[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by JohnD [/i]
[B]It does, when people stop making excuses like "that won't work" and get off their lazy rear ends. Making excuses is easy. Complaining about the status quo is easy. Fixing the problem takes actual work. [/B][/QUOTE]
I should have responded to this earlier.
It doesn't work. It can't. People have been saying exactly that for decades, and look how well Ralph Nader is doing. Even more realistic and sanely led parties like the American party, focusing on Congressional representation instead of a Presidency pipe dream, are not exactly getting places. The system is now extremely well designed to ensure that no group of people, let alone a single person, can stand a chance of changing anything. Corporations and political parties have made sure that they are the only ones capable of holding onto actual power.
You can go ahead and volunteer all you like. If you aren't rich, you have precious little say in American politics. Bribery is legalized, and even the less legal bribery is rampant. There is no part of the government untouched by corruption and self serving agendas. Fixing the problems you talk about would take infinitely more than simple hard work.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Arethusa [/i]
[B]It doesn't work. It can't. People have been saying exactly that for decades, and look how well Ralph Nader is doing.[/B][/QUOTE]
In terms of politics these days, look at Ralph Nader's platform, and you'll see why he's doing how badly as he is. His platform is just plain unrealistic and not likely to be embraced by the majority of the voting public which, in my opinion, is probably moderate enough and politically in the center. In terms of corporate activism, look at all the good he's done for us with his activism and grass-roots work, Ford Pinto on out.
[QUOTE][B]Even more realistic and sanely led parties like the American party, focusing on Congressional representation instead of a Presidency pipe dream, are not exactly getting places. The system is now extremely well designed to ensure that no group of people, let alone a single person, can stand a chance of changing anything. Corporations and political parties have made sure that they are the only ones capable of holding onto actual power.[/B][/QUOTE]
Ignoring the various 3rd party platforms, which tend to all have some major features which keep them from getting support of anything close to the majority, you're pretty well proving my own point. These days, people don't seem to want to take the slightest bit of an activist position and put forth the time and money to work and get done what needs to be done, even if it's due to some level of apathy or laziness that's been driven into them by the status quo, or claims that one person doesn't make a difference.
[QUOTE][B]You can go ahead and volunteer all you like. If you aren't rich, you have precious little say in American politics. Bribery is legalized, and even the less legal bribery is rampant. There is no part of the government untouched by corruption and self serving agendas. Fixing the problems you talk about would take infinitely more than simple hard work. [/B][/QUOTE]
That's the attitude I was talking about. Volunteering DOES help more than just being sheep and accepting things as they are. If people get off their lazy asses...if it builds enough of a momentum with enough people stopping the pity party and DOING something, maybe we'd see better results.
JohnD I think Arethusa is actually fairly right, but not for the reasons he states.
The corruption lies within us
Most of those in government are actually decent human beings if you know them. The problem is they loose perspective.
How many of us have snagged something minor from our work, which was not needed, usless there, not going to be missed, or going to get chucked and either taken it home or given it to friends?
Thats technicaly stealing. It doesnt seem like it, but it is. Then we have an issue of scale. the Old office printer doesnt seem like much, but it represents 300 dollars, but compared to what you have control over at work its a somewhat sizable chunk. Well the more resources your responsable for, the easier it is for you to justify redirecting about the same percentage for other purposes. say a 1000 dollars redirected out of a million dollar budget a year is equal to a million dollars of a billion dollar budget.
Plus people always want to help their friends and family, and they seldom think they are hurting people, by re-alocating seemingly minor resources to those people. Its a basic human emotion thats probably geneticly hardwired into us. And the thing is the human mind has great capacity to logicly justify our emotional desires. In fact I would go so far as to agree with one David Hume, that the vast majority of our thoughts is formed by our emotional responses and logic is twisted to produce justifications. Hell I catch myself and my friends doing it all the time.
This is why dispite everybody's talk of reform the status quo seldom changes. There have been very few reform movements in history which have had a lasting effect. Because in the end, subconsiously they start behaving in a similar fashion, just to a lesser degree.
And to pick an example, Nader, while having done many great things, wouldnt be the famous invdivdual he was if GM hadnt pulled their dirty tricks. His complaints against the Corvair were from a engineering standpoint were a bit flawed. While the industry itself was being obstuctionist, that particular vehicle wasnt any more of a deathtrap then its contemporaries.
And lets not bring up Naders 1.2 million of Cisco stock in 2000, which of course was engaged in practices that when others engaged in them, he strongly disparaged them. And to many on the left they are one of the "eeeevillleee" corporations. Is it Hypocracy? maybe, personaly as far as "rampaging evil goes" It does alot of stupid shit, but hell its no Vivendi Universal! :D
I really wish I could bring myself to agree with you. Two years ago, I would have, full of fervent idealism about America and the democratic process. These days, it seems inescapable that the system is irreparably broken and that it is now impossible for anyone to work within it to do any good. The damage runs far deeper than just our governmental system. Those problems contribue, but are ultimately an expression of a deeper sickness in the socioeconomic landscape of this country and this world. To say to that that one person can make a difference by working hard and volunteering strikes me as well meaning and sadly misguided.
[edit]
Tyvar, I think the problems run far deeper than the majority of elected officials thinking, hey, no one'll miss 2.2 million in bribes from a defense contractor. It'll be cool.
At the most basic level, our political process attracts basically only those who will either take the bribes or are too rich to care (people like Kerry, I suppose). But it is, of course, far more complex than that.
And, for the record, I despise evolutionary psychology. It's enourmously convenient, and borders on being as intellectually lazy and unsound as intelligent design.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Arethusa [/i]
[B]evolutionary psychology. It's enourmously convenient, and borders on being as intellectually lazy and unsound as intelligent design. [/B][/QUOTE]
There are more then a few biologists and genetiscists who would disagree.
And logicly speaking, in the absence of either a claim of aprori knowledge, or some sort of outside agenda, our thought process is by definition a construct of biological structures, thusly a product of our evolution.
There is a very big difference between claiming that our biological structures are the result of the evolutionary process and saying that every single human impulse, feeling, and behavior is the direct result of an old and more primal function in evolutionary history. It is this dogmatic intellectual laziness that evolutionary psychology almost invariably devolves into. And there's little debating it, because it is as infinitely defensible as Freud. Though I guess this is turning into a threadjack, so I should stop.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Arethusa [/i]
[B]There is a very big difference between claiming that our biological structures are the result of the evolutionary process and saying that every single human impulse, feeling, and behavior is the direct result of an old and more primal function in evolutionary history. It is this dogmatic intellectual laziness that evolutionary psychology almost invariably devolves into. And there's little debating it, because it is as infinitely defensible as Freud. Though I guess this is turning into a threadjack, so I should stop. [/B][/QUOTE]
Im only agreeing with Hume (who was a 19th century british philsopher not a scientist) because Im jaded and cynical. However, Behavioral genetics as a field could eventualy make many serious claims about human thought process based on actual testing and manipulation of genetics, well if they were allowed to do some seriously twisted experiments.
As for threadjacking, eh, its fairly normal around here. I mean next post will be Random Chaos going "aardvark" or something! :D
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Arethusa [/i]
[B]I should have responded to this earlier.
It doesn't work. It can't. People have been saying exactly that for decades, and look how well Ralph Nader is doing. Even more realistic and sanely led parties like the American party, focusing on Congressional representation instead of a Presidency pipe dream, are not exactly getting places. The system is now extremely well designed to ensure that no group of people, let alone a single person, can stand a chance of changing anything. Corporations and political parties have made sure that they are the only ones capable of holding onto actual power.
You can go ahead and volunteer all you like. If you aren't rich, you have precious little say in American politics. Bribery is legalized, and even the less legal bribery is rampant. There is no part of the government untouched by corruption and self serving agendas. Fixing the problems you talk about would take infinitely more than simple hard work. [/B][/QUOTE]
Then how about revolution? Thats what the second amendment is for, right?
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Tyvar [/i]
[B]Im only agreeing with Hume (who was a 19th century british philsopher not a scientist) because Im jaded and cynical. However, Behavioral genetics as a field could eventualy make many serious claims about human thought process based on actual testing and manipulation of genetics, well if they were allowed to do some seriously twisted experiments.
As for threadjacking, eh, its fairly normal around here. I mean next post will be Random Chaos going "aardvark" or something! :D [/B][/QUOTE] Tell us about these experiments! When Im dictator we'll make sure to conduct them!
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Messiah [/i]
[B]Then how about revolution? Thats what the second amendment is for, right? [/B][/QUOTE]
Who actually wants a revolution? Take a look at America. Only a small handful would even say yes, and they are just college kids who want Che posters and to Rage against some Machines.
I'm going ot be dumb and look at America like a windows system. America's OS (the constitution) has been running for, what over 200 years now? During this time a great deal of extra software (laws) have been added. We're now suffering from memory leaks, conflicting drivers, etc. What needs to be done is a reformat. Either we re-install a fresh copy of the constitution as it was written oh so many years ago (with all amendments or just bill of rights is a good question) and rebuild the system in the modern socio/econono/political climate (does the synergy even exist to do such a thing? was there even the synergy we thought there was back then?). Or one could go about putting in a new operating system (Linux! Who would you rather have as the national symbol: the bald egle or Tux?)
Well first of all we would have to come up with an answer to a very important question which people seem to constantly over look
Where do rights come from?
The framework of the constituion and the decleration of independance is quite rigid, since in the 18th century, philsophers of the day were all tied up in the notion of some form of the divine. rights are [I]natural rights[/I] bestowed by the creator, and exist seperate from any human agency.
But in the 21st century america, the big push is towards atheism, which leads to a problem of the origin of rights.
They got rid of corruption in civ 4, cant we do the same? ;)
Do rights even need an origin? There is some psychology of moral development I want to use, but my notes are filed away and I would have to hunt for them. I should digitize them all, but I perfer notes on paper.
Yes rights do need an origin, because that is key to establishing rights, what constitutes a "right" and when they can be changed or revoked.
The benefit of having a set of basic rights that are viewed as being "a priori" and with a supernatural origin, is it makes it hard for societies to revoke those rights without pretty hefty cause.
Look at todays environment with the "war on terror" the level of resistance the administration is getting is quite stiff from a variety of places due to how entrenched those notions are. So far nobody has had the ACLU rounded up so obviously the situation hasnt deteriorated that far yet.
Here is the low down of moral development in psychology (Kohlberg). mind you this is for individuals, not society, but I believe some extrapolation could be made. Mind You Kohlberg's model is just that, a model, and it has shown faults when applied.
Croxis have you noticed that Kohlberg's model itself relies on essentialy [I]a priori [/I] views of the existance of justice?
Certain forms of a priori knowledge are easy to understand and prove, like mathematics, however notions of justice do not so easily fit into these boxes.
Furthermore if justice is a priori knowledge then it would have to be an absolute, meaning we end up agreeing at some level with Kant if we believe that to be true.
Comments
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by JohnD [/i]
[B]It does, when people stop making excuses like "that won't work" and get off their lazy rear ends. Making excuses is easy. Complaining about the status quo is easy. Fixing the problem takes actual work. [/B][/QUOTE]
I should have responded to this earlier.
It doesn't work. It can't. People have been saying exactly that for decades, and look how well Ralph Nader is doing. Even more realistic and sanely led parties like the American party, focusing on Congressional representation instead of a Presidency pipe dream, are not exactly getting places. The system is now extremely well designed to ensure that no group of people, let alone a single person, can stand a chance of changing anything. Corporations and political parties have made sure that they are the only ones capable of holding onto actual power.
You can go ahead and volunteer all you like. If you aren't rich, you have precious little say in American politics. Bribery is legalized, and even the less legal bribery is rampant. There is no part of the government untouched by corruption and self serving agendas. Fixing the problems you talk about would take infinitely more than simple hard work.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Arethusa [/i]
[B]It doesn't work. It can't. People have been saying exactly that for decades, and look how well Ralph Nader is doing.[/B][/QUOTE]
In terms of politics these days, look at Ralph Nader's platform, and you'll see why he's doing how badly as he is. His platform is just plain unrealistic and not likely to be embraced by the majority of the voting public which, in my opinion, is probably moderate enough and politically in the center. In terms of corporate activism, look at all the good he's done for us with his activism and grass-roots work, Ford Pinto on out.
[QUOTE][B]Even more realistic and sanely led parties like the American party, focusing on Congressional representation instead of a Presidency pipe dream, are not exactly getting places. The system is now extremely well designed to ensure that no group of people, let alone a single person, can stand a chance of changing anything. Corporations and political parties have made sure that they are the only ones capable of holding onto actual power.[/B][/QUOTE]
Ignoring the various 3rd party platforms, which tend to all have some major features which keep them from getting support of anything close to the majority, you're pretty well proving my own point. These days, people don't seem to want to take the slightest bit of an activist position and put forth the time and money to work and get done what needs to be done, even if it's due to some level of apathy or laziness that's been driven into them by the status quo, or claims that one person doesn't make a difference.
[QUOTE][B]You can go ahead and volunteer all you like. If you aren't rich, you have precious little say in American politics. Bribery is legalized, and even the less legal bribery is rampant. There is no part of the government untouched by corruption and self serving agendas. Fixing the problems you talk about would take infinitely more than simple hard work. [/B][/QUOTE]
That's the attitude I was talking about. Volunteering DOES help more than just being sheep and accepting things as they are. If people get off their lazy asses...if it builds enough of a momentum with enough people stopping the pity party and DOING something, maybe we'd see better results.
The corruption lies within us
Most of those in government are actually decent human beings if you know them. The problem is they loose perspective.
How many of us have snagged something minor from our work, which was not needed, usless there, not going to be missed, or going to get chucked and either taken it home or given it to friends?
Thats technicaly stealing. It doesnt seem like it, but it is. Then we have an issue of scale. the Old office printer doesnt seem like much, but it represents 300 dollars, but compared to what you have control over at work its a somewhat sizable chunk. Well the more resources your responsable for, the easier it is for you to justify redirecting about the same percentage for other purposes. say a 1000 dollars redirected out of a million dollar budget a year is equal to a million dollars of a billion dollar budget.
Plus people always want to help their friends and family, and they seldom think they are hurting people, by re-alocating seemingly minor resources to those people. Its a basic human emotion thats probably geneticly hardwired into us. And the thing is the human mind has great capacity to logicly justify our emotional desires. In fact I would go so far as to agree with one David Hume, that the vast majority of our thoughts is formed by our emotional responses and logic is twisted to produce justifications. Hell I catch myself and my friends doing it all the time.
This is why dispite everybody's talk of reform the status quo seldom changes. There have been very few reform movements in history which have had a lasting effect. Because in the end, subconsiously they start behaving in a similar fashion, just to a lesser degree.
And to pick an example, Nader, while having done many great things, wouldnt be the famous invdivdual he was if GM hadnt pulled their dirty tricks. His complaints against the Corvair were from a engineering standpoint were a bit flawed. While the industry itself was being obstuctionist, that particular vehicle wasnt any more of a deathtrap then its contemporaries.
And lets not bring up Naders 1.2 million of Cisco stock in 2000, which of course was engaged in practices that when others engaged in them, he strongly disparaged them. And to many on the left they are one of the "eeeevillleee" corporations. Is it Hypocracy? maybe, personaly as far as "rampaging evil goes" It does alot of stupid shit, but hell its no Vivendi Universal! :D
[edit]
Tyvar, I think the problems run far deeper than the majority of elected officials thinking, hey, no one'll miss 2.2 million in bribes from a defense contractor. It'll be cool.
At the most basic level, our political process attracts basically only those who will either take the bribes or are too rich to care (people like Kerry, I suppose). But it is, of course, far more complex than that.
And, for the record, I despise evolutionary psychology. It's enourmously convenient, and borders on being as intellectually lazy and unsound as intelligent design.
[B]evolutionary psychology. It's enourmously convenient, and borders on being as intellectually lazy and unsound as intelligent design. [/B][/QUOTE]
There are more then a few biologists and genetiscists who would disagree.
And logicly speaking, in the absence of either a claim of aprori knowledge, or some sort of outside agenda, our thought process is by definition a construct of biological structures, thusly a product of our evolution.
[B]There is a very big difference between claiming that our biological structures are the result of the evolutionary process and saying that every single human impulse, feeling, and behavior is the direct result of an old and more primal function in evolutionary history. It is this dogmatic intellectual laziness that evolutionary psychology almost invariably devolves into. And there's little debating it, because it is as infinitely defensible as Freud. Though I guess this is turning into a threadjack, so I should stop. [/B][/QUOTE]
Im only agreeing with Hume (who was a 19th century british philsopher not a scientist) because Im jaded and cynical. However, Behavioral genetics as a field could eventualy make many serious claims about human thought process based on actual testing and manipulation of genetics, well if they were allowed to do some seriously twisted experiments.
As for threadjacking, eh, its fairly normal around here. I mean next post will be Random Chaos going "aardvark" or something! :D
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Arethusa [/i]
[B]I should have responded to this earlier.
It doesn't work. It can't. People have been saying exactly that for decades, and look how well Ralph Nader is doing. Even more realistic and sanely led parties like the American party, focusing on Congressional representation instead of a Presidency pipe dream, are not exactly getting places. The system is now extremely well designed to ensure that no group of people, let alone a single person, can stand a chance of changing anything. Corporations and political parties have made sure that they are the only ones capable of holding onto actual power.
You can go ahead and volunteer all you like. If you aren't rich, you have precious little say in American politics. Bribery is legalized, and even the less legal bribery is rampant. There is no part of the government untouched by corruption and self serving agendas. Fixing the problems you talk about would take infinitely more than simple hard work. [/B][/QUOTE]
Then how about revolution? Thats what the second amendment is for, right?
[B]Im only agreeing with Hume (who was a 19th century british philsopher not a scientist) because Im jaded and cynical. However, Behavioral genetics as a field could eventualy make many serious claims about human thought process based on actual testing and manipulation of genetics, well if they were allowed to do some seriously twisted experiments.
As for threadjacking, eh, its fairly normal around here. I mean next post will be Random Chaos going "aardvark" or something! :D [/B][/QUOTE] Tell us about these experiments! When Im dictator we'll make sure to conduct them!
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Messiah [/i]
[B]Then how about revolution? Thats what the second amendment is for, right? [/B][/QUOTE]
Who actually wants a revolution? Take a look at America. Only a small handful would even say yes, and they are just college kids who want Che posters and to Rage against some Machines.
Where do rights come from?
The framework of the constituion and the decleration of independance is quite rigid, since in the 18th century, philsophers of the day were all tied up in the notion of some form of the divine. rights are [I]natural rights[/I] bestowed by the creator, and exist seperate from any human agency.
But in the 21st century america, the big push is towards atheism, which leads to a problem of the origin of rights.
Do rights even need an origin? There is some psychology of moral development I want to use, but my notes are filed away and I would have to hunt for them. I should digitize them all, but I perfer notes on paper.
The benefit of having a set of basic rights that are viewed as being "a priori" and with a supernatural origin, is it makes it hard for societies to revoke those rights without pretty hefty cause.
Look at todays environment with the "war on terror" the level of resistance the administration is getting is quite stiff from a variety of places due to how entrenched those notions are. So far nobody has had the ACLU rounded up so obviously the situation hasnt deteriorated that far yet.
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kohlberg[/url]'s_stages_of_moral_development
Link contains details of each stage.
Certain forms of a priori knowledge are easy to understand and prove, like mathematics, however notions of justice do not so easily fit into these boxes.
Furthermore if justice is a priori knowledge then it would have to be an absolute, meaning we end up agreeing at some level with Kant if we believe that to be true.
[B]we end up agreeing at some level with Kant if we believe that to be true. [/B][/QUOTE]*shudder*