My ideal society? Tha means what I want above everyonne else. I am too egotistical to change and yet too accepting to outright ignore other beliefs. So in my ideal society I'd make what I believed law and outlaw everything else. That way in my ideal soceity I'd have peace of mind.
That's all I really want. Everything else is up to my underlings.
Originally posted by leonheartmm
as in managers in certain industries? well they do their job, work, manage and direct people's workload and in doing so, facilitiate the process of resource creation{which requires labour in itself and is hence, a sort of resource itself} which they are paid for. enterpreneurs are different from managers, be specific in what ur asking.the government would be the only employer, yea. and it isnt like paying one large fee to RENT the house, when your the one who actually own and has all rights to it which the government CANT take away. also, the property would belong to you and your immediete family so its not like it will go back to the government if you die. taxes would work in the same way that they have always worked, you buy sumthing or make some money by labour and a part of it is taken by the government to provide public facilities to you.
r u stupid?! no, infact your not making much sense. you can SPEND money on buying whatever kind of stuff you LIKE from the government. you just cant EARN money without working for it, the way businessmen do {i.e. buy sumthing, then sell it for a higher price, easily seen in the real estate business}
no i dont, you pay for sumthing, then its YOURS, "NOT" the governments. any land, property/car/house/gadgets that you have bought are YOURS, and the government posesses no right over them, other than stopping you from TRADING them with sum1 else. basically, anything you need to posess for PERSONAL satisfaction, you can own, but if your intentions are to not utilise it personally and infact use it to earn money for which you didnt put in labour, THEN the government stops you.
no by, drawbacks, i mean people earning the limited resources available without putting in the work to desrve them, and as a result, the amount of resources available to the people who DO labour to produce them, getting thinner. its like the concept of printing fake money. since money represents resources, one who prints fake money, gets RESOURCES at his hand which he didnt labour for, and as a result, the moeny in the hand of the blue collar workman is devalued{hence, diminishing the resources that he had for personal use}. thats basically what the stock market represents. buying and selling at{usually} higher prices to get more in your pockect when you didnt actually change the product or contribute anything in the world as far as USEFULLNESS goes. basically, the drawback of resource ineficiency/demotivation for labourers and unfair distribution of recources.
please, dont pretend you know much about bertrand russel, if u did, u wudnt think capitalism was as nice as you do. and yes he most definately did say that this kind of liveral socialism was what he thought the best kind of economic/political system, other than his ideological utopia of anarchism. i read it a while ago and even though i have most of his books, its gonna take a while to find it again.
This sounds a little like John Rawls "justified Inequality". I.e. salary and employment are justified by two prcepts.
1. Everyone is treated equally, in that all decisions must be made on the basis that everyone is rational and equal.Any one who is rational will not abide with having less than some one else, therefore they will act accordingly to the others in the community.
2. Salary is monitored and up held by the Sovereignty/ Government, and dispatched in accordance to how beneficial ones job is to society. In other words one earns more by helping others. A Brain surgeon earns more than a bank manager, as they are serving the community in a greater way. Dispensation of salary must made in accordance with the first precept. One cannot justify a greater salary if it does not treat every persons a rational equal.
IMO this is the only system that could work in achieving a Globalized state. Of course it would require a revolution of some kind to retake gain control the economy and resources of the state in question.
Originally posted by Cartesian Doubt
1. Everyone is treated equally, in that all decisions must be made on the basis that everyone is rational and equal.Any one who is rational will not abide with having less than some one else, therefore they will act accordingly to the others in the community.
But people clearly aren't all equal and aren't all rational.
Originally posted by Cartesian Doubt
2. Salary is monitored and up held by the Sovereignty/ Government, and dispatched in accordance to how beneficial ones job is to society. In other words one earns more by helping others. A Brain surgeon earns more than a bank manager, as they are serving the community in a greater way. Dispensation of salary must made in accordance with the first precept. One cannot justify a greater salary if it does not treat every persons a rational equal.
Okay, this I like but how would the level of benefit be judged?
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
But people clearly aren't all equal and aren't all rational.
Better education brought on by the system, will hopefully help people attain the latter. Divergence in ability is countered, because the more capable are given jobs with higher responsibility. They earn more while simultaneously aiding the community.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Okay, this I like but how would the level of benefit be judged?
Haven't read the entire book yet, but this is definitely the tricky bit. How do you rank beneficiary of ones job. Who should earn more a teacher who is responsible for the lives a set amount of pupils, or a footballer who effects more people but is only benefiting the state aesthetically ?
Originally posted by Doom and Gloom
Don't worry. At the rate we're going it won't be long before the Earth starts to resemble Mars.
Fine ... as long as we have remnants of our intelligence as a species after we have all died out, (maybe for aliens to find) i don't really care. Im a real supporter of John Stuarts Mill's claim that its better to be socrates unhappy than a pig who is happy. In other words, our intelligence and the accomplishments we have achieved through this (no matter how destructive) make it all worth while. Its not that we our going to be judged badly . In the end I couldn't give a flying **** about whether or not life will carry on after we die out, what matters is that people are around to debate whether or not its all been worth while.
Originally posted by Cartesian Doubt
Fine ... as long as we have remnants of our intelligence as a species after we have all died out, (maybe for aliens to find) i don't really care. Im a real supporter of John Stuarts Mill's claim that its better to be socrates unhappy than a pig who is happy. In other words, our intelligence and the accomplishments we have achieved through this (no matter how destructive) make it all worth while. Its not that we our going to be judged badly . In the end I couldn't give a flying **** about whether or not life will carry on after we die out, what matters is that people are around to debate whether or not its all been worth while.
How arrogant can you get? Without all other living things we wouldn't be here. We evolved from some of those other life forms you don't give a crap about. That humans can debate stuff is pointless. If we maintain a healthy world in the end it's better for us as a species. I fail to see how millions of Chinese making cheap crap, or Muslims waging jihad, or whether Warren Buffett makes a gazillion dollars, really matters in the end at all. If humans died out completely but bacteria survived evolution would continue eventually probably giving rise to another intelligent species. But if humans kill the earth completely, then the earth is done, and nothing will ever come of it again.
Originally posted by Doom and Gloom
How arrogant can you get? Without all other living things we wouldn't be here. We evolved from some of those other life forms you don't give a crap about. That humans can debate stuff is pointless. If we maintain a healthy world in the end it's better for us as a species. I fail to see how millions of Chinese making cheap crap, or Muslims waging jihad, or whether Warren Buffett makes a gazillion dollars, really matters in the end at all. If humans died out completely but bacteria survived evolution would continue eventually probably giving rise to another intelligent species. But if humans kill the earth completely, then the earth is done, and nothing will ever come of it again.
The thing is arrogance is a human emotion, something that will no longer exist without ourselves.
You can go on about arbitaryness and hardship of life, is but in the end all people have experienced happines and enjoyment at some point. There are very few beings out there who would have chosen non-existence over their comparative hardship of their lives. And your examples of explotation of the masses by the minority is jus at sophisticated take on natural selection. Condemming humanity because of your subjective perspective on suffering, doesn't really make sense. Struggle and suffering are an intrinsic part of nature, without it you cannot have any form of contentment. If i have everything i desire, i won't desire anything further. There won't be any forms of frustration and satisfaction, just stagnation.
Originally posted by Cartesian Doubt
The thing is arrogance is a human emotion, something that will no longer exist without ourselves.You can go on about arbitaryness and hardship of life, is but in the end all people have experienced happines and enjoyment at some point. There are very few beings out there who would have chosen non-existence over their comparative hardship of their lives. And your examples of explotation of the masses by the minority is jus at sophisticated take on natural selection. Condemming humanity because of your subjective perspective on suffering, doesn't really make sense. Struggle and suffering are an intrinsic part of nature, without it you cannot have any form of contentment. If i have everything i desire, i won't desire anything further. There won't be any forms of frustration and satisfaction, just stagnation.
I'm not condemning humanity, not at all, we most definity are part of this world. But we do have to remember where we came from and why we are here (and no, it's not because some magical diety put us here)
Lets put things in perspective
The earth is roughly 4.6 billion years old.
Simple life (algae and some single celled organisms) first appeared between 1.5 and 2 billion years ago.
Complex life (multi-celled organisms) approximately 600 million years ago.
Mammals first appeared about 180 million years ago.
The first primates 55-60 million years ago
The first hominids 5-6 million years ago
Modern humans about 100,000 years ago
Humans developed agriculture 10,000 years ago
The first signs of true civilization only around 5,000 years ago.
So, even though we have only been around a hundred thousand years or so and our civilization far less ,the earth is MUCH older and rich in biodiversity for many times the length we've been here, biodiversity without which we could have never been
It's sad that we are such poor stewards of the very thing that gave rise to us, the earth. We should use that very intelligence and civilization you keep spouting about to take care of the only home we have. And rich biodiversity indicates that home would be healthy, sadly...it isn't.
Originally posted by inimalist
I think you overestimate the power of human destructiveness mr. gloom
Whatever you sayjawdrop
Originally posted by Doom and Gloom
I'm not condemning humanity, not at all, we most definity are part of this world. But we do have to remember where we came from and why we are here (and no, it's not because some magical diety put us here)Lets put things in perspective
The earth is roughly 4.6 billion years old.
Simple life (algae and some single celled organisms) first appeared between 1.5 and 2 billion years ago.Complex life (multi-celled organisms) approximately 600 million years ago.
Mammals first appeared about 180 million years ago.
The first primates 55-60 million years ago
The first hominids 5-6 million years ago
Modern humans about 100,000 years ago
Humans developed agriculture 10,000 years ago
The first signs of true civilization only around 5,000 years ago.So, even though we have only been around a hundred thousand years or so and our civilization far less ,the earth is MUCH older and rich in biodiversity for many times the length we've been here, biodiversity without which we could have never been
It's sad that we are such poor stewards of the very thing that gave rise to us, the earth. We should use that very intelligence and civilization you keep spouting about to take care of the only home we have. And rich biodiversity indicates that home would be healthy, sadly...it isn't.
But you are giving value to things that will have no value unless their is higher consciousness perceiving them. In comparison its like an artist creating his masterpiece and then hiding in fear that it may get ruined, and then committing suicide in the process out of fear he may also will too. Without any one there to give value to the art work, its just an arbitrary mixture of chemicals that hold as much value a as a turd or any other composition of chemicals. We allocate value to existence, not the other way round.
In other words, if we are all dead there will be nothing to asses the value of what survives. If we die and everything else goes with us, its not going to matter because without us its just a arbitary arrangement of matter. Biology is only complicated and beutiful, because we interpret it as such. The matter itself doesn't know that its beautiful or complex, it just exists.
Originally posted by Cartesian Doubt
But you are giving value to things that will have no value unless their is higher consciousness perceiving them. In comparison its like an artist creating his masterpiece and then hiding in fear that it may get ruined, and then committing suicide in the process out of fear he may also will too. Without any one there to give value to the art work, its just an arbitrary mixture of chemicals that hold as much value a as a turd or any other composition of chemicals. We allocate value to existence, not the other way round.In other words, if we are all dead there will be nothing to asses the value of what survives. If we die and everything else goes with us, its not going to matter because without us its just a arbitary arrangement of matter. Biology is only complicated and beutiful, because we interpret it as such. The matter itself doesn't know that its beautiful or complex, it just exists.
Well, I guess we're not on the same page at all, I guess I'll just go to mars and die. 😠