_meklar, I would choose to be the happiest person, of course, but unless I'm naive, high, or extremely selfish I won't be. It's not realistic to be 100% happy with life, and know what everyone else can be suffering. Unless you're selfish, high, or don't know about anyone else.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Desperado on 2006-12-15 at 21:01:40
QUOTE
But is their condition desirable? If one person is 1 happy for 40 years and another person is 0.6 happy for 80 years, which one would you prefer to be? If you have a choice between being 1 happy for your entire life or being 0.9 happy while working towards ways of becoming 1.5 happy, which would you choose?

My original statement that ignorance is bliss was a vast oversimplification. The basic premise has to be expanded in order to apply to this argument. As I was too lazy to do it at that time, I did not do so. I will not do so now either. I merely hope to suggest a reason why people prefer not to wholly participate in the democratic system.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by green_meklar on 2006-12-16 at 10:58:31
QUOTE
Failure of the democratic system in America? America's "failed" system has made it have,

A - One of the highest standards of living in the history of the entire world

B - One of the most powerful militiaries in the history of the entire world

That's because it was better than the systems used by many other countries (dictatorship, theocracy, etc). There's a difference between 'better' and 'good'.
QUOTE
green_meklar, I would choose to be the happiest person, of course, but unless I'm naive, high, or extremely selfish I won't be.

??? That's exactly what I was disproving. You seem to have ignored my point.
QUOTE
It's not realistic to be 100% happy with life, and know what everyone else can be suffering. Unless you're selfish, high, or don't know about anyone else.

This is assuming that other people are suffering. And while it just so happens that they are, the statement 'ignorance is bliss' is more general than that and therefore is not necessarily true.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Loser_Musician on 2006-12-16 at 14:57:07
QUOTE(green_meklar @ Dec 16 2006, 10:58 AM)
That's because it was better than the systems used by many other countries (dictatorship, theocracy, etc). There's a difference between 'better' and 'good'.
[right][snapback]604370[/snapback][/right]


Then what is SOOOOOOOO good that makes the american system seem like a failure?
Report, edit, etc...Posted by green_meklar on 2006-12-16 at 19:32:50
Meritocracy. By this I mean true meritocracy, not some other oligarchy labeled as meritocratic in order to make meritocracy look bad.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Loser_Musician on 2006-12-16 at 20:18:13
That system gives the government the power to decide who will work where based on a test that they themselves make. There is so much potential for corruption in that. It's best to just limit the government.

I'm not saying it's better or worse than the american system. I'm just saying, it's not SOOOOOOO good that it makes the american system seem like a failure.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by CaptainWill on 2006-12-17 at 00:03:51
QUOTE(green_meklar @ Dec 17 2006, 12:32 AM)
Meritocracy. By this I mean true meritocracy, not some other oligarchy labeled as meritocratic in order to make meritocracy look bad.
[right][snapback]604616[/snapback][/right]



How would you go about putting that into place. People have always favoured friends and family over strangers.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by DT_Battlekruser on 2006-12-17 at 01:22:39
QUOTE
Not being in a state to feel anything is not something I'm personally looking forward to.


But if you're ignorant, then you aren't looking forward at all.

QUOTE(Loser_Musician @ Dec 15 2006, 05:21 PM)
Failure of the democratic system in America? America's "failed" system has made it have,

A - One of the highest standards of living in the history of the entire world

B - One of the most powerful militiaries in the history of the entire world

If America's a failure, then what's all the other places?
[right][snapback]604148[/snapback][/right]


America is currently in such a well off position for two reasons:

-America as a country started with vast reserves of cheap or free land and natural resources. All it cost was a couple million native lives and we got most of a continent, free of charge.

-America wasn't always a blindly ignorant country, pushed forward by trampling stampedes of sheep led by greedy, unfeeling shepherds. Before power beyond its dreams and capabilities was trust upon in as a result of World War II, America was a respectable nation, fighting for freedom among its people. It certainly wasn't perfect, but it was everything that ignorant patriots claim it still is.

The breakdown of merit of a democracy is a recent phenomenon in America. In large part, modern popular culture has fostered ignorance and lack of learning. In modern (post-1950) America, more children aspire to be sports stars or pop stars than scientists.

True, America retains a relatively powerful military and a high standard of living. I won't deny that. But how much longer will that last? America maintains a ridiculously high standard of living at the cost of both the environment and the rest of the world. Global economic hegemony ensures a flow of cheap oil to keep American gas prices largely under $3 a gallon when prices elsewhere are twice that, if not more.

But as petroleum reserves disappear and our foreign oil dependency skyrockets to over 75% by 2025, what then? Gas will inevitably cost more and as the shepherds of the American people are today greedy oil executives, the end of a petroleum lifestyle will come as a devastating economic shockwave.

We might by well off right now, but we sure as heck aren't the only country worth living. Other countries have as much, if not more, freedom and good living as America. And what of the future? Only the ignorant look no further than their own death.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Loser_Musician on 2006-12-17 at 10:29:30
QUOTE
-America as a country started with vast reserves of cheap or free land and natural resources. All it cost was a couple million native lives and we got most of a continent, free of charge.


True

QUOTE
-America wasn't always a blindly ignorant country, pushed forward by trampling stampedes of sheep led by greedy, unfeeling shepherds. Before power beyond its dreams and capabilities was trust upon in as a result of World War II, America was a respectable nation, fighting for freedom among its people. It certainly wasn't perfect, but it was everything that ignorant patriots claim it still is.


There's been about as much corruption and bullcrap then, as there has been now.

QUOTE
But as petroleum reserves disappear and our foreign oil dependency skyrockets to over 75% by 2025, what then? Gas will inevitably cost more and as the shepherds of the American people are today greedy oil executives, the end of a petroleum lifestyle will come as a devastating economic shockwave.


The amount of oil imported by 2025 will be less than half of what it is today.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Centreri on 2006-12-17 at 10:38:23
And, of course, America is better off than most other for another reason; what about the fact that there hasn't been a major war on U.S. soil for a quite a while? Compare that to the World Wars that were happening in Europe.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by green_meklar on 2006-12-17 at 11:46:57
QUOTE
That system gives the government the power to decide who will work where based on a test that they themselves make. There is so much potential for corruption in that.

First, you have to understand that this is only a concern right at the beginning, when you're first trying to implement meritocracy. Once the system is in place, it perpetuates itself because intelligent, moral people will not make tests that pass corrupt, greedy people and fail other intelligent, moral people.

The key to starting a meritocracy is to make the government answerable, responsible for what it does. They can only go so far before it becomes obvious that a test is designed to choose bad leaders, and at that point the government either as to give itself and everyone else good reasons for what it's doing or step down.

Perhaps the best way to turn a representative democracy into a meritocracy is to go through an intermediate stage. There are several ideas for what to do during this period, including, but not necessarily limited to:
1. Use basic psychological tests on everybody, and the more intelligent, moral people get more votes than the stupid, greedy people.
2. Choose leaders using psychological tests, but allow them to be kicked out if a large enough majority of the public decides so.
3. Some combination of 1 and 2.
QUOTE
How would you go about putting that into place. People have always favoured friends and family over strangers.

That's why one useful thing to do would be to educate people.
QUOTE
But if you're ignorant, then you aren't looking forward at all.

That's not a state I'm looking forward to being in either.
QUOTE
In large part, modern popular culture has fostered ignorance and lack of learning. In modern (post-1950) America, more children aspire to be sports stars or pop stars than scientists.

Sadly, this is true. However, I think the innate vicious cycle of representative democracy is still even if our society isn't like that. In fact, I would take a guess that a bad government is one of the reasons our society is like that.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by DT_Battlekruser on 2006-12-17 at 13:12:11
QUOTE
The amount of oil imported by 2025 will be less than half of what it is today.


Why?
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Centreri on 2006-12-17 at 13:29:46
The obvious answer would be because there'll be less oil by 2025. I'm not sure we have only 50 years left before it runs out, though - I thought it was around 100.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Loser_Musician on 2006-12-17 at 16:11:49
QUOTE(green_meklar @ Dec 17 2006, 11:46 AM)
First, you have to understand that this is only a concern right at the beginning, when you're first trying to implement meritocracy. Once the system is in place, it perpetuates itself because intelligent, moral people will not make tests that pass corrupt, greedy people and fail other intelligent, moral people.

The key to starting a meritocracy is to make the government answerable, responsible for what it does. They can only go so far before it becomes obvious that a test is designed to choose bad leaders, and at that point the government either as to give itself and everyone else good reasons for what it's doing or step down.

Perhaps the best way to turn a representative democracy into a meritocracy is to go through an intermediate stage. There are several ideas for what to do during this period, including, but not necessarily limited to:
1. Use basic psychological tests on everybody, and the more intelligent, moral people get more votes than the stupid, greedy people.
2. Choose leaders using psychological tests, but allow them to be kicked out if a large enough majority of the public decides so.
3. Some combination of 1 and 2.

That's why one useful thing to do would be to educate people.

That's not a state I'm looking forward to being in either.

Sadly, this is true. However, I think the innate vicious cycle of representative democracy is still even if our society isn't like that. In fact, I would take a guess that a bad government is one of the reasons our society is like that.
[right][snapback]604817[/snapback][/right]


The biggest flaw that most polticial ideas have, is that in order for them to be great, they have to rely on "Moral People".

QUOTE
Sadly, this is true. However, I think the innate vicious cycle of representative democracy is still even if our society isn't like that. In fact, I would take a guess that a bad government is one of the reasons our society is like that.


It's not the government's fault, it's society.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Centreri on 2006-12-17 at 18:55:14
'One of the reasons'. What, if a government invested less money in war and more in education it wouldn't make a difference whatsoever?
Report, edit, etc...Posted by DT_Battlekruser on 2006-12-17 at 19:05:12
I agree with Loser_Musician to a point: society made the government, not vise versa. Yes, the government could try to change society. Yes, it isn't. But, realistically, how much can the government itself do to right society? Hence the original subject of this topic was society's failure, not the government's failure.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by green_meklar on 2006-12-17 at 19:18:06
QUOTE
The biggest flaw that most polticial ideas have, is that in order for them to be great, they have to rely on "Moral People".

But the difference between representative democracy and meritocracy is, the former requires the majority of people to be moral, while the latter only requires a few people to be moral. The latter being obviously much easier to get.
QUOTE
It's not the government's fault, it's society.

Blame it on whatever you like. In truth, the problem wouldn't exist if either of the factors (one, a stupid society, and two, a bad government) were not present. The real issue therefore is not to find which one is at fault (because they both are), the issue is to find which one can more easily be solved. Personally I think the stupid society is easier to solve, because it doesn't actively resist getting solved as much as the bad government does.
QUOTE
'One of the reasons'. What, if a government invested less money in war and more in education it wouldn't make a difference whatsoever?

Not if the point of 'education' remains to brainwash everybody.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Centreri on 2006-12-17 at 20:50:26
Hence the need to invest some money and time to change it from brainwashing to an education.

I'm not saying government is totally responsible and I agree that society made the government, but it's kind of hard to change the government as society changes.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Hofodomo on 2006-12-17 at 23:03:36
If you look at some of the musicians, artists, and intellectuals from the 60s and 70s, they had a strong message about society and government (understandable considering what was going on that time...)

Jimmy Carter even said something to the effect of "Americans have a bad attitude, and that's what's causing problems" in a public speech...
Report, edit, etc...Posted by CaptainWill on 2006-12-18 at 01:20:07
QUOTE(green_meklar @ Dec 17 2006, 04:46 PM)

That's why one useful thing to do would be to educate people.
[right][snapback]604817[/snapback][/right]


Right, but I don't think we're talking about higher brain functions here - favouring family members is instinctual, not something that we're taught. Reciprocal altruism is something which could be described as a fundamental pillar of human behaviour.

We could try teaching Utilitarian ideals to children, but I doubt that it would be successful in producing a generation of people who would be meritocratic.
Next Page (4)