Evolution of your political views?

Discussion in 'The Alley' started by Dex Luis, Sep 13, 2013.

  1. x calibur

    x calibur

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 1999
    Messages:
    54,201
    a neo-eugenics institution would have to be transparent, accountable, and a necessary part of social infrastructure. therefore my system would be operated by a taxpayer funded government agency.
    test
  2. Radium

    Radium f k

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2008
    Messages:
    5,535
    which groups grant this group power to do these tasks
    test
  3. x calibur

    x calibur

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 1999
    Messages:
    54,201
    I'd have to think about which government offices would appoint the governing board of a eugenics agency. of course, the whole system would have to be voted in as a referendum. no easy task, which is why the political/cultural climate would have to be altered to pave the way for that motion. right now I'm thinking more about the results and the philosophy of it.
    test
  4. Radium

    Radium f k

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2008
    Messages:
    5,535
    then what group grants the government at large its power to do these things and presuming democracy how does a society achieve common accord to ultimately execute such tasks
    test
  5. x calibur

    x calibur

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 1999
    Messages:
    54,201
    since it would be voted in, ultimately it would be done by the people - demos kratos.

    getting everyone on the same page would be a significant challenge. maybe I'll eventually write the book that lays it all out and starts the discussion on this. ghosts of the past would have to be exorcised, and my ideas would have to overcome the clamor of the pinko-liberal equality viewpoint. there would be a long-term ideological discussion and movement, paving the way for an eventual political reality.

    this is how it would have to work, since we're not going to deviate from the republic model.
    test
  6. Radium

    Radium f k

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2008
    Messages:
    5,535
    it could be voted by an oligarchy however in any oligarchy power must be parceled thus creating division of common accord en route to more minimizing divisions of common accord en route to the genesis of a singular power: the tyrant

    in democracy power is parceled to every member of society thus dividing common accord completely. thus the dilemma of democracy is always to create common accord between each of its members or to enter chaos. do you think common accord between each of its members is actually achievable?
    test
  7. KOzS

    KOzS .Juster

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2002
    Messages:
    10,715
    You fuckers are so goddamned tedious.

    I'm sorry, but it has to be said. You're having this incredibly involved discussion about what is essentially just admin. patronizing shit that people should be grown-up enough to undestand without being enforced. SO many labels with subtle distinctions that really needn't be named. "Don't be a fucking cunt" is my political view.

    Anacr-sado-liber-conservat shut thefuck up.

    Hydrogen is the only thing that matters.
    Last edited: Sep 20, 2013
    test
  8. x calibur

    x calibur

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 1999
    Messages:
    54,201
    it's important to note that our system is a republic, not a true democracy. in the ancient city-state of Athens, all citizens voted on all matters, by casting white or black stones. naturally when you have a modern nation-state, it's not feasible for everyone to vote. even leaving aside national security issues, it's too impractical.

    so we delegate. the common people vote, but this is done through the electoral college, to give power to representatives who are supported by parties. parties being large political entities, who have the money and organization to make election to public office realistic, and who conglomerate political interests. above all this is the constitution and the basic form of government, with its legislative, executive, and judicial branches.

    so on one hand, there is common accord. on the other hand, this is expressed through a delegated structure which does not depend on unanimous agreement. there can be minorities with completely radical opinions (and there are) without this disrupting the stability of the system.

    this system has its shortcomings, but its the best that anyone has come up with so far. I don't believe a society of complete accord is possible, as long as human nature is the way that it is. and I don't want to change human nature (with implants/drugs/etc.) because that is too dangerous.
    test
  9. Radium

    Radium f k

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2008
    Messages:
    5,535
    what i really mean is do you think that common accord or equality comes from the depraved hearts of the weak who only impel to bring the strong down to their level and should the weak truly be granted the right to do this to the strong
    test
  10. x calibur

    x calibur

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 1999
    Messages:
    54,201
    it comes down to whether a society should be ruled by ideas like justice/self-determination/majority will, or whether it should be ruled by the strong. the republic is the exception, not the rule. most societies have been governed by authoritarian leaders with an iron fist. pharoah, shogun, king, emperor, czar, kaiser, sultan, lord protector, fuhrer, etc. there have been numerous titles, but it all comes down to the same concept.

    sometimes this was effective, but the majority of the time, people were worse off. this is especially the case with hereditary and nepotistic rule, where a government would be established by the strong, only to have the weak sometimes step into their place.

    the election process already winnows out those who are unfit. and term limits/re-elections prevent a wrong choice from doing too much damage.

    there is a dysgenic/weakening force at work in our system, which is exactly what my neo-eugenics would address. but keep in mind, the 'lowest common denominator' effect you're referring to would be far more severe with greater welfare/socialism. capitalism maintains competition and social darwinism.
    test
  11. Radium

    Radium f k

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2008
    Messages:
    5,535
    that was actually a quote from alexis de tocqueville who was a french aristocrat who warned of the extremes of democracy which he thought would degrade into the tyranny of the majority. but thats an ancient form of reasoning shared by guys like plato and thomas hobbes wherein the prime thought is that common men do not have the capacity to govern themselves and thus concluding that power must be divided and minimized to those who do and in the case of plato and hobbes ultimately to the tyrant. there is one work around for this argued by aristotle who thought common men must be granted the capacity to govern themselves justly by a society eg that they must be educated and free and so on which were radical thoughts at the time

    i think your neo eugenics idea is in accordance to that aristotelian ideal however i think aristotle would argue that before common men could agree to neo eugenics they must generally achieve greater accord ultimately to the good so that they do not err in reigning over its tasks ie by electing representatives who serve ulterior interests to the good

    and this is a question that you have not answered yet. what is the good ultimately and how can men access it? if men cannot access it how will a democratic society which you have charged to reign over the task of neo eugenics be effective? that is if society is an arena where weak battle the strong how can you trust that common men will not err in managing your idea without stripping the weak of their power so as to not impede the strong? and if you do this, do you still have democracy?
    Last edited: Sep 20, 2013
    test
  12. x calibur

    x calibur

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 1999
    Messages:
    54,201
    Plato especially had a reason for being anti-democracy. it was Athenian democracy that decided on waging the disastrous Peloponnesian War and chose to execute Socrates. clearly there is a risk of democracy devolving into mob rule. Plato's solution was to vest all power in a philosopher-king - an enlightened individual who controlled politics in accordance with higher ideals. While this is an excellent idea in theory, I don't believe it could work in practice.

    Aristotle, on the other hand, argued that it is up to society to mold and educate people so that they would not fall into mob rule. that is closer to the modern ideal, and to my own. but we live in a nation-state, not an ancient city state, so we must adapt to different circumstances. we must shift further from democacy - there needs to be structures and delegation for a republic with a population of millions.

    indeed. however, I believe my neo-eugenics would in itself have the Aristotelian effect of improving the people of society. also, the US has a very entrenched tradition of individual rights and democracy, which I believe is enough to keep neo-eugenics on course. I would be far more cautious about introducing this system to a country with a history of corruption, instability, and dictatorship - the risk of abuse would be too great.

    this is a huge question in philosophy.

    I favor the survival and growth of the human race.
    after that, I favor individual rights and the Republic, with a social contract to secure those rights and run a successful society.
    the individual is important, but we need larger structures to achieve greater ends as a species.

    I believe that these concepts are well enough established in enough nations so that neo-eugenics is viable. all it does is logically build off of the social concepts and support structures that already exist. with a strong democratic tradition in place, neo-eugenics will be secure and not at risk of abuse.
    test
  13. Dex Luis

    Dex Luis Dextilla The Hunk

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2007
    Messages:
    687
    edit
    Last edited: Sep 21, 2013
    test
  14. Radium

    Radium f k

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2008
    Messages:
    5,535
    i think that in the aristotelian view its not so much the democratic process itself which protects society as much as it is the capacity for members of a society to achieve access to the good which exists objectively and super to themselves. he thought that would be achieved in a society of equals and similar vs a society of slaves and masters or the weak and strong. its interesting because in ancient athens there was a big problem of farmers going into debt when they would yield a bad crop for the year and what would happen is they would have to enter into slavery. so what happened was you had a city with a decreasing population of farmers etc and an increasing population of slaves! this dosnt sound entirely unfamiliar. athens in the draco era was becoming more and more a place of masters and slaves. this changed under solon and solon's reforms which sought to reduce the severity of draconian law and solve the problem of slavery that was bringing ruin to athens and this ultimately led the way to democracy as we know it in athens and to its golden age providing future example to western civilization. but anyway thats why we have democracy. the aristotelian model i think is just an extension of solon's reforms with the prime idea being that men should not enter into too degraded of a state under the goal that your society does not become overrun by masters and slaves, the one despising the other envying.

    so with your neo eugenics i think the idea that democracy just works is insufficient, democracy can work, but as solon and aristotle realized, only under certain conditions, namely that men are in common accord vis a vis the nature of the good. anyway i dont really wanna enter that discourse because its more involved but some questions that arise are should education or healthcare be free in society etc

    i argue that to handle the challenges faced in the future specifically those regarding resource scarcity and the biological revolution, which is a group of items which your neo eugenics is but one, society must not be composed of slaves and masters as the one can only despise and disobey, requiring the other to only rule over them despotically as they exist only like animals in a degraded state, in which case the premise of democracy is undermined requiring some other form of rule; which i think are insufficient and face problems concerning corruption and instability and other risks of abuse which you have pointed out. that is that they cant be trusted to achieve accord to the good.
    test
  15. Dex Luis

    Dex Luis Dextilla The Hunk

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2007
    Messages:
    687
    edit
    Last edited: Sep 21, 2013
    test
  16. lyricalpriest

    lyricalpriest Rap Games Dawson Creek

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2000
    Messages:
    24,097
    republican, constitutionalist, libertarian, anti-government conspiracy theoriest...


    tbt
    test
  17. x calibur

    x calibur

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 1999
    Messages:
    54,201
    correct, Aristotle favored cultivating people so that they can fulfill their proper role in the polis (telos). that way, you would need a minimal amount of compulsion to achieve the good in society. it's like the reverse of Plato's philosopher-king: in which an individual monopolizes knowledge of the good and controls others as a tyrant for the sake of the good.

    as for masters/slaves and common accord, it is important to note that ancient greek thought is framed by the city-state, or polis. these were large urban communities - large enough for anonymity, but small enough for a sense of belonging to the whole. living in a town, or a modern metropolis, within a unified nation-state, is a very different situation. as a result, the political issues of the ancients have become larger and more complex in some ways. there's simply no way to have a "common accord" in NYC, let alone a nation of over 300 million. there's no way that direct democracy could be done with any practicality on such a scale.

    so, while the ancient greek heritage remains a blueprint and beacon of these discussions, we must also go beyond its borders. that's why I emphasize the following-

    the republic, with its delegated powers

    a strong middle class as the solution to the "master-slave" issue

    neo-eugenics, as a method of biological and social advance, reducing dead weight and the counter-productive underclass.
    test
  18. AliceHouse

    AliceHouse The House Always Wins

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2012
    Messages:
    3,275
    x calibur, you realize that looking at ancient philosphers is a silly thing, right? They didn't know the things we know now, and certainly had no concept of the technological advances we are capable of.

    There is no need to have a class system with technology. If humanity were to get it's bug out it's butt right now, we could reallocate resources and be able to feed, shelter, and clothe everybody on this planet. And that's while we're still in a scarcity world. In a post-scarcity world, the idea of a class system would be laughable. And all it takes is a jump, skip and hop with a few more technological advancements.
    test
  19. Radium

    Radium f k

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2008
    Messages:
    5,535
    thats interesting i havent heard the argument that there is a sub optimal population size for democracy to work you dont explain why this is so but what is the optimal population size for democracy to work according to your logic and are these population sizes which you argue to be more optimal generally in accord to county and state level distinctions etc? you havent came out and said it but it seems like you think that neo eugenics can be used to regulate behavior (the "dead weight" and the "underclass" which by your logic are genetic outcomes solved by genetic alterations) which tells me that you have discovered the genes that cause you to be underclass or you havent been thinking about other epigenetic factors related to behavior here in your model very much. if its the latter that tells me something about your take on the way you think democracy should work in general. actually its either that or you meant neo eugenics should be used to sterilize the dead weight and underclass of society so genes that make you dead weight and underclass by your handle on the way genetics work dont pass on. anyway this distinction is a big hole that needs to be filled comprehensively before alterations to the gene pool are made. that is they cant just be loosely defined; the exact genes need to be isolated eg gene for alcoholism/substance abuse, gene that makes you a poor person "dead weight" "underclass" etc
    Last edited: Sep 23, 2013
    test
  20. x calibur

    x calibur

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 1999
    Messages:
    54,201
    first, the larger your population, the more difficult it is to maintain direct democracy. small groups, such as the crew of pirate/privateer ships, can easily maintain democracy. a small tribe could easily be democratic. with greater population, it becomes increasingly unwieldy and difficult to maintain the necessary balance and harmony between individuals. a city-state of antiquity is probably the largest direct democracy that is feasible. after that, it will break down and become increasingly prone to mob rule and dictatorship - unless alternate forms are used, such as a republic or an oligarchy.

    second, I need to emphasize that there are two sides to neo-eugenics - genetic and social.
    I want to scientifically improve the gene pool, which would benefit all. notably, this would reduce severe genetic deficiencies which make people dysfunctional, reducing dead weight.
    as for the underclass, I cannot pinpoint genetic markers for tendency for criminality/substance abuse, etc. this was attempted unsuccessfully by misguided pseudoscience of the past. it is unlikely that genetic links to those behavior patterns will be determined with great enough accuracy - especially considering the nature/nurture debate.
    and that is where the social side of neo-eugenics comes in. you'll recall that I laid down a few rules on who can have children, which are based on behavior and not on genes:
    -18+
    -HS diploma or GED
    -must not have certain felony convictions

    even setting the bar fairly low would make a significant impact on the underclass.

    also, neo-eugenics is a tentative name for this. my ideas go beyond pure eugenics, so a title that suggested that would be cool. I thought of "golden society", but that has fascist overtones.
    test

Share This Page

Users Viewing Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 0)