Equality of Equity

[jayjay's toocool]

Am I the only one who realizes there is an inequality that has existed in America since like forever, and that this generation will do all they can to disprove it or make it sound like an irrational conception, but will not in fact accept that it is true ad make efforts to change it. Or they say and recognize it's true and do nothing but lip service about it. I feel in order to have true equality we need to subscribe to the equity mentality, in doing this we realize that some are born privileged, some are not, and some are born underprivileged.
Voice your thoughts, on race, gender, economic, etc. Inequalities and injustices that you know, noticed or have experienced. We are to be the future so let's start off with truth and understanding and quit perpetuating the chaotic bs, dribble that allows our current government to keep us divided.
This is a thread where we hash out the injustices respectfully and promote understanding with wisdom.

I'll start by saying we need to change the work world, it it is predominantly male.
Next a person can voice their own opinions of it ( or other's opinions), or agree and think of another injustice.

[Broken Toy]

We need to change the manual labour world in that it is expected those of lower intelligence should work in it. Like in my school they have a car mechanics course but i never got to do it because i was in a high class and only those lower down got to do it (as they are expected to be mechanics and electricians and stuff)

Honestly, some things are hard to change because a certain gender or race or whatever simply isnt interested. You arent going to get a load of guys running salons (unless usually, for some reason if theyre gay. See a lot of gay salon workers)

[Syzygy]

I've written multiple times I believe the greatest inequality in the human race is our DNA. It controls nearly every aspect of our lives and is completely unchangeable. I think our lives are comprised of three elements, circumstances of birth, genes, and luck. The family you were born into creates the mold of your personality, while your genes determine your personality ultimately (indirectly by influencing how people respond to you and treat you) and the quality of life you will have. Anybody has a tiny chance of becoming lucky and having a great life just like anybody has a tiny chance to win the lottery, the only requirement is to play (life). How are so many people blind to this inequality? I would go as far as to call it an injustice since we are all sentient, emotional, and social beings who do not deserve to be treated according to the three things I listed (cirumstance of birth, genes, luck) but rather as equals and humans.

As for what you believe is an injustice I don't see why we need to change the work world, just like we don't need to change the inequality of genes (many people are opposed to that and would call it eugenics-which is ironic since the goal of life is to create the healthiest, most viable offspring you can) but rather treat everyone as equals regardless of their genes.

[jayjay's toocool]

We need to change the manual labour world in that it is expected those of lower intelligence should work in it. Like in my school they have a car mechanics course but i never got to do it because i was in a high class and only those lower down got to do it
Bro that sounds like shithit, where is this at?

Honestly, some things are hard to change because a certain gender or race or whatever simply isnt interested. You arent going to get a load of guys running salons (unless usually, for some reason if theyre gay. See a lot of gay salon workers)
I know some this is a hard thing to change but as youth we kinda already realize, some things need to change we have the ability to do it. That's why I made the post/thread.

[Broken Toy]

I just think some things dont need changing. So the example being guys dont tend to work in salons and girls dont tend to work in plumbing etc. girls dont tend to be interested in that kind of work but the ones that do are just as qualified, guys dont tend to be interested in working in salons but the ones that do may be just as good.

There is no problem as long as we are willing to recognise and accept these differences without calling sexism or whatever (im not going to go into racism, there are always so many variables its hard to say what is and isnt)

[DriveAlive]

We need to change the manual labour world in that it is expected those of lower intelligence should work in it. Like in my school they have a car mechanics course but i never got to do it because i was in a high class and only those lower down got to do it (as they are expected to be mechanics and electricians and stuff)

Honestly, some things are hard to change because a certain gender or race or whatever simply isnt interested. You arent going to get a load of guys running salons (unless usually, for some reason if theyre gay. See a lot of gay salon workers)
Im not quite sure I understand the point of your post. Are you saying that more unintelligent people should be allowed to work in more advanced job fields or that intelligent people are being barred from working in manual labor?

[Broken Toy]

Well i just think that people have the ability to learn anything. I just think teaching only those of less intelligence the skills of manual labour jobs is lowering their sites and at the same time those who are more intelligent should be able to learn these skills if they want

[Jaffe]

Im not quite sure I understand the point of your post. Are you saying that more unintelligent people should be allowed to work in more advanced job fields or that intelligent people are being barred from working in manual labor?

Not quite sure what he meant, but I think both things happen. Not by any rules, just by how society treats us all, how everyone thinks somebody who didnt do great in school should work in some manual trade, even though they might be more intelligent than the people who did great in school. And here, people unconsciously profile in jobs... they think certain ethnicities are janitors/cleaners, and a different ethnicity are lawyers and doctors. Sometimes it makes me almost physically ill.

[jayjay's toocool]

I've written multiple times I believe the greatest inequality in the human race is our DNA. It controls nearly every aspect of our lives and is completely unchangeable. I think our lives are comprised of three elements, circumstances of birth, genes, and luck. The family you were born into creates the mold of your personality, while your genes determine your personality ultimately (indirectly by influencing how people respond to you and treat you) and the quality of life you will have. Anybody has a tiny chance of becoming lucky and having a great life just like anybody has a tiny chance to win the lottery, the only requirement is to play (life). How are so many people blind to this inequality? I would go as far as to call it an injustice since we are all sentient, emotional, and social beings who do not deserve to be treated according to the three things I listed (cirumstance of birth, genes, luck) but rather as equals and humans.

As for what you believe is an injustice I don't see why we need to change the work world, just like we don't need to change the inequality of genes (many people are opposed to that and would call it eugenics-which is ironic since the goal of life is to create the healthiest, most viable offspring you can) but rather treat everyone as equals regardless of their genes.

I don't believe genes decide, personality. We grow up and soak in what we know to be everyone else's truth, and adopt them as our own. And as I said before, we shouldn't treat others equally because everyone has different starting places. And giving two people the same equality don'won't help them each the same way. But I understand the rest of you comment

Not quite sure what he meant, but I think both things happen. Not by any rules, just by how society treats us all, how everyone thinks somebody who didnt do great in school should work in some manual trade, even though they might be more intelligent than the people who did great in school. And here, people unconsciously profile in jobs... they think certain ethnicities are janitors/cleaners, and a different ethnicity are lawyers and doctors. Sometimes it makes me almost physically ill.

I guess I might have an issue with you saying the word subconsciously, and " not by any rules", I feel prejudices in a work pace, are created because people have a need to distinguish themselves. Since we don't have a need for this, we should stop all of the work place discrimination against all things that make others different...

Double Post merged. Please use "Edit" function next time. ~R.D.

[DriveAlive]

Yes, but society does need janitors just as much as it needs doctors. That is why more intelligent people who are capable of learning the skills necessary to become doctors can take this career path, and those who are uncapable of learning skills for these jobs end up in manual labor. There is no unjust discrimination here.

[jayjay's toocool]

Yes, but society does need janitors just as much as it needs doctors. That is why more intelligent people who are capable of learning the skills necessary to become doctors can take this career path, and those who are uncapable of learning skills for these jobs end up in manual labor. There is no unjust discrimination here.
I read all of his posts I don't think he's eliquating this lucidly enough. I got an interpretation that he just doesn't feel their interpretation of adequate was a valid interpretation of what it takes to do either jobjob or have either career.

[Judean Zealot]

I don't think inequality and the class divide can be terminated, nor ought it to be. The injustice and foolishness of the current system lies not in the fact that class exists, rather that class is not defined by anything substantive. Class promotes the lazy heir of billions to leadership positions, while the truly worthy are impoverished and often unable to find a job.

What is really necessary is to substitute our current class system, which is defined primarily by wealth, for a new order: a meritocracy in which the more capable and educated hold the reins of power, without regard to family or money.

[jayjay's toocool]

I don't think inequality and the class divide can be terminated, nor ought it to be. The injustice and foolishness of the current system lies not in the fact that class exists, rather that class is not defined by anything substantive. Class promotes the lazy heir of billions to leadership positions, while the truly worthy are impoverished and often unable to find a job.

What is really necessary is to substitute our current class system, which is defined primarily by wealth, for a new order: a meritocracy in which the more capable and educated hold the reins of power, without regard to family or money.
So you favor a divide, but I don't know why you do ... Explain.

[Judean Zealot]

So you favor a divide, but I don't know why you do ... Explain.

Well, it seems quite evident to me that there are segments of society who are less capable of proper governance, namely, the ignorant and foolish; while the educated and judicious are clearly the most capable of caring for the public welfare.

Power ought to be taken from the masses, and given to the top 5 or 10 percentile of learned men, people who know how to discern the important from the trivial and the truth from falsehood.

[jayjay's toocool]

Well, it seems quite evident to me that there are segments of society who are less capable of proper governance, namely, the ignorant and foolish; while the educated and judicious are clearly the most capable of caring for the public welfare.

Power ought to be taken from the masses, and given to the top 5 or 10 percentile of learned men, people who know how to discern the important from the trivial and the truth from falsehood.
Oh so that's sounding pretty communistic. what do you mean by educated?

[Judean Zealot]

Oh so that's sounding pretty communistic. what do you mean by educated?

I mean whoever can qualify a rigorous course in the Constitution, law, history, civics, economics, and philosophy, in addition to maintaining a general knowledge of mathematics and the natural sciences.

Only they should have the right to vote, and only they should be allowed to assume public positions.

[jayjay's toocool]

I mean whoever can qualify a rigorous course in the Constitution, law, history, civics, economics, and philosophy, in addition to maintaining a general knowledge of mathematics and the natural sciences.

Only they should have the right to vote, and only they should be allowed to assume public positions.
Okay well I disagree. Partialy because we are a democracy, partially because no one selected group can speak for all, partially because I realize that a lot of people who had made a change aren't accredited for I because of their education but instead the drive to make a change, and the wisdom to know it's not book smarts that will stop the injustice. Also that's kinda how everything is run today, so what's your difference.

[Judean Zealot]

Okay well I disagree. Partialy because we are a democracy, So what? Stop being one, if that's the proper way to run a State.

partially because no one selected group can speak for all, But this selective group is the only one worth hearing. The foolish or the ignorant ought to have no part in the running of the State.

partially because I realize that a lot of people who had made a change aren't accredited for I because of their education but instead the drive to make a change, and the wisdom to know it's not book smarts that will stop the injustice. The philosopher-statesmen will remove those faults just as well, without screwing everything else up along the way.
Also that's kinda how everything is run today, so what's your difference.

You serious? Any fool can run for political office or vote. That's why election campaigns are as idiotic as they are.

[jayjay's toocool]

But this selective group is the only one worth hearing. The foolish or the ignorant ought to have no part in the running of the State.

If one group can't speak for all their shouldn't be one group to speak for all, no matter what. What is "worth" hearing? I feel lie this is an elite exclusive group that will keep the blissful ignorance of America perpetual. I don't mean this in a disrespectful way and I struggle to write it differently. But it needs to be clear that I in no way believe one group can POSITIVELY run America without influence or objection that's why there are checks and balances.

The philosopher-statesmen will remove those faults just as well, without screwing everything else up along the way.
Nah they wouldn't mate, everyone has to be checked, whether or not this is a specialty trait. This new government is run by people who are flawed in many ways. The power shouldn't be in one group, but instead, limited by the majority who know first hand the effects on us the people.


You serious? Any fool can run for political office or vote. That's why election campaigns are as idiotic as they are.
We still have the power to decide. Limiting freedoms of the people and strengthening the government is backwards. There re a plentitude of inequalities to be discussed and you haven't even said who decides this elite justified judges.

[Broken Toy]

Everyone just be nice. In a hypothetical world equality can be achieved but in a real world society there is too many inter dependent variables for true equality

I started this and im sorry so just hug and be resiliant in the face of inequality

[Syzygy]

I don't believe genes decide, personality. We grow up and soak in what we know to be everyone else's truth, and adopt them as our own. And as I said before, we shouldn't treat others equally because everyone has different starting places. And giving two people the same equality don'won't help them each the same way. But I understand the rest of you comment



Genes determine two main factors that create personality. Brain chemistry and appearance. Social anxiety is either genetic in your brain chemistry, or is adopted as a result of negative social conditioning. If someone doesn't like your appearance, they will not like you and will not approve of your actions within a social group. If you are outgoing, you will be seen as annoying. If you are quiet, you will be seen as weird. Again I bring up the age-old example of cheerleaders or jocks. Many may be dumb, spiteful, or outright rude and terrible people, but they are popular for their appearance. They may be annoying, but are seen seen as outgoing. These personality traits are a result of the genes they have giving them the appearance they have.

Comedian Jim Gaffigan once said:
Think about it, if a stranger smiles at you and they’re attractive, you think, “Oh, they’re nice.” But if the stranger’s ugly, you’re like, “What do they want? Get away from me weirdo."

It makes for a funny joke, but a sad reality.

[Judean Zealot]

If one group can't speak for all their shouldn't be one group to speak for all, no matter what. What is "worth" hearing? I feel lie this is an elite exclusive group that will keep the blissful ignorance of America perpetual. I don't mean this in a disrespectful way and I struggle to write it differently. But it needs to be clear that I in no way believe one group can POSITIVELY run America without influence or objection that's why there are checks and balances.



A number of points would be appropriate at this point. For starters, you have to realize that I did not flesh out the details of what I'd consider the 'ideal' government, and if I did it would solve many of your challenges.

First of all, I'm all for a system of checks and balances, for a Republic of Optimates. The fact that only the most learned people in a society have suffrage doesn’t in any way impinge on the structure of the government. All it does is save the fools from themselves.

Second of all: What is worth hearing? The answer to that is 'the truth', and nothing but the truth. The reason these intellectual plebeians are deemed irrelevant is the simple reason that they are, on account of their ignorance, unfit to hold public office or have a voice in the management of the state. They have no more business deciding matters of state than a plumber does in deciding NASA's programs.

Third of all, obviously I haven't yet described the ideal society under this aristocracy. It is of the greatest importance to me, even more important than this form of government I am advocating, that education be absolutely free and accessible to the entire populace (which, by the way, outside of the formal educational system, it is, if you're not too lazy to go and get it. I am primarily self-educated). Nobody will be trapped in ignorance, yet only those who are extremely proficient in all matters related to the proper and moral running of the State will have suffrage.

And finally, the standard would be, roughly, a solid and comprehensive understanding of every facet of government, philosophy, economics, and history, all of which are indispensable to the properly ordered State, as well as a general understanding of the natural sciences. The actual implementation of the above standard can be accomplished either by some form of standardized achievement, like the Bar, or alternatively by personal endorsement by certain academics of high stature.

[Vlerchan]

Class promotes the lazy heir of billions to leadership positions, while the truly worthy are impoverished and often unable to find a job.
Please note that nothing suggested seems to combat this still occurring outside the realm of politics. Unless I'm misunderstanding - and all business is to come under the ownership of the state.

It's also the case that the rising importance of business interests the state is becoming a less and less effectual actor with respect to all but the most trivial moral issues.

Well, it seems quite evident to me that there are segments of society who are less capable of proper governance, namely, the ignorant and foolish; while the educated and judicious are clearly the most capable of caring for the public welfare.

Power ought to be taken from the masses, and given to the top 5 or 10 percentile of learned men, people who know how to discern the important from the trivial and the truth from falsehood.
In representative democracies power is taken from the masses as a definitional condition. In this case the point of universal suffrage is not to have the populous make decisions - but rather have the decision-makers be accountable to the populous.

I mean whoever can qualify a rigorous course in the Constitution, law, history, civics, economics, and philosophy, in addition to maintaining a general knowledge of mathematics and the natural sciences[.]
I am curious as to who sets the tests.

Especially with regards to economics.

But this selective group is the only one worth hearing.

The foolish or the ignorant ought to have no part in the running of the State.
I find the claim that the bottom 90% of people are 'foolish' and 'ignorant' sort of hilarious. It's more the case that capitalism prompts people to specialise in one aspect of production and become quite knowledgeable in that. These people are worth hearing because these people offer quite specialised knowledge about certain aspects of our societies otherwise inaccessible to our benevolent and proper philosopher-kings.

This is also be hinting at the base nature of democratic governance. Our societies capitalistic nature results in specialised knowledge being decentralised. The democratic process prompts the revelation of this specialised knowledge.

The answer to that is 'the truth', and nothing but the truth. The reason these intellectual plebeians are deemed irrelevant is the simple reason that they are, on account of their ignorance, unfit to hold public office or have a voice in the management of the state. They have no more business deciding matters of state than a plumber does in deciding NASA's programs.
The difference is that for the state there isn't a set goal that must be reached. Like refer back to the 'moral running' of the state: what is that even supposed to mean?

---

I also still disagree with the idea that men and woman 'choose' to be in masculine and feminine roles because people exist without reference to their social context - or something similarly ridiculous.

[Tesserax]

Here's the thing, equality isn't always good. Treating people the same isn't necessarily a good thing. But what is a good thing is justice. Treat people based on how they act, what they do. That's what the system should be, what's what people should fight for, not simply just equality. If you want equality, get women to go work in mines, as builders, do a physical job that requires hours of hard labour. I believe most of these jobs are almost 100% male, and once we get it down to about 50-50, then I think we might start thinking about higher jobs. If you want equality, it has to be all round, otherwise it is not equal.

Anyway, I don't discriminate based on race, age, sex, or whatever. I do however make my initial suspicions about you based on what you are or look like. Stereotypes are always built on some amount of truth, considering that genetics basically says that people with similar ancestry will often be more similar to each other than other people (not sure if I worded that right), or that statistically people with tattoos, for example, tend to be more anarchistic. However, my final judgments made about any person comes with the actions that they show. There are plenty of Chinese international students at my school who are massive dickbags; arrogant, disrespectful, stupid, annoying, etc. However, there are a couple who are not and I know them quite well (I am chinese myself).

I know I ramble a bit, but what I'm basically trying to say is that people should be judged based on what they have done. If you work hard, get rewarded, if you commit crimes, get punished. However, I also do believe that people deserve a second chance. Not everybody does, but for example, that homeless guy you passed on the street a couple of times? He might have just bought a new house, before it burned down without insurance, leaving him with nothing. Charity starts at home, and we have to give homeless people the chance at a job. But if they go through what I would call a "second chance" system and they squander what they have been given, they deserve to be "rewarded" for doing so.

Anyway, more summing up, we are not all born equal, and therefore cannot be treated equally. We must be treated based on not who we are, the circumstances we are born with, or with exactly the same treatment per person, but rather on the actions we take, the things we do in life. Sharing is caring, but if you want others to share with you, you must share (your deeds) as well

[Judean Zealot]

Please note that nothing suggested seems to combat this still occurring outside the realm of politics. Unless I'm misunderstanding - and all business is to come under the ownership of the state.
I agree with your observation, however I am not yet discussing the specifics of neutralizing money as a factor in regards to class. I am first attacking the head of the hydra, if we can mount that summit we can ultimately eliminate capital as a source for class from a position of power. This hypothetical government will take the steps to ensure that wealth is sufficiently decentralised to prevent exploitation.

In representative democracies power is taken from the masses as a definitional condition. In this case the point of universal suffrage is not to have the populous make decisions - but rather have the decision-makers be accountable to the populous.
And it is this power which ties the state inextricably to the mob's clamor for panem et circences. Take a look at American elections for a perfect example of what I'm trying to say. The elections discourse is so painfully petty and irrelevant. The elections are dominated by one line stock clichés, considerations of "likeability", and a plethora of bullshit speeches in which the politicians tell you how concerned they are about the populace.
The politician themselves give two shits about those things. They literally have people write speeches and coach them about how to appear sincerely concerned about social justice or ISIS or whatever the thing is, because they know that people have bought into it as a rallying banner. When you can't hear the bullshit in these people's voices it's sad. Their statements and speeches amount to no more than a blow-job to society, designed to make them feel warm and cozy about themselves.

The media dominates the discourse with their introduction of the most trivial subject matter, which they repeat over and over again until the people feel like it's somehow relevant.
"Oh, he once tied the family dog on the roof of his car!"
"Oh, he bullied a kid in high school!"
"Oh, he made a public gaffe, and even though we know what he was trying to say let's pretend like we don't!"
...and so on, ad infinitum.

And the worst thing is, these ridiculous talking points actually work, and they work big.

Ultimately, the deranged public opinion is the biggest barrier to anyone upright with a nuanced agenda getting elected. The people don't want to think too hard, they want all their news safely reduced to sound bytes to make for easy digestion.

I am curious as to who sets the tests.

Especially with regards to economics. I would tend towards the idea of some sort of panel who oversee the process.

I should point out that one would not have to ascribe to any particular school of thought, just cogently defend his position against educated challenge.

I find the claim that the bottom 90% of people are 'foolish' and 'ignorant' sort of hilarious. It's more the case that capitalism prompts people to specialise in one aspect of production and become quite knowledgeable in that. These people are worth hearing because these people offer quite specialised knowledge about certain aspects of our societies otherwise inaccessible to our benevolent and proper philosopher-kings.
It's not that 90% are total fools, yet it is probably fair to say that 90% of America is foolish or ignorant as far as their ability to decide matters of governance is concerned. One who is not thoroughly familiar with these subjects I listed is simply not qualified to decide on such important matters. And if he is not qualified to vote, how can he be qualified to serve?

This is also be hinting at the base nature of democratic governance. Our societies capitalistic nature results in specialised knowledge being decentralised. The democratic process prompts the revelation of this specialised knowledge.

Well, that hasn't worked very well, has it? The way it's turned out, the knowledge of the knowledgeable hasn't spread to the masses, but the stupid of the masses have made it into the government. Look at Congress.

The difference is that for the state there isn't a set goal that must be reached. Like refer back to the 'moral running' of the state: what is that even supposed to mean?


Governance is a constant necessity, and there most definitely is correct and incorrect in regards to the state on both a utilitarian and moral stand, and in regards to social, fiscal, and foreign policy. How can you argue not?

In any event, what we accomplish by this is a ruling class unaffected by the vagaries and quirks of public opinion, nor by the shallow considerations which inform the average voter.

And, as an aside, the head of the Executive branch ought to serve for life, unless an overwhelming majority of the Senate (like, a three quarters majority) vote to have him removed.

[Miserabilia]

I don't beleive in "privilege".
Is it a privilege to be born with a lot of money? yes.
It's also a privilege to be born with perfect eye sight, to be born with all limbs, without terminal illnesses, not to be brain dead, not to die in a traggic painful accident, to see more joy in life than others, to be smarter, to be more social,to have better friendships and families.
White people aren't privileged. There are people that have more "privileges" than others, but everything has a downside; and there's absolutely no way to say all white people are privileged. It's a racist and outdated line of thinking.

[Vlerchan]

I agree with your observation, however I am not yet discussing the specifics of neutralizing money as a factor in regards to class. I am first attacking the head of the hydra, if we can mount that summit we can ultimately eliminate capital as a source for class from a position of power. This hypothetical government will take the steps to ensure that wealth is sufficiently decentralised to prevent exploitation.
Ok. I'm going to cease this line of argument until you've offered these suggestions.

We had another neo-platonist make a heroic attempt to argue this in another thread (http://www.virtualteen.org/forums/showthread.php?t=220930), heating up around page 3, if you're interested.

And it is this power which ties the state inextricably to the mob's clamor for panem et circences.
You mean the majority's interests right?

In that case I don't see the problem. Your argument seems to be that the people are too narrow-sighted to fullfill their own interests - and not that the people's interests are somehow irrelevant. The point of representative governance with universal suffrage is that the representatives are accountable to the people's interests without necessarily being required to act in-line with their stated preferred-actions, or argued-stupidities.

Take a look at American elections for a perfect example of what I'm trying to say.
The US is an awful case to consider here because of it's FPTP electoral system, more-or-less homogenous political culture [lacking significant cleavages], institutional limitations, and its generation of difficulties for alternative parties (politics) besides.

The elections discourse is so painfully petty and irrelevant.
In the US, parties all clamour around the same spot, supporting more-or-less the same policies, and so are forced to base their campaigns around non-policy issues. That's what occurs in FPTP, winner-takes-all politics, where the median voter reigns, and attempting to grab their attention without shifting from median-accepted policies is the best course of action.

By 'best' I also mean 'virtually the only means of winning the election'.

---

Before it's also stated, no-one basis their vote around the basis of moral issues.

I would tend towards the idea of some sort of panel who oversee the process.
That's actually quite a good idea. It's similar to what I have in mind for electing economic governance, which I don't feel should be offered to the general public. Though I will add that I think the process should be confidential, like screening for journal articles.

It's not that 90% are total fools, yet it is probably fair to say that 90% of America is foolish or ignorant as far as their ability to decide matters of governance is concerned. One who is not thoroughly familiar with these subjects I listed is simply not qualified to decide on such important matters. And if he is not qualified to vote, how can he be qualified to serve?
You missed the point.

I would imagine that not a single top-cited economists would hold the required reservoir of knowledge to decided on matters of economics in your ideal Republic. Our capitalist societies prompts people to become quite specialised in certain areas - and certain branches of certain areas at the heights. This occurs because it's more efficient for quite specialised workers to combine their labour in order to produce an outcome - rather than leaving tasks to individual Renaissance Men.

There's a reason modern democratic governance arose with the rise of extensive specialisation and division of labour. It prompts the revelation of specialised knowledge, which is intended to be combined with the knowledge of others to produce superior policies. The problem that tends to then be cited have nothing to do with this being inferior at its most fundamental - as much as certain means of framing activities create perverse incentives and hinder the process.

The way it's turned out, the knowledge of the knowledgeable hasn't spread to the masses, but the stupid of the masses have made it into the government. Look at Congress.
You mean the Congress who's election suffers from the above cited, as well as gerrymandering, the prominence of deep-seated business interests, the undue relevance of regional interests [parochialism], leading on towards logrolling. It shouldn't be shocking that creating institutions loaded with perverse incentives produces perverse outcomes.

[...] and there most definitely is correct and incorrect in regards to the state on both a utilitarian and moral stand, and in regards to social, fiscal, and foreign policy. How can you argue not?
Because something being 'more moral' is inherently undemonstratable because no common standard exists.

In any event, what we accomplish by this is a ruling class unaffected by the vagaries and quirks of public opinion, nor by the shallow considerations which inform the average voter.
i.e., a ruling class that isn't accountable to public interests, which you'll need to expand on the desirability of.

And, as an aside, the head of the Executive branch ought to serve for life, unless an overwhelming majority of the Senate (like, a three quarters majority) vote to have him removed.
I don't believe in having a quite-empowered head of the executive so that's no issue here.

[DriveAlive]

I want to see how this conversation goes. I, for one, disagree with just about all of this so far.

[Judean Zealot]

First of all, I'm going to point out that at this point, I don't consider myself fit to vote, although I think I probably will be within ttwo years.

The standards I have laid out earlier are standards that I think almost anybody who truly has the drive can master by their early twenties, and I draw that evaluation from my own experience. I'm now going to sound incredibly arrogant, but I'm trying to make a point.

I have a thorough knowledge of Greek and Roman literature and history, a knowledge of mathematics up until calculus, which I am currently learning, and am fairly well read on the great economists of history. I am in addition proficient in the Platonic and Aristotelian traditions, with a working knowledge of the later empiricists. In physics as well, I am fairly advanced in motion, although I will admit that in particle physics I am still deficient. In addition, I am less than 2 years away from rabbinical ordination by the Chief Rabbinate of Israel. I have taught myself English and Latin (in addition to my native Hebrew) and am now learning Classical Greek.

So what's the point? My point is that my formal education was absolute crap. I went to a run down school with horrific standards. Most of my former classmates wouldn't be able to tell you who Galileo or Euclid was. Yet somehow, I still managed to educate myself way beyond the regular 18 year old. And trust me, it's not because I'm an Einstein. I'm not. What I am though, is dedicated. I study on average 11 hours a day, and I use any resource that comes my way. If I meet a specialist, I question him on his work. In short, I am educated because I want to be. To gather knowledge is my most burning desire. This is the standard I hold myself to, and this is the standard I hold others to as well. I have high expectations of humanity, and if they just fritter away their time playing video games, I have no sympathies.

We had another neo-platonist make a heroic attempt to argue this in another thread, heating up around page 3, if you're interested.
Hey, let's be fair. In many ways my oligarchy is farther removed from his feudalism than contemporary republics. For one, his state is built on the same rotten core of capital.

You mean the majority's interests right?

In that case I don't see the problem. Your argument seems to be that the people are too narrow-sighted to fullfill their own interests - and not that the people's interests are somehow irrelevant. The point of representative governance with universal suffrage is that the representatives are accountable to the people's interests without necessarily being required to act in-line with their stated preferred-actions, or argued-stupidities.
Many of the things they want are irrelevant, and to paraphrase Marx, "The opiate of the masses".

In any event, we do find quite frequently that relatively capable politicians are rejected by their constituents for idiotic reasons. In America you have the "RINO"s, like Eric Cantor getting booted out. In Israel, we have our own equivalents in many parties.


The US is an awful case to consider here because of it's FPTP electoral system, more-or-less homogenous political culture [lacking significant cleavages], institutional limitations, and its generation of difficulties for alternative parties (politics) besides.


In the US, parties all clamour around the same spot, supporting more-or-less the same policies, and so are forced to base their campaigns around non-policy issues. That's what occurs in FPTP, winner-takes-all politics, where the median voter reigns, and attempting to grab their attention without shifting from median-accepted policies is the best course of action.

By 'best' I also mean 'virtually the only means of winning the election'. I'm only mentioning the US system because that's what most members here are familiar with. But if you don't like that example, we can go with my own country, Israel. Israel is an extremely polarized country in terms of the electorate, with parties spanning the entire spectrum. We had elections just a few months ago, and they were in my opinion even more of a disgrace than the American ones.

UK hasn't quite had a great election season either, to the best of my knowledge.


Before it's also stated, no-one basis their vote around the basis of moral issues.

You do realize that this is a significant reason why I take the position I do, right?

Though I will add that I think the process should be confidential, like screening for journal articles.
Agreed.

I would imagine that not a single top-cited economists would hold the required reservoir of knowledge to decided on matters of economics in your ideal Republic. Our capitalist societies prompts people to become quite specialised in certain areas - and certain branches of certain areas at the heights. This occurs because it's more efficient for quite specialised workers to combine their labour in order to produce an outcome - rather than leaving tasks to individual Renaissance Men.

You're not understanding me. The renaissance man does not need to specialise in every sector of economics, just to hold a familiarity with them. Specialisation is good- but there's no reason for specialisation to prevent a man from gaining a general knowledge of the other primary sectors of knowledge. The economist can know philosophy and law, without diminishing the fact that economics (or a particular segment of economics) is his private area of expertise
There's a reason modern democratic governance arose with the rise of extensive specialisation and division of labour. It prompts the revelation of specialised knowledge, which is intended to be combined with the knowledge of others to produce superior policies. The problem that tends to then be cited have nothing to do with this being inferior at its most fundamental - as much as certain means of framing activities create perverse incentives and hinder the process. And indeed, the government can hash out which of the polymaths is properly suited to which department, and there you have your diversification!

Because something being 'more moral' is inherently undemonstratable because no common standard exists.
I consider Deism to be pretty demonstrable, and as such we have our ground for Natural Religion.

However,even if you reject Deism, there is still much room to maintain a sort of morality based on inherent First laws, even if that morality is strictly utilitarian. In general, though, I would say that someone who maintains an absolute moral nihilism to be unfit to serve the public. Nor would I consider that unjust, as he on his own account denies the notions of just and unjust.
i.e., a ruling class that isn't accountable to public interests, which you'll need to expand on the desirability of.

The desirability of a class unaffected by the inanities of the ignorant is rooted in it's essential incorruptibility, or at the very least, the tremendous difficulty in corrupting it.

An ordinary government declines when it's ordinary leaders get progressively more corrupt, with a blind eye turned by the others to the phenomenon.

A government of successive Washingtons, Jeffersons, and Burkes is well nigh incorruptible, due to the honor and integrity of it's leaders. And even should one slip up, the integrity of the others will doubtless compel them to act.

Now, I will admit the possibility of the Jeffersonian notion that every State is inherently in motion towards corruption, and it is inevitable that a new revolution would be required every couple of generations, but even were this true, the devolution of the philosophers would be an exponentially longer process, for the reasons mentioned above.

[DriveAlive]

I notice two problems with this. First, philosophy is dead. Second, some people want different things in life than spending time educating themselves on Roman literature. While I think people should try to expand their horizons, I realize that it isnt realistic for everyone to treat the same things with the same priorities. This is just the same as how it would be unrealistic for the band geeks to expect everyone to spend time learning an instrument or jocks expecting everyone to prioritize athletics over academics.

[Judean Zealot]

I notice two problems with this. First, philosophy is dead. Err... What? Where'd you pick that notion up?

The search for truth never dies. If it dies, our humanity dies with it.

Second, some people want different things in life than spending time educating themselves on Roman literature.
Plato, Plutarch, Caesar, Marcus Aurelius, Juvenal...

The thoughts of these men are the very foundations of civic duty! There's a reason Washington's diary is filled with classical references. The ancients have been the inspiration for statesmen throughout the past two millennia, it may do you some good to see what they say.


While I think people should try to expand their horizons, I realize that it isnt realistic for everyone to treat the same things with the same priorities. This is just the same as how it would be unrealistic for the band geeks to expect everyone to spend time learning an instrument or jocks expecting everyone to prioritize athletics over academics.

That's simply because you fail to see the importance of a liberal education, and it's necessity for a moral and civilized society.

[DriveAlive]

Err... What? Where'd you pick that notion up?

The search for truth never dies. If it dies, our humanity dies with it.



Plato, Plutarch, Marcus Aurelius, Juvenal...

The thoughts of these men are the very foundations of civic duty! There's a reason Washington's diary is filled with classical references. The ancients have been the inspiration for statesmen throughout the past two millennia, it may do you some good to see what they say.




That's simply because you fail to see the importance of a liberal education, and it's necessity for a moral and civilized society.
This guy called Stephen Hawking said that philosophy is dead.
My point is that instead of spending my time wiht greek and roman history (btw I absolutely hate this type of history) I preffer to ospend time on what I find important. It sounds like you believe that the only way that a person can be productivve and educated is to basically become an emotionless machine. You seem to have a very pragmatic view of life, but sometimes being human means having emmotions and empathy. For instance, you could say that study of biology would suggest that being gay is a genetic abnormality and wrong in the reproductive sense. I choose not to live this way and instead do what I think is right.

[Judean Zealot]

This guy called Stephen Hawking said that philosophy is dead.With all due respect to Hawking, and I admire the man greatly, he knows jack shit about philosophy, and he admits it as well.

My point is that instead of spending my time wiht greek and roman history (btw I absolutely hate this type of history) I preffer to ospend time on what I find important. But what's more important than knowing yourself, knowing your duties, and fulfilling them? What we enjoy is not always what we ought to do.

It sounds like you believe that the only way that a person can be productivve and educated is to basically become an emotionless machine. You seem to have a very pragmatic view of life, but sometimes being human means having emmotions and empathy.
I am very much in favor of employing emotions, but we have to know when. Emotion is a wonderful executioner, but it makes a terrible judge. The intellect must decide. Then the emotions can do their work.

In addition, you said "productive and educated". Now, you are right that the standards I have are necessary to be called properly educated, but you're wrong about productivity. I have every regard for an honest and industrious man, even if he is uneducated. I just don't feel he should play a role in forming public policy.

For instance, you could say that study of biology would suggest that being gay is a genetic abnormality and wrong in the reproductive sense. I choose not to live this way and instead do what I think is right.

Well... I'm not sure where that came from, considering as I've said no such thing. Please don't try to 'score points' by lumping this subject with another charged subject.

[Vlerchan]

Just getting the time now.

I have high expectations of humanity, and if they just fritter away their time playing video games, I have no sympathies.
I've gathered this from reading posts elsewhere. I don't think it's relevant to the arguments I'm making though.

Many of the things they want are irrelevant, and to paraphrase Marx, "The opiate of the masses".
This is the problem. I'm not elitist enough to just cast-off the interests of people because they've not read as much Marx or Weber as me. I do think that these people behave in a manner that results in their disinterests being served - that's more of a framing issue.

It's also the case with RINOs that these people aren't being elected or abandoned based on being competent or not but rather that these people are deemed to not represent a group's interests. In such a case it makes sense for them to be dropped - it acts to whip the others into place. It's a move that doesn't look stupid within their camp. I'm also sure you realise this - I'm just mentioning it for the sake of posing that argument.

---

I also don't mean elitist in a pejorative manner here for clarification.

But if you don't like that example, we can go with my own country, Israel. Israel is an extremely polarized country in terms of the electorate, with parties spanning the entire spectrum. We had elections just a few months ago, and they were in my opinion even more of a disgrace than the American ones.
You'll need to explain the outcome of Isreal's elections in detail. I'm not quite familiar with them. From what I understand though the Right managed to scare enough people about Palestine to back them again.

---

There was no issues with the UK election that wasn't dependent on institutions. The one consideration might be immigration being such a massive issue but it's much safer to have these issues within the context of a democratic framework. It stops the angst towards them developing in other avenues.

Which is another reason to support democratic rule. Even when it's not working for people - enough people believe it works that it can act as a container for public angst that might otherwise pose a danger. Because democratic rule exists - and can only exist - on the common belief that little enough difference exists between parties that all issues can be solved in peace.

You do realize that this is a significant reason why I take the position I do, right?
I think you misunderstand. Most people don't base their votes around same-sex marraige, for example, at bigger elections.

On the point though, I don't understand why people believe that more educated people will be more moral rulers - whatever that means. It seems to be a common perception amongst aristocrats.

You're not understanding me. The renaissance man does not need to specialise in every sector of economics, just to hold a familiarity with them. Specialisation is good- but there's no reason for specialisation to prevent a man from gaining a general knowledge of the other primary sectors of knowledge. The economist can know philosophy and law, without diminishing the fact that economics (or a particular segment of economics) is his private area of expertise
Nah. You're still misunderstanding me.

I'm raising the point as to why the economist is required to understand material sciences in order to work as an economist within the government. I have an almost-graduate level understanding of economics. I also have a good understanding of other academic fields - I do a focus in Law in the degree I do: so that one in particular. These things don't cross. It is just not required. Like at all. It doesn't hurt - but it doesn't help.

---

I also hold particular issues with this because I feel economics should be treated like a scientific discipline. It's not concerned with finding right answers - but rather with solving problems that interested parties otherwise set for it. I admire set-ups like central banks for reference.

And indeed, the government can hash out which of the polymaths is properly suited to which department, and there you have your diversification!
Then I don't see the point.

You're getting people to engage in studies for years in order to have skills that are redundant in their role. I never quite could understand Plato - it was him right? - and his justification for knowledge for the sake of knowledge. I'm gathering you hold a similar opinion, which might explain why I just don't 'get' the argument.

[...] Deism [...] First laws [...]
Nope.

In general, though, I would say that someone who maintains an absolute moral nihilism to be unfit to serve the public. Nor would I consider that unjust, as he on his own account denies the notions of just and unjust.
Of course to her this value judgement is irrelevant.

I also don't think it follows that someone not considering something done to them unjust makes it just. I can detail a number of examples - but I might first wait on some form of further clarifications to be offered.

The desirability of a class unaffected by the inanities of the ignorant is rooted in it's essential incorruptibility, or at the very least, the tremendous difficulty in corrupting it.

An ordinary government declines when it's ordinary leaders get progressively more corrupt, with a blind eye turned by the others to the phenomenon.

A government of successive Washingtons, Jeffersons, and Burkes is well nigh incorruptible, due to the honor and integrity of it's leaders. And even should one slip up, the integrity of the others will doubtless compel them to act.
I just don't believe this at all. If I'm honest I don't see much more backing this than your word.

Washington and Jefferson also both had slaves. Both were at least susceptible to the corruptibilities of their time. This is more because nobleness isn't a timeless concept but it reaches the point I want to make. People are still fashioned with respect to their people - the ignorants.

---

Hey, let's be fair. In many ways my oligarchy is farther removed from his feudalism than contemporary republics. For one, his state is built on the same rotten core of capital.
I think Arkansasguy is a smashing anti-capitalist.

But I'm quoting him just for a take on all of this.

[Sir Suomi]

Abolish the Federal Reserve and instate an actually government run agency in it's place.
Reinstate the gold-backed dollar and rid ourselves of the Petrodollar .
Terminate all of our funding to other countries who are unable/unwilling to pay back with interest.
Slash our military budget along with our involvement overseas and return to our isolationist tradition of foreign policy.
Take out Common Core teaching standards and let states decide on what should be taught.
Legalize cannabis for medical uses and allow states to decide on if they wish it to be legalize for recreational purposes.
Begin a crackdown on those who abuse the welfare system.
Privatize Social Security.
Encourage private companies to invest more in space exploration and colonization.
Encourage private companies to invest in renewable energy sources.
Cut down on oil consumption from Middle-Eastern nations.
End the political correctness movement. I don't give two shits if you think I'm "racist", "sexist", or "homophobic". I'm entitled to my own opinion.
A massive investigation among our current politicians for corruption.
End the NSA and all forms of government surveillance.
Encourage colleges to lower tuition fines to make secondary education more affordable in order to allow more skilled workers into the industry.
Encourage schools to teach more into STEM fields for children.


I think that would help just a tad

[Judean Zealot]

Vlerchan

Sorry for the delay. I'm kind of busy right now, but I will respond sometime soon.