Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

[Ukrainian Ranger]

They are effective, at surviving. You're absolutely right about it being a product of evolution and applied properly, as happens sometimes, can be quite beneficial, but usually it's just a necessary evil, one that should be carefully watched and controlled. A smaller government is easier for its citizenry to audit, less of a leviathan.

Who said that audit by average moron citizen is a good thing to have?

Countries should be ruled by elites. What good people must do is to ensure that they ARE elites and they ARE the government. Elites need to kick scumbags  out of politics not "control" them.

[Loud Whispers]

I wouldn't even say the EU has avoided any wars. It is the peaceful state of Europe that allowed the EU to be borne, not the other way around. And the EU's attempt at creating common army for what ends is worrying. It's not a German army if you don't call it one, just as Japan does not possess carriers either.

At this point I can't tell if you're being deliberately awkward or are just having a hard time communicating what you mean.
What does "as the needs arise" even mean? What kind of thing do they need to raise funds for?

I think you're just reading too far deep into a simple statement that really is quite that simple. I'm saying the primary purpose - the fundamental purpose, upon which all other functions are built on, is that the government exists to procure funding. When the King, Commissioner, Emperor, President, Governor, People, the Nation or the Government itself needs money for a bridge, needs money for the army, needs money for the merchant navy or agriculture or housing development or welfare based upon the whims of any of the above; the government must either deny this or find the funds for it. Forget notions of setting law, controlling the armed forces, holding the monopoly on just use of force or improving the welfare of the people. A government that sets any of those as its primary goal without the ability to raise its funds is only performing the function it claims to serve in name only.

[Sergarr]

They are effective, at surviving. You're absolutely right about it being a product of evolution and applied properly, as happens sometimes, can be quite beneficial, but usually it's just a necessary evil, one that should be carefully watched and controlled. A smaller government is easier for its citizenry to audit, less of a leviathan.

Who said that audit by average moron citizen is a good thing to have?

Countries should be ruled by elites. What good people must do is to ensure that they ARE elites and they ARE the government. Elites need to kick scumbags  out of politics not "control" them.

Countries should be ruled by everyone in a country, but the weight of their opinions should not be equal, but instead proportional to how right they were in their previous opinions and predictions about similar issues.

There's no way to make the "elite-ruled country" with "kicking scumbags out" work without having those elites go corrupt almost immediately and use those "kicking" powers to promote their own personal interests. If you have "good people" controlling the elites and ensuring their quality, then these elites aren't elites at all.

[mainiac]

I wouldn't even say the EU has avoided any wars. It is the peaceful state of Europe that allowed the EU to be borne, not the other way around. And the EU's attempt at creating common army for what ends is worrying. It's not a German army if you don't call it one, just as Japan does not possess carriers either.

Well the peaceful state coincidence with the steel agreement which predates the EU.  The EU is just continuing and expanding the war discouraging conditions that early agreements had created.

[CaptainMcClellan]

Why should it not be a government's responsibility? Why else would you even want one around?

That's the fundamental question, is it not? If the people can't look out for each other's welfare, why should a government? It is the citizen's responsibility, nay the human's responsibility to look out for each other. Also, how many governments hurt the people's welfare in order to secure it?

[mainiac]

Nice sounding platitude but you should mark your expectations to real world results.  In the real world we know that a well run society has a government.

[CaptainMcClellan]

Yea, yea. By what criteria are we defining a well-run society? Also it's only a platitude because humans are fucking lazy.

[mainiac]

Lazy relative to who?

[Il Palazzo]

Yea, yea. By what criteria are we defining a well-run society? Also it's only a platitude because humans are fucking lazy.

They also tend to have two arms and two legs. Building your prescription for a perfect society on the assumption that everyone has three arms an a leg might not bode well for its prospects.

[Ukrainian Ranger]

Laziness is yet another useful evolutionary adaptation. Creatures that waste energy tend to not survive.

[wierd]

Humans only need government because humans (individually) have extreme difficulty letting go of the "Me myself and I!" mindset. "Who cares about those other people, how do *I* profit from it?!"

etc.


This is pretty fundamental to humans in general. There ARE genuine philanthropists out there, but for the most part people are selfish little pricks.  That's why SUV sales exploded after OPEC crumbled and gas prices fell. "Gee golly! I can afford to drive a really big vehicle for no reason other than I think it looks cool! All that environmentalism shit is a scam anyway man!"  et al. The trend that was converging on increased hybrid electric and straight electric vehicles was purely contingent on the high fuel costs associated with traditional motorvehicles-- and the desire to have the biggest baddest ride is still very much a prime motivator. (EVs dont look big and bad-- OR go VROOOM.)

By extension, things like racism, sexism, nationalism, etc are all extensions of this "Myself first and foremost!" instinct, as they all come from the "Like myself, therefor BETTER!" impulse.

Humans need government.  I would prefer to see post humans that dont need it.


Until that time, I will begrudgingly accept the inefficient solution of human government, which by necessity must tread on the feet of the selfish-minded humans they govern, in order to make them march in a unified formation.

[Ukrainian Ranger]

In society of altruists egoists have competitive advantage. Human body and cancer cells is a good example of this.

Long term altruistic society is plain impossible. Evolution will do its job.

[wierd]

Cancer only takes hold when the immune system is subverted.  You have cancer right now in your body. Your immune system kills it off.  The disease happens when the immune system cannot kill the cancerous tissue. (either because the immune system is weakened, the cancer presents no external signals that alert the immune system, or the cancer grows too quickly to be eliminated.)

A true altruistic society would see that the needs of the group exceed those of the individual, and would ostracise individuals that jeapordize the group's integrity.  The selfish only have competative advantage when they still have equal opportunity at social support systems.  They need a system to game to get their advantage.  Removed from the system, they have to be fully self-reliant, which is not optimal, and less advantageous than the cooperation model.

As such, the post humans will need to use social exile to keep the system working.

[mainiac]

So financial engineers are cancer.  Tell us something we didn't know.

[Ukrainian Ranger]

the cancer presents no external signals that alert the immune system, or the cancer grows too quickly to be eliminated.

In other words it evolved to be a smart egoist and avoid anti-egoist measures of the society.

Same will happen with post-humans.