Page 3 of 8 FirstFirst
1
2
3
4
5
... LastLast
  1. #41
    Quote Originally Posted by tehealadin View Post
    I take your point that views need to be represented, I personally think all political parties should be allowed to exist. But take some of the examples I listed, I am not even talking about the lying on the Brexit campaign, but examples with ministers giving billions of tax payer money to their friends with no tender or oversight, even in cases where they had no experience, or even when the service wasn't actually provided. They are clearly enriching their circle of friends, I am not sure what the law has to say about this in its current form, if it says nothing so nothing can be done, or it does, but there isn't the will to go after them, but this is a tangible abuse of power and it isn't a stretch to have mechanisms in play to stop that. We have ministers seemingly taking bribes to allow planning permission to property developers and party donors. Ministers can mislead parliament, but because of a majority they get away with it.

    My point is there needs to be standards in public life. Current mechanisms relating to conflicts of interest are clearly too weak. None of this would prevent the functioning of a government or civil service.
    Uh, immunity doesn't mean there's no oversight. There should absolutely be a political process to watch over the national budget. And if that gets violated, there should be rules about that as well.

    Look, I don't want to fight too hard about immunity. I just want to preserve the protection of political offices. The ideal state for a politician is that he only has to answer to his own conscience and convictions. And as far as I'm concerned, whatever you can do to provide that kind of security for him by removing the bribery incentives and/or making sure he'll never be uh... hounded for having the "wrong conviction", I'm game with that. But you must ensure that there's no trolling with charges etc.. fuck, I'm missing a word here, it's like threatening to basically make your life a misery if you don't comply.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Omega10 View Post
    Up to a point. But the US lost a lot of ground under Bush, and even more under Trump in half the time. Bush's lies regarding the US attacks on the Middle East and the Mancession of 2008 caused a LOT of hardship in the US. The lying about the size of our annual deficits masking just how bad he was regarding the deficit is just one of many daggers that Bush flung at US honesty and integrity.

    Bush started the idea of flat out lying as President of the US - 8 years later Trump took this to its logical extreme. The US is a LOT worse off because of this. And the problems are static in nature meaning they are not going away easily. And 20 years later our infrastructure continues to deteriorate gradually and inexorably.

    Giving them a platform is one thing. Giving them power - we tried that and it turned out worse than could possibly have been realistically imagined.
    A big part of the democratic idea is that you must be allowed to fuck up. If a nation decides to be stupid then being stupid is its godamn right. A people's self determination means something. Even if it means Trump or Brexit. Oh, I'll give them shit for it anytime the topic comes up, but that's also part of democracy, living with the consequences.

    Trying to preemptively prevent those kinds of mistakes? That's not what democracy is about. See, some of these stupid ideas aren't actually that stupid and may be needed in your evolutionary step towards a better governance. Sometimes you have to fuck up to learn from a mistake. Universal income? Honestly, I don't think that's viable, but hey, I'm willing to see other countries give it a shot, go broke and then try someting that's not quite as drastic?

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    It wouldn't incapacitate the government in any way. We'd have a new Prime Minister likely by the end of the week at the latest, and potentially, by the end of the same day. The PM isn't elected by the people, he's chosen by the party that formed the government; in the case of a PM being charged and removed from office, that party would just . . . pick a new Member to take the position.



    That's why we have Generals. They can make those calls, in most cases, and should. In loose terms, the government gives the military a direction, and a set of standing orders, and how the military goes about achieving those is up to the heads of the military branches. That's what their expertise is for.



    In the question of initiating hostilities against a foreign power, you'd be correct. Not in effecting standing orders, including maintaining the defense of the nation itself.

    The Canadian military isn't going to just up and invade China to get Canadians out of prisons there (an issue that's currently going on). If Chinese troops started pushing into Canadian waters, though? Our military would absolutely mobilize and interpose, challenging their movement. It's happened before with Russian military pressure. If our military leaders needed to ask political leadership to approve every decision they made, why would we even have star-rank staff in the military? The entire point is to empower those officers to act according to their expertise and their standing orders.



    A pretty wide swath of laws, particularly that declaring a state of emergency gives the military no political power whatsoever, and that declaring such a state is a political issue in the first place.

    I'm honestly pretty baffled that you're arguing against the separation of powers you yourself brought up earlier; I was never making a case that the powers weren't separated. I was making the case that a clear separation of powers can leave the civil services and military entirely functional without giving them any political influence whatsoever. It's only when you blur those lines, as the USA does, that you run into serious issues.



    In Canada, it's unnecessary. The Canadian Parliament isn't even in the military chain of command. Nominally, chain of command goes from the sovereign (Queen Elizabeth) to her Governor General, to the Chief of the Defence Staff, but in practice, neither the Queen not the GG are actually serving any practical role. The Chief of the Defence Staff works under the Minister of National Defence, but it isn't like the USA where the head of government is also the Commander-in-Chief. It's never been that way, in Canada. Works fine.



    That depends entirely on how resilient that bureaucracy and its systems are, and how much self-direction it's empowered to make use of. The people at the top of the Canadian Civil Service branches are the experts in their fields, better-trained and better-educated in their respective fields than the ministers over them, generally. To the point that a Minister trying to issue orders that are deemed unethical or unlawful will, generally, get called out publicly by those civil service agents, who will refuse to comply. There was a big stink here under Harper, where he was pressuring government scientists not to talk to the press regardless of their complaints, and that did not go over well for the Conservatives.
    I'm never going to argue against the separation of powers. I'm just making assumptions about Canada that clearly showcase I have no fucking clue about the Canadian Government lol.

    Honestly, I'm more thinking about the US, the Canadian system seems to work fine from the outside. Sure, you love to hate Trudeau for some reason, but it ain't as if he's Trump's little cousin, he's the typical head of a state from what I can tell. Doesn't rock the boat too much, tries to do what he can with Parliament blocking him whenever they can... something like that?
    Users with <20 posts and ignored shitposters are automatically invisible. Find out how to do that here and help clean up MMO-OT!
    PSA: Being a volunteer is no excuse to make a shite job of it.

  2. #42
    Quote Originally Posted by zorkuus View Post
    What the hell are you even saying? Choose the bigger evil?
    Exhibit A.

  3. #43
    The Unstoppable Force PC2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    California
    Posts
    20,448
    Quote Originally Posted by Slant View Post
    This will continue for a while until some sort of unrest or civil war ruins everything and we're reshaped as different nations. Probably a civil war in the US within the next 50 years, while the EU is still on the upswing, with a chance to become a nation until the same fate hits us and we splinter up again etc.
    No there's no reason to think there will be a civil war. In the West we're in the process of creating the first immortal civilization. Bank on it.
    Quote Originally Posted by Omega10 View Post
    In the Middle East, after we took out Hussein, we COULD have done the boring thing and just rebuilt the country, which is one of the things I agree with about PC2. Except, as President Bush said "We don't do nation building.". Nation building is boring. Military confrontation is dramatic.
    What? I don't believe in nation building unless it's consensual. If there is an active and violent military threat against us then I believe in demolishing them with overwhelming force and then leaving immediately afterwards.
    Quote Originally Posted by Slant View Post
    There seems to be a natural size of society that humanity can cope with before that society becomes unstable. There's like a billion variables to this that we typically sum up as "culture", but what if our nation states currently are just too big?
    You shouldn't say that. The idea that society is even remotely close to a finite limit is a myth. In terms of size we've barely even gotten started, you ain't seen nothing yet.
    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    That's abject nonsense. Democracy is no more based on "consent" than any other system of governance.
    Democracy is directly based on the perpetual consent of the governed or non-violent opposition to current leadership. Non-democracies are not.
    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    And this is coming from someone who's pro-democracy.
    Right you're pro-democracy but you just want to question its validity. Similarly you're not a communist but you always jump to defend communism every time it is criticized.
    Last edited by PC2; 2021-07-05 at 09:31 PM.
    Let's spread optimism and defeat pessimism! (HumanProgress.org)

  4. #44
    Quote Originally Posted by PC2 View Post
    No there's no reason to think there will be a civil war. In the West we're in the process of creating the first immortal civilization. Bank on it.
    Yea...and the attempted insurrection was nothing more than hyperbole in your narrow mindedness.
    Quote Originally Posted by PC2 View Post
    You shouldn't say that. The idea that society is even remotely close to a finite limit is a myth. In terms of size we've barely even gotten started, you ain't seen nothing yet.
    Your belief...such as it is, is duly noted.
    Quote Originally Posted by PC2 View Post
    Right you're pro-democracy but you just want to question it's validity. Similarly you're not a communist but you always jump to defend communism every time it is criticized.
    And what does a Trump supporter know about democracy?

  5. #45
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    68,867
    Quote Originally Posted by Slant View Post
    I'm never going to argue against the separation of powers. I'm just making assumptions about Canada that clearly showcase I have no fucking clue about the Canadian Government lol.

    Honestly, I'm more thinking about the US, the Canadian system seems to work fine from the outside. Sure, you love to hate Trudeau for some reason, but it ain't as if he's Trump's little cousin, he's the typical head of a state from what I can tell. Doesn't rock the boat too much, tries to do what he can with Parliament blocking him whenever they can... something like that?
    Not particularly. The PM has pretty limited power, actually. If there's a majority government (the PM's party holds better than 50% of seats), chances are they can pass whatever they want into law. If a minority, they need to get some support from opposition parties, but the NDP are often up for that, as long as it aligns with their views too. And the PM isn't the one proposing bills and such; that's generally other Members of Parliament.

    Quote Originally Posted by PC2 View Post
    Democracy is directly based on the perpetual consent of the governed or non-violent opposition to current leadership. Non-democracies are not.
    This is not true.

    It's a term that emerged solely in response to concepts like the "divine right of kings". The "consent of the governed" exists in nearly all forms of government, even kingships, because that king only gets to go on about their "divine right" as long as the peasants don't rise up and tear the whole thing down.

    That's all "consent of the governed" boils down to.

    For instance, Stalin's regime had the "consent of the governed". So did Hitler's. So did Saddam Hussein's. You're misusing the phrase; it has no direct connection to democracy in any way whatsoever.

    Right you're pro-democracy but you just want to question its validity. Similarly you're not a communist but you always jump to defend communism every time it is criticized.
    Feel free to dig through my 67,000ish posts and find any where I support communism.

    Just one.

    I'll pre-emptively note that I won't accept posts where I just point to historical facts or just describe communist theory and its principles, as neither of those are "support" or "defense", just establishing a fact-based standard.


  6. #46
    Quote Originally Posted by Slant View Post
    Uh, immunity doesn't mean there's no oversight. There should absolutely be a political process to watch over the national budget. And if that gets violated, there should be rules about that as well.

    Look, I don't want to fight too hard about immunity. I just want to preserve the protection of political offices. The ideal state for a politician is that he only has to answer to his own conscience and convictions. And as far as I'm concerned, whatever you can do to provide that kind of security for him by removing the bribery incentives and/or making sure he'll never be uh... hounded for having the "wrong conviction", I'm game with that. But you must ensure that there's no trolling with charges etc.. fuck, I'm missing a word here, it's like threatening to basically make your life a misery if you don't comply.
    I think we will have to agree to disagree, to an extent at least. The last thing I will say here is I do disagree with immunity- I think elected officials should have to uphold the law, I think it is more important for them than any other group, given that their position gives them power, for me one of the points behind democracy was to hold power to account and move away from unaccountable power. And I believe to achieve this, politicians who break the law need to be prosecuted. I know this isn't the world we live in, but I like to believe in a world where everyone is equal under the law, no matter who you are, if prosecution is good enough for someone on benefits then it has to be the same for the leader of a country, no exceptions, when you have unequal standards, it rings hollow when people complain that the "wrong ones" start breaking the law, people have a sense of fairness, and this breeds anger and resentment when there is a sense (real or imagined) of unfairness that damages institutions.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    This is not true.

    It's a term that emerged solely in response to concepts like the "divine right of kings". The "consent of the governed" exists in nearly all forms of government, even kingships, because that king only gets to go on about their "divine right" as long as the peasants don't rise up and tear the whole thing down.

    That's all "consent of the governed" boils down to.
    I disagree with this to an extent, though take your point that technically all forms of government rely on consent, however in a mature democracy it is much more freely given, in dictatorships/authoritarian regimes the consent is coerced via intimidation, in a functioning democracy the secret police don't kick your door down in the middle of the night for voting the wrong way, the idea of consent manifests itself in a very different way in developed democracies in the West versus the Stalinist USSR or Nazi Germany etc, to the point where I would argue it is practically different, when the choices are tick a box at the ballot or violent revolution, the idea of governing by consent takes on a polymorphic dimension, so while technically the same, in practice they are very different.
    Quote Originally Posted by Gelannerai View Post


    Remember, legally no one sane takes Tucker Carlson seriously.

  7. #47
    Quote Originally Posted by PC2 View Post
    No there's no reason to think there will be a civil war. In the West we're in the process of creating the first immortal civilization. Bank on it.

    You shouldn't say that. The idea that society is even remotely close to a finite limit is a myth. In terms of size we've barely even gotten started, you ain't seen nothing yet.
    Thinking the West is in the process of establishing an "immortal civilisation" makes you not just foolish but arrogant as well. That is step one of the downfall of every empire, by the way. Go through history and you'll see every single empire say the exact same thing. The Athenians did it, Alexander did it, The Romans did it, The British did it... heck, the Germans did it, too. Except they talked about 1000 years, because why not... in any case, every single regime went away in the end. Even what Endus and I are discussing is just delaying the inevitable.

    And the US hegemony will fall too. The question is not if, it's when. And you making the same empty and silly statements tells me that you're really not educated well enough to discuss this. You're completely ignoring all of written human history, you are not learning from the past. You are in fact repeating the same mistakes. I can only hope for the sake of the US that you are the exception and not the rule...

    The next step in human societal evolution is to accept that no empire, no regime, no societal seggregation or governance is forever. None. Not a single one. The trick is to reinvent yourself before there's bloodshed. That's the missing link, there's not been many of these fundamental changes without bloodshed. And the task we have is to find a way to orderly move from an old regime to a new regime without killing millions in the process.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by tehealadin View Post
    I think we will have to agree to disagree, to an extent at least. The last thing I will say here is I do disagree with immunity- I think elected officials should have to uphold the law, I think it is more important for them than any other group, given that their position gives them power, for me one of the points behind democracy was to hold power to account and move away from unaccountable power. And I believe to achieve this, politicians who break the law need to be prosecuted. I know this isn't the world we live in, but I like to believe in a world where everyone is equal under the law, no matter who you are, if prosecution is good enough for someone on benefits then it has to be the same for the leader of a country, no exceptions, when you have unequal standards, it rings hollow when people complain that the "wrong ones" start breaking the law, people have a sense of fairness, and this breeds anger and resentment when there is a sense (real or imagined) of unfairness that damages institutions.
    Well, they are being prosecuted, after their term ends. Immunity doesn't mean amnesty. But for the length of their term, they need to be able to do the job that is critical for the country. They can serve their time later. Unless we're talking capital crimes like murder or somesuch thing. But typically Parliamentary rules have sections that deal with the political process of removing immunity on a case by case basis. Just not by the judiciary, as that would be an interference into the legislative process the judiciary should not be able to get a hand on necessary.

    Or maybe it should. I mean, you make good points. But let me ask you, where would it stop? Just breaking the law? What about things you consider against the constitution? But they think it's not. Now what? Who decides that? The Supreme Court. But they can't unless there's a process. So what if you remove their immunity and process them? Should they continue do be in office? What if they lose that trial, you wouldn't want someone unconstitutional in office, right? What if the Supreme Court sides with them? How many weeks were they unable to exercise the duty the people have put upon them? Do you suspend all legislation because one guy is being challenged in court?

    It's not all black and white. And separation of power is a very tricky subject. Very tricky. That's why most countries have put down exhaustive rules about when and where they can interfere with each other. Look it up for your country. Sneak preview: All constitutions are very, very restrictive to the max about those interferences.

    I don't care much about people's sense of "fairness". It means nothing to me. People are idiots. They are untrained in legal matters. They're shortsighted and emotional. Whenever people talk about something being "fair" or not, it's am emotional gut reaction to things they most likely don't know enough about. And remember, even if it's easy to forget, everyone is innocent until a trial has proven them to be guilty. You'd have to have a very, very solid case built before you should even consider removing immunity. Talking smoking gun area here. Whatever Trump did? Not good enough, honestly. It's take decades to decode what he actually did wrong and where he may have skirted the law.
    Last edited by Slant; 2021-07-05 at 11:42 PM.
    Users with <20 posts and ignored shitposters are automatically invisible. Find out how to do that here and help clean up MMO-OT!
    PSA: Being a volunteer is no excuse to make a shite job of it.

  8. #48
    Quote Originally Posted by Slant View Post
    Well, they are being prosecuted, after their term ends. Immunity doesn't mean amnesty. But for the length of their term, they need to be able to do the job that is critical for the country.
    I disagree here, if our PM was ousted, the country would be fine, it wouldn't collapse, a replacement would be found, no one is that important that the country would fall apart without them in a position of power. The job needs to be done by someone who abides by the law of the land. I think this is just something we will disagree with. As for other things, we don't have a written constitution in the UK, so things get tricky there. Though I would argue that sending public money to your friends with no oversight, bypassing established norms of tender should qualify for corruption and such a person is not fit for public office.

    As to your point about fairness, that ties back to what I was saying about consistency. We need standards that apply to everyone in public office, regardless of political affiliations. That is why everyone being equal under the law is important. And that is why when we aren't, things get messy.
    Quote Originally Posted by Gelannerai View Post


    Remember, legally no one sane takes Tucker Carlson seriously.

  9. #49
    The Unstoppable Force PC2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    California
    Posts
    20,448
    Quote Originally Posted by Slant View Post
    Thinking the West is in the process of establishing an "immortal civilisation" makes you not just foolish but arrogant as well. That is step one of the downfall of every empire, by the way. Go through history and you'll see every single empire say the exact same thing. The Athenians did it, Alexander did it, The Romans did it, The British did it... heck, the Germans did it, too. Except they talked about 1000 years, because why not... in any case, every single regime went away in the end. Even what Endus and I are discussing is just delaying the inevitable.

    And the US hegemony will fall too. The question is not if, it's when. And you making the same empty and silly statements tells me that you're really not educated well enough to discuss this. You're completely ignoring all of written human history, you are not learning from the past. You are in fact repeating the same mistakes. I can only hope for the sake of the US that you are the exception and not the rule...

    The next step in human societal evolution is to accept that no empire, no regime, no societal seggregation or governance is forever. None. Not a single one. The trick is to reinvent yourself before there's bloodshed. That's the missing link, there's not been many of these fundamental changes without bloodshed. And the task we have is to find a way to orderly move from an old regime to a new regime without killing millions in the process.
    It seems you misunderstood me. The bolded part is my point. The West is the only civilization that is constantly re-inventing itself and causing all other societies to take cues from us or remain stuck in static societies and provincialism. Perpetual re-invention is how you make a civilization immortal.

    And yeah I get it, you're a hardcore pessimist who thinks a downfall is inevitable in the future. You think it's not possible for humans or groups to improve past history and if there was societal failure in the past then that means we must fail in the future. Which is entirely wrong.
    Last edited by PC2; 2021-07-06 at 12:19 AM.
    Let's spread optimism and defeat pessimism! (HumanProgress.org)

  10. #50
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    68,867
    Quote Originally Posted by Slant View Post
    The next step in human societal evolution is to accept that no empire, no regime, no societal seggregation or governance is forever. None. Not a single one. The trick is to reinvent yourself before there's bloodshed. That's the missing link, there's not been many of these fundamental changes without bloodshed. And the task we have is to find a way to orderly move from an old regime to a new regime without killing millions in the process.
    Ultimately, the central problem is that once people have power, they will do everything they can to retain power. Reinvention requires, necessarily, the death of the "self" that is current governance; those in power must, necessarily, seek to undo themselves and everything they have built. Ultimately, while I can agree with the idea of regular deconstruction and reconstruction, in practice, it will require bloodshed.

    The only way to get around that, in the end, would be to find a way to divorce personal self-interest from the governmental process. Perhaps, require all elected officials to sell off all their properties, save their family home and personal vehicle (one). You have a million-dollar business? Sell off all interests in that firm. You have a multi-billion-dollar inheritance? Give it all away. Every goddamned red cent. You have a retirement account? Purge every last dime.

    In recompense, you'll get paid a salary while in office, and are not entitled to draw income from any other sources, not even gifts. Same applies to your spouse, if any, and you'll be expected to declare a conflict of interest when it comes to anything that might affect any business your family has involvement with; if one of your kids works for an oil company, you abstain from every vote based on that industry.

    You get your salary and that is it. When you're done, you draw your pension, which will be generous, but that's the only thing you should have as income at that point. You'll retire in a decent level of upper-middle-class retiree comfort, and can be satisfied with the legacy of your work in office.

    If that's not enough for you, get the fuck out of politics. Good riddance.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by PC2 View Post
    It seems you misunderstood me. The bolded part is my point. The West is the only civilization that is constantly re-inventing itself and causing all other societies to take cues from us or remain stuck in static societies and provincialism. Perpetual re-invention is how you make a civilization immortal.
    You don't have any clue what you're talking about.

    The Nazis were part of that "re-invention". So was Stalinist communism. So was the slave empire of early America. So was Jim Crow and its legacy. You're confusing "change" with "improvement", and history clearly demonstrates that is not a correlation.

    You're also mistaking that said "re-invention" is generally incredibly violent in nature. It does not come about peacefully.


  11. #51
    Quote Originally Posted by PC2 View Post
    It seems you misunderstood me. The bolded part is my point. The West is the only civilization that is constantly re-inventing itself and causing all other societies to take cues from us or remain stuck in static societies and provincialism. Perpetual re-invention is how you make a civilization immortal.

    And yeah I get it, you're a hardcore pessimist who thinks a downfall is inevitable in the future. You think it's not possible for humans or groups to improve past history and if there was societal failure in the past then that means we must fail in the future. Which is entirely wrong.
    A few reforms aren't a reinvention. I'm takling the evolution from chief to king to dictator to republic. I'm talking diametrically opposing forms of Government. You're talking about twisting a few dials in the "Democracy machine". That's not even remotely the same.

    I'm talking about a system we haven't even gotten a name for yet.

    I'm not a pessimist. I'm just aware of history. And I reject the idiotic optimism that some people in some regions on the planet subscribe to so readily. Especially when that optimism is entirely unfonded in the face of millenia of human history.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    Ultimately, the central problem is that once people have power, they will do everything they can to retain power. Reinvention requires, necessarily, the death of the "self" that is current governance; those in power must, necessarily, seek to undo themselves and everything they have built. Ultimately, while I can agree with the idea of regular deconstruction and reconstruction, in practice, it will require bloodshed.

    The only way to get around that, in the end, would be to find a way to divorce personal self-interest from the governmental process. Perhaps, require all elected officials to sell off all their properties, save their family home and personal vehicle (one). You have a million-dollar business? Sell off all interests in that firm. You have a multi-billion-dollar inheritance? Give it all away. Every goddamned red cent. You have a retirement account? Purge every last dime.

    In recompense, you'll get paid a salary while in office, and are not entitled to draw income from any other sources, not even gifts. Same applies to your spouse, if any, and you'll be expected to declare a conflict of interest when it comes to anything that might affect any business your family has involvement with; if one of your kids works for an oil company, you abstain from every vote based on that industry.

    You get your salary and that is it. When you're done, you draw your pension, which will be generous, but that's the only thing you should have as income at that point. You'll retire in a decent level of upper-middle-class retiree comfort, and can be satisfied with the legacy of your work in office.

    If that's not enough for you, get the fuck out of politics. Good riddance.
    Ahhh, now we're getting somewhere. This is the philosophical discussion you promised me earlier. I like the way you're thinking. It also ties in with a current problem: North Korea. How do you convince an evil dictator to abdictate if you can't also promise him amnesty for everything he's done? Would that make it easier to "fix" problematic countries? Or do you have to wait for the current guy to die and then hope the die lucks out on a "good reformer" like Gorbachev?

    I think part of this problem is human's inability to actually forgive. Our need to retaliate, to seek justice at all costs.

    And I agree with the aspect about self-interest. It made me speculate about AI running our Governments. I know it's crazy for all the obvious reasons, but... is it? It would solve the problem of human greed for power.

    Ultimately, your scenario is something I could live with. It would steer people that are actually passionate about politics into the career path and move people that are in it for power or greed away from it. The true servant of the people type of job.
    Users with <20 posts and ignored shitposters are automatically invisible. Find out how to do that here and help clean up MMO-OT!
    PSA: Being a volunteer is no excuse to make a shite job of it.

  12. #52
    Quote Originally Posted by PC2 View Post
    It seems you misunderstood me. The bolded part is my point. The West is the only civilization that is constantly re-inventing itself and causing all other societies to take cues from us or remain stuck in static societies and provincialism. Perpetual re-invention is how you make a civilization immortal.
    Oh please. You're just wishing this were true. As usual you've nothing to go on but empty claims.

  13. #53
    Quote Originally Posted by PC2 View Post
    The West is the only civilization that is constantly re-inventing itself and causing all other societies to take cues from us or remain stuck in static societies and provincialism.
    This is begging for an actual definition and explanation, because it sure as heck seems verifiably false on many levels as-is.

    Quote Originally Posted by PC2 View Post
    Perpetual re-invention is how you make a civilization immortal.
    This is an empty, unsupported statement? Re-invention doesn't have any connection to "improvement", and it ignores practical realities where a "re-invention" may not be possible.

    Quote Originally Posted by PC2 View Post
    And yeah I get it, you're a hardcore pessimist who thinks a downfall is inevitable in the future.
    No, you just live in a magical, fictional land of sunshine and roses where the only thing you need to tackle the biggest, most pressing issues that have plagued us for decades/centuries is just a little bit of optimism and everything will be alright.

    Quote Originally Posted by PC2 View Post
    You think it's not possible for humans or groups to improve past history and if there was societal failure in the past then that means we must fail in the future. Which is entirely wrong.
    No, it's being realistic and not thinking that things will always turn into sunshine and roses. Look at labor rights, for example. We've made progress, then we've slid back considerably. We'll make more progress, hopefully, but will slide back again.

    Because reality isn't as simple as your world view requires it to be, which is why you exist in fantasy land more often than not.

    Bolsonaro is kinda a pretty good example of why the whole, "We'll figure things out, don't worry." viewpoint remains nonsense. Could it lead to improvements? Possibly, but first he's gonna drag Brazil back into the muck first, and he'll fight kicking and screaming to maintain his power so he can call everyone he doesn't like a "gay" because they want to do something like protect the rain forest.

  14. #54
    Quote Originally Posted by Mihalik View Post
    In autocracies the kleptocrats and the corrupt thieves prosecute you for being discontent with the scraps off the table.
    Tell me about it.

  15. #55
    The Unstoppable Force PC2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    California
    Posts
    20,448
    Quote Originally Posted by Edge- View Post
    Bolsonaro is kinda a pretty good example of why the whole, "We'll figure things out, don't worry." viewpoint remains nonsense. Could it lead to improvements? Possibly, but first he's gonna drag Brazil back into the muck first, and he'll fight kicking and screaming to maintain his power so he can call everyone he doesn't like a "gay" because they want to do something like protect the rain forest.
    I guess it's good to get back on topic here, which I hate it when the topic is about a person... I like how Bolsonaro shattered the long-running leftist government and culture in Brazil. However ultimately I view both the left(labor, PT) and the right wing as having sub-optimal policies and all the world needs from politics is to gradually implement more and more (neo)liberal policies.

    Brazil probably isn't going to do that anytime soon so I suspect they will just keep chugging along and making slow progress in spite of their historical and current leadership. Bolsonaro was just a release valve that needed to happen, he did his job but I don't think his politics is going anywhere in the coming years and decades.
    Last edited by PC2; 2021-07-06 at 04:05 PM.
    Let's spread optimism and defeat pessimism! (HumanProgress.org)

  16. #56
    Quote Originally Posted by PC2 View Post
    I like how Bolsanaro shattered the long-running leftist government and culture in Brazil.
    And replaced it with a hateful, anti-science, anti-thinking regime that calls everyone they don't like "gay" and cheers on clearcutting the rainforest. Not exactly an improvement.

    Odd that you'd think that's a "good" thing.

    Quote Originally Posted by PC2 View Post
    Brazil probably isn't going to do that anytime soon so I suspect they will just keep chugging along and making slow progress
    They're regressing right now dude, not progressing.

    Quote Originally Posted by PC2 View Post
    Bolsanaro was just a release valve that needed to happen
    "Those racist, hateful, homophobic people just need to blow off some steam every now and then!"

    Not a great argument either.

  17. #57
    Quote Originally Posted by PC2 View Post
    I like how Bolsonaro shattered the long-running leftist government and culture in Brazil.
    I'm curious as to your reasoning behind this when you say the following right after:
    However ultimately I view both the left(labor, PT) and the right wing as having sub-optimal policies
    If they're both sub-optimal to you, why are you happy the right wing Bolsanaro "shattered" the more left-leaning administration and culture?

  18. #58
    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    It might be time to start having some serious philosophical discussions about the validity of democracy as a model.

    The mantra was always that it prevented extreme viewpoints by requiring the support of the masses, and frankly, the last decade or so have shown that to be an outright fuckin' lie.

    I say this as someone who's always supported democratic ideals and who doesn't have an answer.
    The core issue is human nature. As long as you have people willing to step over others for their own personal gain, there's no hope in betterment, no matter the system of gouvernment. We consider ourselves advanced because we furthered technology and implemented basic human rights, and yet they are trampled everywhere on the globe left right and center. Humanity hasn't evolved since 500 BC, properly even longer. You still have decent people being screwed over by assholes, the methods have just gotten more refined, and that's all.

  19. #59
    Merely a Setback JohnBrown1917's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Обединени социалистически щати на Америка
    Posts
    27,848
    Quote Originally Posted by PC2 View Post
    I guess it's good to get back on topic here, which I hate it when the topic is about a person... I like how Bolsonaro shattered the long-running leftist government and culture in Brazil. However ultimately I view both the left(labor, PT) and the right wing as having sub-optimal policies and all the world needs from politics is to gradually implement more and more (neo)liberal policies.

    Brazil probably isn't going to do that anytime soon so I suspect they will just keep chugging along and making slow progress in spite of their historical and current leadership. Bolsonaro was just a release valve that needed to happen, he did his job but I don't think his politics is going anywhere in the coming years and decades.

    Yeah, he did such a good job that Lula is now free and at around 55% in the polls, 33% ahead of Bolsonaro.


    But no surprise you loved him trying to shut down the left with whatever hard-handed means he could.
    Quote Originally Posted by Jonnusthegreat View Post
    Timmy still can get lunch, it's just not free.

  20. #60
    Elemental Lord Santti's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Finland
    Posts
    8,167
    Quote Originally Posted by Edge- View Post
    And replaced it with a hateful, anti-science, anti-thinking regime that calls everyone they don't like "gay" and cheers on clearcutting the rainforest. Not exactly an improvement.

    Odd that you'd think that's a "good" thing.
    He's a Trumpster. Cheering for an undemocratic strongman is not that odd. In fact, It's entirely expected.
    Last edited by Santti; 2021-07-06 at 04:20 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ransath View Post
    Money laundering, especially prior to his election? I couldn't give a flying fuck.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •