Old System, New System

From what I have gathered, the single greatest point this 'movement' has, is its open forum discussions. However, these open discussions would make getting to the heart of issues, very tedious. How would one go about resolving problems, is there some sort of provention policy, and even if there is, how would one go about fixing the problems that we face now?

Allfather, I can't help but make and voice this observation in the interest in allowing ideologies to conflict:

You appear to be a disaffected sixteen year old.

Let me justify through summary: You posted a well-written original post, in which you said details would be forth coming upon request. Since, the only "detail" posted has been a reference to the Platonic MISCONCEPTION that there is a fundamental difference between the realm of what exists and what is true. The only other posts have been 1)Gross overreactions to someone questioning your beliefs on well-founded and, indeed, ASKED FOR grounds, and 2)Sycophantic praise for posts that directly contradict elements of the ideology you set out originally. Together, these indicate that you may be: 1)Trapped within your intellectually formative years, and 2)Presume your superiority to all around you, thus firmly establishing a general disregard for the intrinsic value of these very same people.

Read: Disaffected, childish.

You claim your "system" of "enlightened debate" is best. You support this claim by saying modern democracy is flawed. If you had a true grasp of Plato, you would understand that, syllogisticaly, you must still establish two things: 1)That your system is better than the status quo, by demonstrating without equivocation that it does not retain the same trappings and flaws as democracy, and 2)That there can be no other system that accomplishes what your system does in a more effective and/or efficient way.

Both these claims need to be addressed before the observation of "disaffected 16 year old" will be rescinded.

G

p.s. I should warn you now, in the interest of enlightened debate, that a flame-like responce will validate my position, in its entirety. Good luck sir.

[Edited on 25-4-2004 by Cascadego]

There is a difference between this physical realm and the metaphysical of concept. I would have thought this would speak for itself. However, I shall address the more pressing points:

"1)Gross overreactions to someone questioning your beliefs on well-founded and, indeed, ASKED FOR grounds."
It would indeed be a gross overreaction had it been a reaction to being questioned. I simply disliked the structure of the post. Had he questioned first and then formed criticisms on the answers, I would have been pleased and motivated to continue debate.
"2)Sycophantic praise for posts that directly contradict elements of the ideology you set out originally."
Considering the non-polar political nature of our system, there is much that will SEEM contradictory until seen as part of the bigger picture.

I can further assure you that I am neither
"1)Trapped within your intellectually formative years," nor do I
"2)Presume your superiority to all around you, thus firmly establishing a general disregard for the intrinsic value of these very same people."
This latter point would be a basic misperception of what I'm saying. The only aptitude I regard above people (in general) is in judgement, but our belief in the intrinsic worth and potential of people is an important pillar of our philosophy.

"You claim your system of enlightened debate is best. You support this claim by saying modern democracy is flawed. If you had a true grasp of Plato, you would understand that, syllogisticaly, you must still establish two things:
1)That your system is better than the status quo, by demonstrating without equivocation that it does not retain the same trappings and flaws as democracy."
Which, as I'm sure you know, I can only literally demonstrate when our system is adopted from administration.
"2)That there can be no other system that accomplishes what your system does in a more effective and/or efficient way."
There is none. I'm not even sure whether I should elaborate on why that's obvious

"Both these claims need to be addressed before the observation of "disaffected 16 year old" will be rescinded." Just to point something out, I'm 17 chronologically, so if you still feel as you do, then it would be "disaffected 17 year old". Never the less, thank you for some very stimulating debate.

P.S. I realise that keeping one context in reference to oneself using first AND second person looks crazy, but I decided not to dice up the quotes.

So, Scott, let's summarize.

Your system is better than democracy because:

I'm simply saying that our system beats democracy, because democracy divides, causes arguments, and depends on a fundamentally ill-informed populace.

Your system works because, instead of arguing, you refer to it as

The reason our system works is because we debate an issue until, through a process of elimination-through-conflict, it is resolved.

So, under democracy, debate is argument. Under your system it is elimination-through-conflict. Correct? Would you care to elaborate on the distinction?

Next point. The common man is not to be entrusted with the control of his life because

The populace is ill-informed, and completely without the salts as to discern leadership quality, or the solution to any given situation of a complexity beyond the Nth degree.

So you propose to replace this silly notion of voting with

Just and rational leadership comes not from the despot, nor the democratically-elected representative, but from the philosopher-king, he who is armed with principle, vision and a love for truth and goodness.

Correct?

The enery policies, the cowsh*t gas and nuclear energy that you talk about can be of course supplemented with hydrogen fuel-cells and biodiesel; I'm sure that one of the scientific prodigies in your movement would have suggested that.

Am I correct in summarizing your proposal so far?

A couple of suggestions: try to simplify your discussion. For example, call debate, debate. Not elimination-through-conflict. Otherwise, you might be accused of sophism.

I know that spelling and grammar are important to you; I saw your post in weaponry, and unselfishly added to your list. No charge. Once again, to some, it weakens your argument.

A final question. The philosopher-king you mention: what happens if the great unwashed decides that he is not the right man for the job. What is their recourse for change?

Silly old democracy provides a solution through the ballot box. What does your unique form of liberalism, without "the right to vote", or politically-correct nonsense provide as a mechanism for change?

And of course there's the pesky detail of paying for all of this. Care to elaborate on where the funds will come from?

All-father, there is NO metaphysical realm of concept. It is widely accepted that Plato and Socrates both failed in their philosophy due to the assumption of such a distinction. The realm of "forms", as it is properly known, lead Greek- and Western- thought down the wrong avenue for centuries. Indeed, the vast majority of Plato's syllogisms are flawlessly structured, but incorrect in practice. This error is best reconciled by recognizing the lack of a seperate metaphysical realm.

I know, and you could too. To enlighten you, i suggest you read Parmenides and perhaps The Phaedo, as opposed to simply The Republic. Indeed, once you progress beyond books written before 1000ad, you will find that DEMOCRACY and all it entails, is far more philosophically justified than the Philospher-King argument trumpetted by Plato.

This is the root of my claim that you are trapped within your intellectually formative years, which, as you will certainly admit, is true. You say yourself you are 17. You are still in school, lets hope. You are still constructing your cognizance, so to speak, as am I you will understand, though I imagine i have a considerable leg up on you.

Now, lets set some # straight:

Your rhetoric disturbs me. I ask you vary your posting format to better suit a dialog. As much as you pick apart what I say, you never do address my point.

You MUST show US that:

1)Your system is better than the status quo. You must demonstrate that it does not retain the same trappings and flaws as democracy.

In responce to this request you said:
"Which, as I'm sure you know, I can only literally demonstrate when our system is adopted from administration. "

This is catagorically absurd. You must certainly be able to demonstrate the rational basis of your proposed system before you can EXPECT ANYONE ELSE TO ACCEPT IT. Indeed, that is precisely what you claimed to be here to DO. So DO IT. Demonstrate, with sound argumentation and preferrably real-world examples, point number 1.

2)Demonstrate that there can be no other system that accomplishes what your system does in a more effective and/or efficient way.

To which you have replied: "There is none. I'm not even sure whether I should elaborate on why that's obvious."

It most certainly IS NOT OBVIOUS why your system, which has not been explained, is better than any system currently existant. If you are unsure as to why its necessary to elaborate, let me help you. WE DO NOT ACCEPT THAT YOUR SYSTEM IS BEST, ONLY YOU DO. That should be cause enough. We would like you to present your thoughts, so that we may either come to accept them as a correct reflection of the world around us, or point out to you the several misconceptions you are laboring under.

G

ps @JSOBECKY: I also read the post in Weaponry and found it to be full of GROSS factual errors. See subsequent post by me for details.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

[Edited on 26-4-2004 by Cascadego]

Look through your whole post and you'll see your HORRENDOUS errors when you consider one point: I am not Plato, nor do I believe in the realm of forms. Also, note that "widely accepted", despite what proponents of democracy would LIKE us to believe, does not mean "categorically indubitable".

I speak of the metaphysic of morality, which alludes to the most basic of human social concepts, i.e. a code of acceptable conduct.

Your reference to having "a leg up", as far as I can see, is best applied to your preprogramming. Considering the volume of subscribers the Cause has gained in its nascency, I would say it is already accepted by many intelligent people of varying standpoints.

What really displays your inability to grasp what I'm saying is that when I said I couldn't LITERALLY demonstrate the advantages of the system without it being applied, you said this was "categorically absurd", and yet you asked for a real-world example of how the system is better. I can only hope that you are making a poor attempt at asking for a comparison. Should this be the case, then let me see. An enlightened, principled leader doesn't take part in oil wars, or petty international squabbling, nor does he announce the solution to any given problem being "Let's pray to Jesus!". To put it more simply, a true leader doesn't become a politician, or stand for election. The true leader lets his/her aptitude in judgement speak for itself.

Furthermore, how do the people even know the truth about who they're voting for? Another point you should be considering is that unless voting is compulsary for all (which is considered by some to be an infringement on personal liberty), you don't truly get an idea what the people want. "Why vote for the party I like ? They're never going to get in, it's either going to be Mr. Insurance Corporation's Political Investment or Mr. Oil-Extraction."

In the United States, the Presidential debate takes place between a Republican and a Democrat. There's your real-world example, and it says everything. Western democracy naturally surrenders to theocratic and beaurocratic authority.

Democracy is even better than dictatorship for The Man, because in democracy, you can actually make people think they're free, and deceive them into voting the way you want them to, thusly gaining their unknowing subservience by uninformed consent. I think we should coin the democratic term "Deceivership", to give "Dictatorship" an ugly twin.

Our system works because it allows its denizens to focus on their own lives, and their vindication of the self, while those crafted by virtue champion and protect the people as a whole. Your 2-dimensional criticisms could never do it justice.

Given this, the only "GROSS factual error" around here is that you actually think you're sufficiently-equipt to discredit this movement, which has more merit and hardiness than you are willing to accept.

I have already tore your new one to the extent that your brain-stem is visible. It is physically impossible for you to be at a greater degree of defeat than you are now.

In conclusion: Stop flogging a dead horse, and go form a close relationship with a living one.

Now, if anyone has some specific questions about this, I would be more than happy to oblige.

Look jackass, its a bitch to refute your pissant movement when there is nothing substantive to analyze. You say repeatedly you allow for the transcendence of the individual, or whatever, but you never, once, ever, say HOW you allow for this, or ANYTHING. THERE IS NOT ONE INSTANCE OF SUBSTANTIVE FACT IN ALL YOUR POSTS.

Sure, abstractly a system that is perfect IS PERFECT. But besides the claim that your system is perfect, you have SAID NOTHING ELSE.

Now, here are my questions since you seem to have incredible difficulty providing anything of merit on your own:

1. Who makes decisions?
2. How are these people put into a position to make decisions?
3. What is to ensure that these people stay in a position to make decisions?
4. What is to ensure that these people do not abuse their position?
5. Specifically, how would the average person be more free?
6. Specifically, where would a person like you fit into the power structure?
7. By what means is the administrative elements of society funded?
8. How is what you suggest specifically different from what already exists, ON PAPER, within the US?

And PLEASE avoid making unsupported assertions. For example: "as evidenced by the number of followers the movement has acquired...". Its easy to say, but DONT EVEN BOTHER unless you are willing to put up some evidence.

[Edited on 26-4-2004 by Cascadego]

You would find the information you seek if you were actually looking. However, as I see your limits are frustrating you, I will address your questions in attempt to illustrate these points.

1.) Who makes decisions?
A select executive body (saddled atop many various legislature and regulating department).
2.) How are these people put into a position to make decisions?
I suppose the system of selection could best be defined as meritocratic. They would have to meet certain criteria, which would range from the extent of education to their personal degree of success in self-actualization, as measured by the individual's experiences and achievements.
3.) What is to ensure that these people stay in a position to make decisions?
Their own hard work and dedication to the system. To explore what I see as a considerable flipside of this question, let me just answer before it is asked: They will know the system, and their responsibilities.
4.) What is to ensure that these people do not abuse their position?
Their position would be purely functional. Corruption is not an option for any personnel. In our system, "position" relies on the integrity of the legislature, so abusing the system would be screwing onsefl over. Also, the certainty that they will be caught, and the penalties for such offenses, would be deterrent enough, one would think.
5.) Specifically, how would the average person be more free?
The average person would be free to live reasonably above the poverty line. Furthermore, our system acknowledges the basic right of a personal to live and enjoy reasonable health, and availability would be based on this alone, not the ability to pay extortionate fees.
6.) Specifically, where would a person like you fit into the power structure?
A person LIKE me would be somewhere in the legislature, or public campaigns, or any position of service to the Cause, for that matter. I, personally, would be at the very height of the administration, most probably as the Federal Executive Officer for Defense.
7.) By what means is the administrative elements of society funded?
I am not the movement's head of financial matters, but, to answer in the most depth I can right now, the treasury will prosper directly with economic growth, and would grow thereupon. A basic tax system would be in place, but would not be the sole measure of revenue. Considerable business bodies will serve the federal authority, which will put industry and merchantile ventures on a single track towards the greater prosperity of the people. Given the fact that there would be no welfare for the jobless, that is, those of whom could work but do not, there will be:
-A- More money freed up from gold-brickers.
-B- Greater productivity in federally-managed industries, and thusly greater funds for the administration.
8.) How is what you suggest specifically different from what already exists, ON PAPER, within the US?
For one, healthcare would be buoyed by the federal authority. I think that speaks for itself. As far as recent legislation, i.e. SOMETHING ON PAPER, goes, we wouldn't have some God damn shameful assrag like the Patriot Act., which is just a blank cheque to apprehend and dispose of whoever the US administration so pleases.

~Justice For All~

'Nuff said.

I've been pretty much sitting back on this one, but I think it's time I chimed in.

This idea is one of many fantastic system models that will never see the light of day. Even if it did, it would be doomed to the same fate as our current system (this really isn't meant to be offensive, in case it comes across that way).

There are a number of reasons that this wouldn't really see the light of day.

1) The current system is much more cost effective and less time intensive to fix than a new one.

2) Too many people live in mental opulence (the luxury of living in the U.S.) to care about voting for the president let alone putting any real time into it. Even if it's just thought.

3) Barring drastic events, there is no real launching pad for something like this.

4) Even if, for some reason, this became a big following, people would assimilate it into the current system because the opposition would not allow a complete change. Gradual change is easier to slide by legislators let alone the masses.

Even if this did happen in it's entirety, there are fundamental flaws not taken into consideration thus far (as I've seen at least).

1) When the going gets good, people become complacent and lazy. As lofty and important as personal ascension and improvement may be, there are many who are lazy, anti-establishment, and just plain dumb. Most of these ideas would be lost on them.

2) Inherent human nature. Shakespeare is still popular now because it addresses timeless human traits: Jealousy, hate, betrayal, corruption. No matter how hard some try, corruption and lethargy are bound to creep into this new system much like ours now.

3) From what I've read so far, the government would be vastly bigger than what we have now on the federal level. There are those who fight big government religiously.

4) It goes against the fundamentals of the U.S., which of course would never take.


All in all it's not bad, but I'd prefer to look to fix the problems we have now rather than create new ones in an untested system.

It's a nice idea, but basically unneeded.

Well, I've read your points, and although I disagree that our system has such flaws, I find myself agreeing with many of your points. I understand that, in the US particularly, there have been issues throughout history in which the power and justifications of local vs. federal government has become a point of strong debate, and even Civil War. As that was your last detail, it was first on my mind in this reply, and believe me, our system does very little to offend anarchistic sensibilities, other than that, in political application, it manifests as a form of government.

In answer to your concerns about cost-effectiveness, inherent flaws, etc., let me just assure you that we have explored and defended against the reproduction of the flaws of other systems.

All in all, however, you make sure everything is taken into account, and raise sensible points of observation.

I am well aware that this is a comparatively short answer, but I feel I would give you better answers if I gave you the chance to think on what I've said and table more specific concerns and questions.

Thank you for joining in.

Originally posted by All-Father

In answer to your concerns about cost-effectiveness, inherent flaws, etc., let me just assure you that we have explored and defended against the reproduction of the flaws of other systems.

Honestly, I don't doubt it. Although, if nothing else, I am one who looks deeply into people and society as it is the construct from which all things are based (politically at least). In order to adapt to this new system, a radical cultural change would have to take place. This can not be done overnight, but rather in stages which can get conviluded over time.

I find the flaws in humans, not so much in the systems.

I am well aware that this is a comparatively short answer, but I feel I would give you better answers if I gave you the chance to think on what I've said and table more specific concerns and questions.

No worries. I'd really have to have detailed information to get more in depth about it.

I'm surprised, this has been a relatively calm dicussion for the Pit.

Originally posted by All-Father
In answer to your concerns about cost-effectiveness, inherent flaws, etc., let me just assure you that we have explored and defended against the reproduction of the flaws of other systems.

This isnt substantive, would you go into greater detail please? Im sure you can understand why this isnt effective at all in furthering any discussion on the matter.

Consider a sociocultural situation in which the highest systemic virtues are derived from the enthusiasm of labour (a la the conjecture of Humboldt and the practicality of the Stakhanovites), and the maintenance of solidarity. Not only are greater quality and productivity in workmanship openly commended, they are, in themselves intrinsic reward, affording one greater pride and prestige.

Consider an economic system in which collective financial power is levied against waning industrial ventures, thusly preventing job losses and scarcity of incoming currency. Economic oscillations are inevitable, hence, the Cause is above all other ideologies in that we accepts this, and seek not futiley to destroy it, but to manipulate it for the common good.

Consider a system in which the institutions are not ruled or drowned by beaurocracy, but rather, cultivate and exalt the cultural fountains of knowledge, integrity and justice; the fundamental pillars of a morally stable and uncompromised society.

Here are just a few examples of the substantive and unrivalled enrichment of the moralitarian movement of Veritism.

Neither democracy, nor state socialism, nor state capitalism, nor any other system, for that matter, can equal the optimal power and flexibility of Veritism. The Cause is the inevtable realisation of humanistic truth.

The Veritist State (in the context of the national grouping of organizations and individuals, rather than "the government") as an organism, is a very complex animal.
The executive body is the brain, seeking to stabilize and coordinatethe various actions of the state, however, this executive need not directly control the methodology of other components. The state, needless to say, has many other organs on which it depends for survival. The established laboratories and institutional academia are self-preened through internalized technocracy. The means of production, often the subject of squabbling between other ideologies, are managed by worker syndicates.
The branches out from the executive body, that is the sympathetic system of legislation, and the more shaded system, parasympathetic to the executive body, that is, the self-contained council of martial resolution.

Obviously, trying to list all the various institutional and departmental components would be quite impractical, but I feel I've given you a better picture of our unique, versatile system, and its innumerable potentialities.

further questions and comments would be appreciated.