Old System, New System

(This is my first post as a member, but I've been an observer around the forums for a little while, and I've been viewing the site for years.)

Liberals.
Conservatives.
Liberals over here, Conservatives over there. Not much else.

It's a simple, bipartisan system. I don't like American politics, because it's all about politicians, and politicians are forty-faced careermen. I like Conservatives, not Republicans, not conservatives with a little "c". I'm talking about the Conservatives we had here in Britain at one time, a prime example being Sir Winston Churchill. I also like Liberals, that is to say, I like people who believe in the value of liberty. There's a lot more to politics, though.

A system of two parties is too simple; a linear political spectrum of two wings is too simple. Politics with standards, with reasonable sensibilities. That's a good system. One I like.

I am the founder of a new philosophical ideology. It's a way of government politically, but it's a way of life even on the most personal level. It's a moralitarian movement based on what is right, how to better oneself and others, rather than simply, what gains votes. Now, I'm not trying to say "JOIN NOW!", I'm simply saying that our system beats democracy, because democracy divides, causes arguments, and depends on a fundamentally ill-informed populace.

Our movement is built up of people of all different values from the well-cultured Conservative, to the salt-of-the-earth Socialist; from the pragmatic Communist to the global-thinking capitalist; pacifistic to militaristic; monetarian to environmentalist. The list goes on and on. In general, democratic politics, these people squabble endlessly, fronting flawed ideologies. This isn't to say that everyone mindlessly agrees with the first take on an issue. The reason our system works is because we debate an issue until, through a process of elimination-through-conflict, it is resolved. By our system, people can have all the freedoms they so require without having to sacrafice security. People can be treated fairly, without weakening economic or domestic policies. There are all sorts of issues we table, and resolve, through sensible debate. The reason I'm posting this is because I think it would be good for us to bring issues into this thread and discuss them in a way by which we utilize the most extremely different (but reasonable) political perspectives, and use them to chip away all the crap from an issue until we're left with a work of art, a true solution.

If anyone would like to ask any questions about our movement, I would be happy to answer them.

The intention of this post is to generate greater discussion and thought about issues, no matter how obscure they may be.

For those of you who managed to hold on to the end of my post, thank you for taking the time to bathe in my rhetoric.

Scott

I am not asking for a label of any sort, but I would like to know if there is a web page or faq where other members can review over the material you are talking about.
Also are there any specific solutions to the issues that are addressed?

Well, I deliberately chose not to post the real meat of the ideology because it would be far too long, and because to do so, especially in my first post, seems quite blunt and rude to me.

In response to your inquiry: although one of our number is creating a site dedicated to our philosophy, there is nothing yet on the 'net about it, as it is a fairly new ideology.

I realise, however, what you are looking for, and I believe that should you use Google or some such search engine to search for whatever material you can find on people ranging from Plato to Napoleon, and subjects from governmental workings to self-conduct. Eastern philosophy may also help you understand some of our standpoints also. I strongly advise you to inquire at your library for Sun Tzu's "The Art Of War" and Musashi's "Book Of Five Rings".

I myself acknowledge that this is a short answer, although I expect, now possessing this answer, you may have more specific questions for me. Should this be the case, I would be more than happy to answer your questions.

Thank you

I think I like the way you think.

Fairness is a huge thing with me and it seems to be a hallmark of your belief system.

I look forward to reading more of your posts on various issues.

If this is handled properly, the movement could be very monumental.

[Edited on 25-4-2004 by Mr_Idealist]

To KayEm: I appreciate your acknowledgement of the good work that we're trying to do. Perceptive, sensible people like yourself should be greatly valued by the members around here.

To Mr_Idealist: The movement's already very monumental, but I think you make a very good point. From the gentleman to the worker, we are recognized as a movement for the progress and prosperity of all, which, quite naturally makes us very popular.

Thank you both for your comments. I greatly appreciate your input.

Scott

I am open to other notions and alternatives to mass benevolency in a structured social system. So I will approach with an open mind for the time being. The information you have posted illustrated that the system you speak of is not the alternative I suspected at first, but again I am open on the subject, no loss. On paper I am a Democrat, I have liberal leanings, but my own agenda is in some ways similar, but there are differences. In return I would like you to have a look at modern *Technocracy* (re:good google keyword). I am talking about the Democratic like system that where instead of lawyers and statesmen leading the people, instead scientists, doctors, and engineers consist the leadership or at least publicly selectable leadership. That was one of my main reasons for supporting Dr. Dean. I think having the U.S. go into a Technocratic direction in this day and age would be the way to go, but that's just me.
To each their own. Perhaps if we foster systems such as ours others may do the same, in the name of evolutionary progress. Again, thank you for the information All-father.

The Google search won't be needed, but thank you none the less. I myself am familiar with technocratic doctrines. I must say that I am very pleased that you are also. It holds very personal significance for me since, all through my years of schooling, I was considered a scientific prodigy before my strategic and philosophical aptitudes became apparent. To address your point, I shall explain the technocratic doctrines propagated by our movement.

By our system, science of all varieties (not limited to simply the commercial or military fields) will be very important. Also, I strongly feel that in at least some departments, scientists should have a more direct role in policy-making than the traditional advisory role. To cite a particular and VERY relevant example: Imagine that before 9/11, there were counterterrorism experts who had been actively involved in directing legislation or intelligence, rather than holding simple consultant roles in which their advice fell on deaf ears. That tragedy could have been avoided far too easily.

To take the point further, should one consider energy policy, we should be exploring new technologies rather than sticking to pollutant fossil fuels for the simple reason that there is a subscriptive demand for them, which provides oil companies with long-term customers. Consider, for instance, that in Scandanavia, many sensible alternatives, such as hydropower and BioGas are used. BioGas formation has multiple biproducts, the first being that it can be immediately be used by cars with the correct engine modifications. Another is that, as a farmer, one could bring in waste from one's farm to be processed, which not only provides the necessary methane for energy, it also gives the farmer an excellent fertilizer in the left-over material.

I, personally, have always seen the advantages of greater exploration and refining of nuclear fuel useage. With more developed processing tools, one could potentially gain more from nuclear fuels, rather than throwing them away when they still possess so much of their productive promise.

I hope that gives you an idea of our standpoint on issues of technocratic relevance.

It sounds like your system is a philosophy, not a political system. Everyone can sit around and discuss and resolve issues, and I quote you:

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

This works better than democracy, because, you say

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

The "depends on a fundamentally ill-informed populace" is patently untrue, of course. And I don't understand what elimination-through-conflict means. Also, the reason democracy works is because it encourages debate. Do not confuse theory with practice.

So it seems that you propose a discussion club in which everyone can participate. We have that now. What else have you got?


_

Okay. It's immediately clear to me that you don't have the intelligence/principles/depth for this discussion, or this board. I feel the only point in which this post is going to fail is in being nice.

Firstly, your opening was very rude. Your criticisms are too unexplored and undecisive for you to try to assert them as obvious and conclusive. What's blatantly untrue is the notion you have that you're ready for any board beyond the intensity of "Politics & Scandals" (no offense to you wondrous dudes at "Politics & Scandals". Lmfao)

Modern democracy doesn't work because firstly, it's not true to the principle of democracy, and secondly, there's never really a choice. I mean, okay, technically there IS a choice, but it's between careerman #1, and careerman #2. Which... isn't much of a choice, really. You get the same inherant problems either way.

The populace is ill-informed, and completely without the salts as to discern leadership quality, or the solution to any given situation of a complexity beyond the Nth degree. Democracy doesn't work because, right off the bat, people's choices are mostly influenced by what other people say and do. Humans are social animals, and look to follow the majority influence, or, to make some rebellious statement, minority influence. Debate is stimulated by intelligent discussion, not a stagnant system of appeasing and deceiving the masses, i.e. democracy.

Now, I admit, I wouldn't have a case if it were a mere... blemish on the casing which cradles democracy, but this is a far-reaching, fundamental flaw in the very kernel concept of which democracy is the manifestation. Democracy only "works", or, more accurately, lasts, because it gives people a sense of security. A significant number of people don't even vote, but having the right and oppurtunity to vote is all they want to put their minds at rest.

Not everyone is an economist, nor is everyone a diplomat, but these are the policies democracy influences. Policies too important to be messed up by the unknowing voter, unaware of the consequences and perils to come.

You seem to have got the wrong idea about our movement. As a philosophy, it can still easily fit the political format because it is about self-betterment, and such doctrines can be applied to institutions and systems of administration.

Elimination-through-conflict refers to the process of eliminating error by exposing an issue to two conflicting ideological, social forces.

Please. Don't respond to this with more insolence. Leave with what shreds of dignity you have left. No hard feelings, Holmes.

Elimination through Conflict is a fancy way of saying debate. lol
Sorry debate is a necessary element of Verbal entropy needed to narrow down what is not needed thereby providing efficiency. Democracy already provides this.
Where the difference is with this particular mechanism
is the lack of an 'emotional' approach of solutions.
To clarify the process of logic necessitated(sp??)
by the scientific method is merely applied when such a debate is necessary. This does not mean it is a cold approach as the heart often lends well, it doesn't hurt
to take both approaches as long as objectivity is not in question.

Cryss has quickly and firmly grasped the definition and value of elimination-through-conflict. Thank you, dude.

Okay, you mentioned you were a liberal before, and in light of that poor person getting a totally wrong idea of what we're about, let me reveal more about our movement. Specifically, our unique form of liberalism, without "the right to vote", or politically-correct nonsense.

Which is more important: The freedom to vote which, as an executive action, causes stress, or financial freedom from corporate extortion and market over-pricing? The freedom to vote, or the freedom to live in peace and security? The freedom to vote, or the freedom to know the world around you, and to really think without blind social conditioning? The freedom to vote, or the freedom to truly live?

Plato gave us the first justified, philosophical basis for this. The layperson holds and expresses opinions, but the philosopher, who understands the nature of himself and that around him, holds true knowledge. Our take on this is simply logical progression: Just and rational leadership comes not from the despot, nor the democratically-elected representative, but from the philosopher-king, he who is armed with principle, vision and a love for truth and goodness.

Napoleon Bonaparte, having come from nothing to become the most powerful man in Europe, believed that all should have the oppurtunity to rise up and realise their potential, as he had done. This, again, is a liberal avenue we believe very strongly in.

Well, Cryss, I hope this is enough for you to gauge our stance on liberty, but should you require any more information on something, just cite the issue and I'd be happy to oblige.

lol
Again not to play devil's advocate here, but 'ill-informed'.. yeah perhaps in the 30's.. Technocracy has come a long way since then.

I will agree that we need to get a grip on the energy problem. Nuclear power is the way to go! I am totally with you on that one. Biomass is another good source of power.

To clarify the statement above, you see, the Technocracy used to feel that way towards the general populace due to education limitations. We are now in the 21st Century. Public education though imperfect (perhaps by perception rather than fact) continually improves gradually over time. It is the confusion of ill-informed and *apathy* that is the issue. The people here in the U.S. are not ill-informed (a way of saying ignorant)
they are apathetic and unmotivated due to jadedness and half-way thought out sarcasm. This is why my ears perked up with Dr. Dean. he scored 2 points there! woo hoo!! Not only did he find a way to invigorate people
with the understanding of objective motives and found a way to unify potiential voters without regard of physical bounds. (Campaign and connect with people electronically en masse).
The non ill-informed bit is also the reason why I feel the electorial college is functionally obsolete.

I do agree with you that had the security and intelligence consultants been taken a bit more seriously then perhaps the horrors could have been avoided. Though there were other factors that were involved too.
heh, it is nice to hear from someone of simular mind, I am looking forward to future posts with you All-Father.


[Edited on 25-4-2004 by Crysstaafur]

Originally posted by All-Father
Okay. It's immediately clear to me that you don't have the intelligence/principles/depth for this discussion, or this board. I feel the only point in which this post is going to fail is in being nice.

Firstly, your opening was very rude. Your criticisms are too unexplored and undecisive for you to try to assert them as obvious and conclusive. What's blatantly untrue is the notion you have that you're ready for any board beyond the intensity of "Politics & Scandals" (no offense to you wondrous dudes at "Politics & Scandals". Lmfao)

The populace is ill-informed, and completely without the salts as to discern leadership quality, or the solution to any given situation of a complexity beyond the Nth degree. Democracy doesn't work because, right off the bat, people's choices are mostly influenced by what other people say and do. Humans are social animals, and look to follow the majority influence, or, to make some rebellious statement, minority influence. Debate is stimulated by intelligent discussion, not a stagnant system of appeasing and deceiving the masses, i.e. democracy.

You seem to have got the wrong idea about our movement. As a philosophy, it can still easily fit the political format because it is about self-betterment, and such doctrines can be applied to institutions and systems of administration.

Elimination-through-conflict refers to the process of eliminating error by exposing an issue to two conflicting ideological, social forces.

Please. Don't respond to this with more insolence. Leave with what shreds of dignity you have left. No hard feelings, Holmes.

_________
Wow. I read your profile. You're brilliant, omni-talented? Who told you that? It doesn't sound like you can take even the slightest questioning or criticism without resorting to personal attacks. The second sentence of your reply confirms that.

What was wrong, or rude, with my opening? How was I rude? Is this approach of yours part of your elimination-though-conflict methodology? Is this how you respond to anyone who might ask you to explain what you mean? You yourself said that you intentionally left many details out. I want you to supply some. No need to react the way you have.

Do not accuse me of being rude without explaining what you mean. Do not attempt to intimidate me with statements such as "It's immediately clear to me that you don't have the intelligence/principles/depth for this discussion, or this board". Take my advice - you haven't seen rude. There are people on this board who will have you walking away in tears. They will tear you a new asshole just because they feel good today. As is often stated, "Love don't live here".

And let's leave the discussion of what's wrong with democracy out of this. There are dozens of threads on that topic already. Let's hear what makes your system so much better.

_

Indignation. You immediately asserted unsubstantiated nonsense as fact before anyone had the chance to explain our ideology to you in greater depth.

What I stated was an observation, not a personal attack. Were it an attack, I would have called you a foolish assclown at some point. Which I did not do.

Another thing I won't do is cry. I've seen the worst on this board, and that gratifies me.

So, if you have anything to ask me, or any valid points to raise, I would like to see them, especially if they energize some sensible debate.

All-Father, may i remind you as to which thread root you are in. They don't call it the mud-pit for nothing. I find that statements regarding the misinformed disheartening. Remember it is curiousity that is the
beginning of knowlege, never berate someone just because they question the concept. Even if it means that you have a suspicion that it is an attack of person. Usually it isn't, can you hear voice influctions over the net or how the person physically reacts. This is why emoticons are used so we can distinguish these subtle traits of communication.
jsobecky has every right reply in that way. Even if I don't agree half the time. lol

"Jumping to conclusions, youngster, is going to get your a$$ shot off some day" -> Harold -> Fallout 2

Other than that I am having a blast with this topic

[Edited on 25-4-2004 by Crysstaafur]

Which is more important: The freedom to vote which, as an executive action, causes stress, or financial freedom from corporate extortion and market over-pricing? The freedom to vote, or the freedom to live in peace and security? The freedom to vote, or the freedom to know the world around you, and to really think without blind social conditioning? The freedom to vote, or the freedom to truly live?

_________
So those are the two choices? Having the freedom to vote or living in Utopia?

No freedom to vote implies that you are abdicating this privilege/responsibilty to someone else. Who might that be? I have a few pretty good guesses, but I'd like to hear it from you.

__

Again that is a old holdover from the early
technocracy. The power of Vote is necessary
in that it provides a demographic of the people's needs.
Utopias cannot be assumed arbitrarily(sp?). There must be a source of information and ideas that can step things along that course. If the people's opinion is not
understood by the leadership then that becomes a turn for the worse. History already taught that mistake. It is already happening here in the U.S. with GWB.
Again bro, modernize a little. lol

Don't get me wrong, my technocrat friend. I know that we must carefully listen to public opinion on matters such as their needs and desires for themselves and how life can be imrpoved. This does not, however, mean I would entrust them with the vote for leaders or on policies not directly concerning them.

Something I believe in strongly as far as local policies are concerned is the community forum. Not only would this stimulate greater discussion and thought, it would also give those involved in administration a chance to fraternize with and relate to the people. From here, we could estimate people's feelings on various issues, and address their momentary needs.

And jso, dude... if you were playing devil's advocate, that would explain why we got off on the wrong foot. I'd like to keep things cool and listen to more of what you have to say, if that's okay.

Are we all cool now?

And George W. Bush... is the single greatest walking, talking argument against democracy, and HE didn't even get voted in legitimately.

Can you say "Daddy's got friends in the Supreme Court and Diebold" ?