Philosophy Now Forum

henry quirk wrote: "the country would still end up in a mess" no matter what system is adopted.

Probably, but how much of a mess is important and so worth trying to minimise.

henry quirk wrote: It'll never happen, of course...too many expect (demand!) lots and lots from the other guy with 'governors' as the conduit for securing the booty.

Perhaps the greatest value in having a society is its ability to share burdens and good fortune.

conceptualizer wrote:Perhaps the greatest value in having a society is its ability to share burdens and good fortune.

Everybody wants to share burdens, my friend, but keep 100% of good fortune.

Perhaps the greatest value in having a society is its ability to share burdens and good fortune.

Would you be prepared to share someone else's burdens as well as coping with your own. I feel exhausted just thinking about it.

Everybody wants to share burdens, my friend, but keep 100% of good fortune.

and that will never alter, unless under duress.

Next?

On the other hand, guys like Bill Gates altruistically give away billions of dollars. Of course, they could accomplish far more if they weren't such socialistic jerks.

"...democracy is one step above mob rule in that it has structural refinements used to justify oppression"

HA!

#

"Perhaps the greatest value in having a society is its ability to share burdens and good fortune"

If this is the case, then I'm no fan of 'society'.

Gimme, instead, 'civilization'.

Going on the replies so far socialism seems unpopular here. Oddly it is usually popular among the intelligentsia.
It also seems people here are pessimistic about human nature and disparage altruism. Yet altruism is usually considered to be a positive quality.
I think it is worth pointing out that people tend to be more magnanimous when burden sharing is done on a collective basis rather than one-to-one. Problems will occur for everyone from time to time, we all need help then.

"we all need help"

Sure, but you'll agree there's a big difference between the help I offer freely and help mandated by the powers that be.

In the first case, I'm compassionate; in the second, I'm coerced.

In the first case, I act based on my own reasoning; in the second, my reasoning is negated by that of another.

#

Speaking only for me: I got no problem with socialists (go on and do your thing!)...my problem is the socialist presuming he or she gets to tell me what to do.

I also have no problem with altruists (discharge yourself as you like!)...my problem is the altruist presuming he or she gets to discharge 'me' as he or she likes.

#

"the intelligentsia": in my view, a cluster of folks removed from the dirt and grime of living making them unfit to do much more than eat lotuses.

And: one man's pessimism is another's realism.

Well, this conversation is now strayed off topic. So to bring it back I have three questions for you all, please answer them briefly for now so we can get an overview:

Are our current forms of government acceptable in their efficacy?
Are they as good as we can make them?
If they are not acceptable and not as good as we can make them, do they simply need tweaking, or is a bigger overhaul required?

A major overhaul is indeed needed, which can only be spearheaded by the American Energy Party (AEP). One problem is the tradition of digital law (ignorance of the law is no excuse, you godforsaken citizens; please consult the billions of federal, state, county and local statutes in existence). The solution, of course, is analog law.

"Well, this conversation is now strayed off topic."

I disagree. My comments (awkwardly) get to the root question, that being, 'what is the purpose of government?'

Your questions...

-Are our current forms of government acceptable in their efficacy?

-Are they as good as we can make them?

-If they are not acceptable and not as good as we can make them, do they simply need tweaking, or is a bigger overhaul required?

...are meaningless till you first establish...

'What is the purpose of government?'

henry quirk wrote:What is the purpose of government?

The only proper function of government is social integration, like a traffic cop to prevent people from running over each other.

Bob's answer above illustrates the problem (exploring that which is poorly defined).

Bob says the only proper function of government is "social integration", while I say the purpose of government is to 'not exist' (I prefer civilization and proxy-hood to nation and government).

It's your thread, conceptualizer: what is government's purpose?

I don't care whose goddamn thread it is, the only proper fuction of government is social integration, no ifs, ands or buts.

Why do you people always allow Boob to derail every single thread?

I have to say I usually enjoy a discussion here, but all too often Boob gets in on the act and everyone piles in and ignores the topic. I've done that too, I admit.

Well Boob is an easy target, if that is what you all want then go a head. But when that happens we all look as stupid and one dimensional as he does.

I am going to suggest that you all put him on ignore rather than read his posts - after all they all say exactly the same thing, again, and again. They fit in to two basic forms, neither supported by any philosophical reflection.

1) Shit about "prophesy"
2) Idiotic libertarian attack on any form of government.

So once you have seen both types, you might as well cease.

"the only proper fu(n)ction of government is social integration, no ifs, ands or buts."

And I disagree.

*shrug*

#

"you might as well cease"

Thus spake Zarapoostra...