The Ideal State

[Ezra]

There are two rules.

1. Individual freedom. Based on the harm principle, the utmost value in a society is freedom. This also includes a government-enforced minimum wage for working, which under no circumstances must be breached.

2. Social responsibility. In order for society to correctly function, there must be a kind of agreement between all nations to protect the environment. There must be a set CO2 emission limit, and deforestation must not occur - any resources needed must be from recycled materials or renewable (I've forgotten the word for it) forests.

For society to function at its most optimum level, four institutions must be nationalised.

- Medical/health services
- Education, on all levels
- Legal services
- Police force
- Fire dept.
- Public transport.

The government should pay for these four things. Any other restrictions imposed i.e. on the market (yes, Tesco is a huge conglomerate and it bullies people; tough shit, that is life) are unnecessary, and restrict the freedom principle. The individual should take precedence, except in the cases I've outlined thus far.

One can choose to pay for a more expensive education if there are boarding facilities available or the like, which is what one is paying for; that is the individual's choice. One can choose to pay for more expensive legal services; that is the individual's choice. All companies can formulate their own businesses, and individuals may choose to go to them. Pay more, get more, is applicable here.

This way, everyone gets an equal footing in the world, regardless of background. It is up to the individual to choose what line of work they will go into. There is no objective morality, and so supply and demand is a fact of life. There is no heirarchy of jobs, and so there is no heirarchy of jobs to oppose e.g. "all work should be equal"; everything in life is simple a business transaction between individuals.

[FDG]

The government should pay for these four things.

Why? You have the habit of stating your conclusions without providing the reasoning behind them.

In order for society to correctly function, there must be a kind of agreement between all nations to protect the environment.

Again, why? It's not intuitively obvious.

[jessica129]

< lost

[Expat]

It seems to me that there are far more than just two rules.

[ragnar]

1. Individual freedom. ... This also includes a government-enforced minimum wage for working, which under no circumstances must be breached.

If someone wants to do a job that is worth less than minimum wage rather than being a social security client, why should the government stop him?

There must be a set CO2 emission limit, and deforestation must not occur - any resources needed must be from recycled materials or renewable

CO2 is about as big a "problem" as water vapor is. Deforestation is a good thing in many places. And it's often more eco-friendly not to use recycled materials.

The government should pay for these four things.

Government does not really pay for anything. They just take money from the citizen - by force, if necessary - and spend YOUR money on things THEY decide. Many countires have experienced the joy of government monopolies like public "education", medical "services" and public transport. I for one want no part of that.

The only thing the federal government needs meddle in is military defense and possibly an interstate police. The rest is better left to the states, or independent private companies like Grayhound, United Airlines, Rice University, Murky Legal Services inc, etc.

There is no objective morality, and so supply and demand is a fact of life.

There is an objective morality. But what does that have to do with "supply and demand" being "a fact of life" anyway?

There is no heirarchy of jobs

There is. Apple CEO is higher than burgerflipper. Prez is higher than copy machine operator.





Greetings, ragnar

[Ezra]

Sorry, I've been vague.

The government should pay for these four things.

Why? You have the habit of stating your conclusions without providing the reasoning behind them.

Because if any of those are privatised, society wouldn't function properly. You'd have a huge number of ill people, a huge number of people who are either extremely poor or homeless (through no fault of their own), and a lot of deaths, because only the rich could hire a fire service or police force to deal with those problems concerning fire in homes and muggings, rapes, and murders.

In order for society to correctly function, there must be a kind of agreement between all nations to protect the environment.

Again, why? It's not intuitively obvious.

Because we will slowly kill the world in which we live otherwise, thus rendering it uninhabitable, thus threatening the species. And how can one uphold the utmost truth (freedom) if there is no one to implement it?

[Ezra]

1. Individual freedom. ... This also includes a government-enforced minimum wage for working, which under no circumstances must be breached.

If someone wants to do a job that is worth less than minimum wage rather than being a social security client, why should the government stop him?

What do you mean "worth less"? There is no such thing as "worth".

There must be a set CO2 emission limit, and deforestation must not occur - any resources needed must be from recycled materials or renewable

CO2 is about as big a "problem" as water vapor is. Deforestation is a good thing in many places. And it's often more eco-friendly not to use recycled materials.

True, but over-deforestation and too much CO2 you have seen what it can do to the Earth.

The government should pay for these four things.

Government does not really pay for anything. They just take money from the citizen - by force, if necessary - and spend YOUR money on things THEY decide. Many countires have experienced the joy of government monopolies like public "education", medical "services" and public transport. I for one want no part of that.[/quote]

They should do.

The only thing the federal government needs meddle in is military defense and possibly an interstate police. The rest is better left to the states, or independent private companies like Grayhound, United Airlines, Rice University, Murky Legal Services inc, etc.

There is no objective morality, and so supply and demand is a fact of life.

There is an objective morality. But what does that have to do with "supply and demand" being "a fact of life" anyway?

No, there isn't. Some people think that all jobs are worthy of the same amount. But that is immaterial.

[/quote]

There is no heirarchy of jobs

There is. Apple CEO is higher than burgerflipper. Prez is higher than copy machine operator. [/quote]

Bullshit. It is all supply and demand. Jobs have no objective value.

[marooned]

I think it sounds okay on the surface... but that's rarely good enough... I love ideals, but there is an inherent danger to ideals, utopian philosophies, etc.

[Garmonbozia]

There are two rules.

1. Individual freedom. Based on the harm principle, the utmost value in a society is freedom. This also includes a government-enforced minimum wage for working, which under no circumstances must be breached.

2. Social responsibility. In order for society to correctly function, there must be a kind of agreement between all nations to protect the environment. There must be a set CO2 emission limit, and deforestation must not occur - any resources needed must be from recycled materials or renewable (I've forgotten the word for it) forests.

For society to function at its most optimum level, four institutions must be nationalised.

- Medical/health services
- Education, on all levels
- Legal services
- Police force
- Fire dept.
- Public transport.

The government should pay for these four things. Any other restrictions imposed i.e. on the market (yes, Tesco is a huge conglomerate and it bullies people; tough shit, that is life) are unnecessary, and restrict the freedom principle. The individual should take precedence, except in the cases I've outlined thus far.

One can choose to pay for a more expensive education if there are boarding facilities available or the like, which is what one is paying for; that is the individual's choice. One can choose to pay for more expensive legal services; that is the individual's choice. All companies can formulate their own businesses, and individuals may choose to go to them. Pay more, get more, is applicable here.

This way, everyone gets an equal footing in the world, regardless of background. It is up to the individual to choose what line of work they will go into. There is no objective morality, and so supply and demand is a fact of life. There is no heirarchy of jobs, and so there is no heirarchy of jobs to oppose e.g. "all work should be equal"; everything in life is simple a business transaction between individuals.

Wow, you just described the "Jonestown Agricultural Project" so perfectly!


Thank you very much Mr. Jim Jones.


It's hierarchy not heirarchy. You misspelled it twice.

Well.. here is a to a more Social Socialism!

[Garmonbozia]

Anyway, I've read Mill's On Liberty (currently reading his books of logic) and that isn't at all how he put it.

[Ezra]

What the fuck?

I'm not a socialist. I do not believe in equal redistribution of wealth, a key belief of socialists.

[Garmonbozia]

What the fuck?

I'm not a socialist. I do not believe in equal redistribution of wealth, a key belief of socialists.

I can see why you would be horrified by that accusation. The truth is I wasn't accusing you, only pointing out that you made a mistake and that your mistake makes Mill's idea of super liberal democracy look like a tame form a of Communism.

[tcaudilllg]

The government should pay for these four things. Any other restrictions imposed i.e. on the market (yes, Tesco is a huge conglomerate and it bullies people; tough shit, that is life) are unnecessary, and restrict the freedom principle. The individual should take precedence, except in the cases I've outlined thus far.

But what about when the individual is a nutball who is genetically wired to climb to the very top? Certainly something must restrain him.

[ragnar]

What do you mean "worth less"? There is no such thing as "worth".

I mean how much the "market" is willing to pay for the goods or services that are produced.

F.i. how much an American company is willing to pay you for advising them on how to do business in China. Unless you're a friend or close relative of the CEO, this will mainly depend on how much extra income the leaders believe your efforts will bring the company.

There is no heirarchy of jobs

There is. Apple CEO is higher than burgerflipper. Prez is higher than copy machine operator.

Bullshit. It is all supply and demand. Jobs have no objective value.

Does anything in this world have any "objective value"?


Greetings, ragnar

[UDP]

Has anyone ever read "The Republic" ?

[Gilly]

You're going to get shit on if you try basing your political beliefs on Plato, UDP

[Creepy-bg]

Arizona is pretty cool IMO. Besides summer (when you just live at night instead of the day) our weather is pretty nice.

[discojoe]

Any kind of social philosophy that is based on human enlightenment before material abundance is established = instant fail.

[Not A Communist Shill]

Arizona is pretty cool IMO. Besides summer (when you just live at night instead of the day) our weather is pretty nice.

Is this related to the proportion of Little Fluffy Clouds in the sky?

[marooned]

I used to live in Arizona.

[Not A Communist Shill]

I used to live in Arizona.

Plato modelled his vision of Utopia on it.

[Creepy-bg]

I used to live in Arizona.

really? where?

I live in Snottsdale

[Creepy-bg]

Arizona is pretty cool IMO. Besides summer (when you just live at night instead of the day) our weather is pretty nice.

Is this related to the proportion of Little Fluffy Clouds in the sky?

that's good song! Wish I remembered who did it (was it Orb? or something like that?)

[marooned]

I agree. Plato's cave is in Arizona. Bats live there.

I used to live in Payson.

[Creepy-bg]

I agree. Plato's cave is in Arizona. Bats live there.

I used to live in Payson.

Payson is nice, I've always wanted to try living there but I'm not sure how I'd do with a smaller town thing. Driven through it many times on the way to my parents cabin in Heber though. It's good that world is so small

[Ezra]

The government should pay for these four things. Any other restrictions imposed i.e. on the market (yes, Tesco is a huge conglomerate and it bullies people; tough shit, that is life) are unnecessary, and restrict the freedom principle. The individual should take precedence, except in the cases I've outlined thus far.

But what about when the individual is a nutball who is genetically wired to climb to the very top? Certainly something must restrain him.

Why should he be restrained from gaining any position via legitimate means?

[Ezra]

What do you mean "worth less"? There is no such thing as "worth".

I mean how much the "market" is willing to pay for the goods or services that are produced.

F.i. how much an American company is willing to pay you for advising them on how to do business in China. Unless you're a friend or close relative of the CEO, this will mainly depend on how much extra income the leaders believe your efforts will bring the company.

I see.

Well, in this state, companies have the power to choose how much they will pay their employer.

Does anything in this world have any "objective value"?

No. Do you agree?

[Ezra]

Has anyone ever read "The Republic" ?

No, but I'd like to. I've recently been reading about Plato and his ideas in The Social Philosophers by the sociologist Robert Nisbet, and they seem interesting. There are fascist elements which come through, and I'd like to study the book in more detail to get a rounder picture of Plato's views and methods. It'll probably be on my reading list for Philosophy this year. I also want to look at Aristotle's The Politics.

[Gilly]

The entire concept of value is subjective, because assigning value to things means that you have a need to compare them to something else.

[Ezra]

I used to live in Arizona.

Burton: "What were the skies like when you were young?"

Jones: "They went on forever – They - When I - We lived in Arizona, and the skies always had little fluffy clouds in 'em, and they were long, clear, and there were lots of stars, at night. And when it would rain, they would all turn - They were beautiful, the most beautiful skies as a matter of fact. Um, the sunsets were purple and red and yellow and on fire, and the clouds would catch the colors everywhere. That's uh, neat cause I used to look at them all the time, when I was little. You don't see that. You might still see it in the desert."

-Extract from The Orb's Little Fluffy Clouds

[Ezra]

The entire concept of value is subjective, because assigning value to things means that you have a need to compare them to something else.

Exactly.

[UDP]

You're going to get shit on if you try basing your political beliefs on Plato, UDP

Jumping to conclusions there, Gilly. I actually asked if anyone had read the book, and not whether or not you think I base my political beliefs on it. It is part of our Humanities coursework.


Regardless, getting shit on for basing your political beliefs on ... anything at all... is not uncommon.

[UDP]

Any kind of social philosophy that is based on human enlightenment before material abundance is established = instant fail.

That does not totally contradict the Buddha's story.

I was going to disagree at first, but then, really, it is important to realize how connected they are.

[FDG]

The entire concept of value is subjective, because assigning value to things means that you have a need to compare them to something else.

Still preferences are revealed by consumers at every point in time by their choices.

[Garmonbozia]

You're going to get shit on if you try basing your political beliefs on Plato, UDP

Jumping to conclusions there, Gilly. I actually asked if anyone had read the book, and not whether or not you think I base my political beliefs on it. It is part of our Humanities coursework.


Regardless, getting shit on for basing your political beliefs on ... anything at all... is not uncommon.

Humanities work.




I was 12 the first time I read The Republic.

[UDP]

You're going to get shit on if you try basing your political beliefs on Plato, UDP

Jumping to conclusions there, Gilly. I actually asked if anyone had read the book, and not whether or not you think I base my political beliefs on it. It is part of our Humanities coursework.


Regardless, getting shit on for basing your political beliefs on ... anything at all... is not uncommon.

Humanities work.




I was 12 the first time I read The Republic.

You look for congratulations everywhere you go, don't you.

[spoil:15638b7b6b]Nobody cares when you picked a book up and looked at it. What have you done with your amazing ability to glance at Plato at the age of twelve, other than to comfort your low self esteem by desperately trying to put on the image that you're something special?


Furthermore, your comment intended to make yourself look "intellectual" has the opposite affect of making you look shallow. The Republic is a classic, many people read it over and over again throughout their lifetimes. But I suppose maybe because you think you read it when you are 12, that your life experience and amazing mental capacity would serve you throughout your whole life.

So let me ask you this: with, what 9 years of feeble mental capacity under your belt, do you think you really were fully able to comprehend Plato on your first try? And if so - where is your magnificent response, at the age of 13, to all of Plato's work?



I apologize for my response, but that beta stench of Fe* is just too pungent. It amazes me how much value some see in spending much time and energy on in the image they are trying to present to other people, like their whole life depended upon it.


PS: And yes, Scarlett, I mean betaFe. Someone else I know does the exact same thing, though they are ENFj, and I react in just the same way here - I always have, and I always will. [/spoil:15638b7b6b]

[Not A Communist Shill]

I actually find the image of a 12 year old dismissing Plato's Republic amusing, considering that people over the centuries have considered all the moral implications and possible benefits etc. etc. of such a place in great detail, when they could have actually done something practical and useful, rather than being very pompous and intellectualist about the whole thing - I wipe my arse with Plato's Republic.

[tcaudilllg]

I should mention (or shouldn't) that what hmmkr is saying is exactly the point of Chrono Cross: people survive by adapting to the conditions they are dealt, and this is the end all be-all of the world. But hmmkr emphasizes revolution above all else, which is folly. Revolution that is uninformed is revolution without end, because in the end its just a force of reaction. The oppressor punishes behavior contrary to their intentions, and the individualists desiring self expression revolt against the oppressior. To either side their actions make sense: one is attempting to regulate extremes of individualism that distract from the conduct of the community's business, and the other is trying to permit the free expression of ideas and innovations, so as to provide the understanding necessary to adapt to the environment. Both are important, and it's only when either side drifts toward absolutism, and away from leniency, mercy, and most of all reason, that these strategies go astray.

Notes:
-Individualists often give themselves too much credit for being "unique". Successful variations are always slight, and a "unique" personality owes more to its determination to be unique than to an inherent uniqueness.

-Empiricists, if left undisturbed, will keep on keeping-on with their "tried and true" techniques while their environment changes around them, leading to a gradually intensifying maladjustment that has been historically reckoned as "decline." The inevitable result is the final downfall of law and order and the onset of chaos, as seen in the fall of Rome in ~470 C.E.. Empiricists de-emphasize the presence of evolutionary pressures and so can only vaguely reckon the causes of these "declines"; for this reason it is the destiny of every "empire" to fall as conditions surpass the knowledge spectrum delimited by existing traditions.

[Logos]

I should mention (or shouldn't) that what hmmkr is saying is exactly the point of Chrono Cross: people survive by adapting to the conditions they are dealt, and this is the end all be-all of the world. But hmmkr emphasizes revolution above all else, which is folly. Revolution that is uninformed is revolution without end, because in the end its just a force of reaction. The oppressor punishes behavior contrary to their intentions, and the individualists desiring self expression revolt against the oppressior. To either side their actions make sense: one is attempting to regulate extremes of individualism that distract from the conduct of the community's business, and the other is trying to permit the free expression of ideas and innovations, so as to provide the understanding necessary to adapt to the environment. Both are important, and it's only when either side drifts toward absolutism, and away from leniency, mercy, and most of all reason, that these strategies go astray.

Notes:
-Individualists often give themselves too much credit for being "unique". Successful variations are always slight, and a "unique" personality owes more to its determination to be unique than to an inherent uniqueness.

-Empiricists, if left undisturbed, will keep on keeping-on with their "tried and true" techniques while their environment changes around them, leading to a gradually intensifying maladjustment that has been historically reckoned as "decline." The inevitable result is the final downfall of law and order and the onset of chaos, as seen in the fall of Rome in ~470 C.E.. Empiricists de-emphasize the presence of evolutionary pressures and so can only vaguely reckon the causes of these "declines"; for this reason it is the destiny of every "empire" to fall as conditions surpass the knowledge spectrum delimited by existing traditions.

Does everything relate to video/computer games with you?

[tcaudilllg]

I should mention (or shouldn't) that what hmmkr is saying is exactly the point of Chrono Cross: people survive by adapting to the conditions they are dealt, and this is the end all be-all of the world. But hmmkr emphasizes revolution above all else, which is folly. Revolution that is uninformed is revolution without end, because in the end its just a force of reaction. The oppressor punishes behavior contrary to their intentions, and the individualists desiring self expression revolt against the oppressior. To either side their actions make sense: one is attempting to regulate extremes of individualism that distract from the conduct of the community's business, and the other is trying to permit the free expression of ideas and innovations, so as to provide the understanding necessary to adapt to the environment. Both are important, and it's only when either side drifts toward absolutism, and away from leniency, mercy, and most of all reason, that these strategies go astray.

Notes:
-Individualists often give themselves too much credit for being "unique". Successful variations are always slight, and a "unique" personality owes more to its determination to be unique than to an inherent uniqueness.

-Empiricists, if left undisturbed, will keep on keeping-on with their "tried and true" techniques while their environment changes around them, leading to a gradually intensifying maladjustment that has been historically reckoned as "decline." The inevitable result is the final downfall of law and order and the onset of chaos, as seen in the fall of Rome in ~470 C.E.. Empiricists de-emphasize the presence of evolutionary pressures and so can only vaguely reckon the causes of these "declines"; for this reason it is the destiny of every "empire" to fall as conditions surpass the knowledge spectrum delimited by existing traditions.

Does everything relate to video/computer games with you?

Does everything relate to movies/TV shows/popular literature to you?