Are you really politically affiliated?

[cotjones 10+ year member]

So I'm sure there are many very opinionated democrats and republicans out there who would like to give their opinion as to why their party is the best, and I'm open to it.

Personally, I believe that no single perspective or view can be used to successfully govern a nation so diversified. I believe the american nation is relatively prosperous because of the inherent pattern of balance between democratic and republican politics and powers.

Take the recent conditions of iceland. Iceland is one of the most egalitarian and neo-liberal countries in the world with amenities like universal healthcare. The News: The ENTIRE COUNTRY went BANKRUPT. Their currency is virtually valueless comapred to the rest of the world.

Click to read more...

 

[crunktimes.com 5,000+ posts]

Shut your cocksucking mouth!!

 

[fasfocus00 5,000+ posts]

so what are you saying???

 

[Captain_Ahab 5,000+ posts]

100% Democrat baby!

 

[slim8605 10+ year member]

oast:

I'm shooting for 1000 by Friday.

 

[cotjones 10+ year member]

so what are you saying???

More as a question... What are your opinions as to why/if one political affiliation is better than another.

 

[fasfocus00 5,000+ posts]

More as a question... What are your opinions as to why/if one political affiliation is better than another.

they all **** b/c neither one can do anything right and when they fuk up they act like a 2 y/o and blame someone else.

 

[cotjones 10+ year member]

they all **** b/c neither one can do anything right and when they fuk up they act like a 2 y/o and blame someone else.

So how would you run a country?

 

[newusername 10+ year member]

Well, before you start asking philosophical questions of how a country should be a run, take a step back to Hobbes: does a country require running? What is the necessity of the state?

 

[duece212 5,000+ posts]

I wonder if our country would run better with an italian super chip

 

[DBfan187 5,000+ posts]

I wonder if our country would run better with an italian super chip

and $7hr starting salaries.

 

[Flipx99 5,000+ posts]

Well, before you start asking philosophical questions of how a country should be a run, take a step back to Hobbes: does a country require running? What is the necessity of the state?

I'd say to protect against other organized people. It's a game theory issue. I organize, not because I necessarily need to be organzied, but because if another group did organize, they would be able to "capture" my resources.

 

[newusername 10+ year member]

Well, that's not far from Hobbes' argument in Leviathan. Essentially, he asserts that we can't trust each other, so we must agree to a certain set of social ordinances that are regulated by the state. These ordinances require forgoing some liberties in exchange for security. Basically you give up some of your human desires to ensure that others desires (which may be damaging) are withheld. One of the big things I disagree with him on is: A) The separation of powers (he advocated a circumstance where all powers are controlled by the sovereign), B) The obligation of members of a society.

Just to spitball that for a bit....

If the goal is to maximize peace amongst a society, then it is clear where the philosophical basis for Hobbes' argument lies. Some have argued that maintaining such peace will permit the human race to grow more quickly, by using our collective strengths.

Suppose another argument, though, that focuses either on specialization or ability to adapt: might it instead be better to permit the powerful to overrule the weak, and over generations we will see the abilities of the human race grow (or scale appropriately with nature).

Then the other argument is that the development of the human brain permits evolution of a collective society's thoughts at a rate faster than we could develop through genetic evolution. But is it a risk to society's long-term well-being? I think we are already seeing instances where a concept or idea has spread to society that is more advanced than the majority can handle; what is the use of greatly evolved ideas if we cannot make use of them? Or suppose our ideas grow in a direction that isn't supported by nature, ie. let's say we develop green technology that turns out to be useless 1,000 years down the road.

I am really spinning off-topic now, but you get my point. Why someone seeks out a political affiliation without understanding whether there is even a requirement for political discourse is beyond me.

 

[azimuth 5,000+ posts]

Well, that's not far from Hobbes' argument in Leviathan. Essentially, he asserts that we can't trust each other, so we must agree to a certain set of social ordinances that are regulated by the state. These ordinances require forgoing some liberties in exchange for security. Basically you give up some of your human desires to ensure that others desires (which may be damaging) are withheld. One of the big things I disagree with him on is: A) The separation of powers (he advocated a circumstance where all powers are controlled by the sovereign), B) The obligation of members of a society.
Just to spitball that for a bit....

If the goal is to maximize peace amongst a society, then it is clear where the philosophical basis for Hobbes' argument lies. Some have argued that maintaining such peace will permit the human race to grow more quickly, by using our collective strengths.

Suppose another argument, though, that focuses either on specialization or ability to adapt: might it instead be better to permit the powerful to overrule the weak, and over generations we will see the abilities of the human race grow (or scale appropriately with nature).

Then the other argument is that the development of the human brain permits evolution of a collective society's thoughts at a rate faster than we could develop through genetic evolution. But is it a risk to society's long-term well-being? I think we are already seeing instances where a concept or idea has spread to society that is more advanced than the majority can handle; what is the use of greatly evolved ideas if we cannot make use of them? Or suppose our ideas grow in a direction that isn't supported by nature, ie. let's say we develop green technology that turns out to be useless 1,000 years down the road.

I am really spinning off-topic now, but you get my point. Why someone seeks out a political affiliation without understanding whether there is even a requirement for political discourse is beyond me.

huh. nothing to really agree or disagree about. interesting points to think about.

 

[Ronmeister]

I'd run it Ron Paul like //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/smile.gif.1ebc41e1811405b213edfc4622c41e27.gif

Ron