barn Posted June 6, 2018 Posted June 6, 2018 Listen to the podcast - (I'm referring to Q1) [...] Question 1: [2:42] – “Over the years in my short lifetime, I have begun to see the truth in how the bigger a government gets, the more injustice and oppression occurs. I have put a lot of thought into ways in which we can decentralize national/federal governments and one of the solutions I keep coming back to is a form of direct democracy that uses our current IT technology in place of the ancient Greek forums to replace the executive branches of government. Bureaucratic institutions would obviously still need qualified individuals heading them, so for them I would propose breaking them down into 'crown corporations' that act independently with elected officials at the helm. What are your thoughts on a system like this?” [...] Why this caller? (What was the value of the call?) I'm puzzled. (Sorry, I just don't see the point in, why this caller made it into the videos...Am I missing something?) It was cringing to listen, as the caller was unprepared (He didn't check out Stefan's arguments on the freemarket, was missing the supportive evidence for the ideas/claims he had, <-> seeeeveral podcasts by Stefan had already had maaaany superior arguments against centralised governance, even debates especially reminiscent the Peter Joseph 'word-salad tour' Venus project 'argument') and what seemed to me, he didn't show any 'constructive' curiosity or flexibility to try being the devil's advocate so that he could 'catch up to speed' in the convo. Almost as if none of the ideas were coming from him. i. e. : " Most people are good and they don't really want to do bad things. " Given the vast majority of human history consisting of nothing but viscous murderfests, compared to the tiny slice in recent history where that wasn't the case as much (~ 50 000 : 1 ) ... Um... Maybe, the caller' s assessment (besides the several planned economy topics mentioned... ) is on the 'definitively-total-misconception of historical facts' side. History isn't my strongest area but even I get it... -> wars? death tolls? mass-graves? painstakingly slow adaptation of long established philosophical arguments, some even being erased as we speak (NewSpeak) ? I know it's a hard one to get (looking in the mirror) , but humans have not yet evolved morally to be capable of consistently maintaining sustainable/universal moral standards... it's not yet part of humanity, nevertheless some groups of us are trying(?). Which, in my opinion means, more maintenance and reinforcement is required IF the updating of moral standards was a preferable asset to the specie. Maybe not(?) , I can't tell but on a small scale that's what I see/have concluded. I'm an individual. Certainly seems like it should (hence my preference for using UPB), as stagnation and endless-repetitive cycles are by logic, a less preferable direction to keep heading... even to an individual. As in: What's life's purpose, what is the most beneficial attitude to existing? ( ° 42? ) ° Mere survival at a sustainable enough level? (outsourced decision making) or ° 'Conscious-in-the-present&remembering-the-past' existence in the gradually decreasing / increasing unknown? (updating, evolving) I'm for the later. (me thinks)
ofd Posted June 9, 2018 Posted June 9, 2018 Quote Given the vast majority of human history consisting of nothing but viscous murderfests Sure. But what was more likely: Dying from a disease or getting killed by some other dude Quote but humans have not yet evolved morally to be capable of consistently maintaining sustainable/universal moral standards... it's not yet part of humanity, nevertheless some groups of us are trying(?). Replace it with evolve genetically. Morality is a subset of biology. Those (human) groups who have developed morals when it comes to their internal behaviour have had a higher chance of surviving as a group that didn't have those. The same is true for all eusocial mammals which is why the basic moral system is more or less the same for all in groups.
Recommended Posts