Ideology Idiocy / A personal manifesto

Bomby · 10-04-2009, 03:57 PM

People don't think about issues and decide for themselves what to believe. They probably never did, and unfortunately they probably never will. This is dangerous.

When a debate comes up about an ideological idea, say, capitalism vs. socialism, instead of trying to find a more useful middle ground taking the best ideas from both worlds, people will instead only look for arguments that make their side look good and make the other side look bad to reaffirm their own previous biases.

Right now I feel that the right wing is scared about the current economic climate - not that it won't be solved, but that it might take some "socialist"* ideas to solve it, therefore proving that free market capitalism has flaws.

* - Obama is not a socialist. If you think so, you probably don't know what Socialism is and you'd do yourself well reading up on it a bit.

My personal feelings: Though I sympathize with socialism, it is in an of itself also a fundamentally flawed system in that it does not provide incentive for members of society to work to keep it functioning. I feel like the best system possible would be a capitalist/socialist hybrid that would increase government regulation but still allow for a wage based personal earning system, though one that would dole out the wages more fairly than it currently does. Why do wages need to be doled out more fairly?

Economics is simply a measurement of our resources, most of them finite. Because of their finiteness, we must be careful with how we use them. For example, I am against the manufacturing of gas guzzling SUV's because they consume a grossly disproportionate amount of petroleum to the world's current need for petroleum, which we should be trying to cut down as much as possible.

Also, it's simple morality: If I make ten million dollars in a year, and you only make ten thousand, I apparently have the rights to one thousand times the resources you are allowed, even though in actuality we are both singular persons. This is grossly disproportionate and morally reprehensible.

As Is stated before, we can't simply distribute wages exactly evenly because this would eliminate the motivation to work to create a functioning society. However, with greater regulation, we could create a system in which the hardest workers make more money, yet not an amount as disproportionate as currently happens.

Metal Man · 10-04-2009, 05:27 PM

Of course, taking the middle path is EVIL because ideaologues prefer to ALWAYS be right and oversimplify everything down to binary opposition.

Even though binary opposition is a Roman/Greek idea and has rivals such as the Native American 'circle' and so on.

That's your problem--people want to see things as one side or another.

Rather than a circle or other idea where there are many gray areas, and often the best policies are pragmatic rather than partisan.

**Valigarmander** · 10-04-2009, 05:42 PM

My beliefs are right, all others are wrong. Evidence that supports my idea only proves how right I am even more, while evidence that doesn't support it is devil-magic and should be ignored.

***Saria Dragon of the Rain Wilds*** · 10-05-2009, 08:25 AM

My two cents: all government ideals are flawed at some level. Can't get away from that. Better to just abandon all the pre-classified, pre-defined methods and just do what works. You don't need to cling to every aspect of This Political Standpoint, or That Political Standpoint, but adapt everything to suit.

I'm really, really beginning to hate proper nouns. They hold too many specified connotations to each individual. Blah blah blah.

***Cosmonautical*** · 10-05-2009, 08:58 AM

The government concept is flawed, because no matter what it does it subjugates freedom. That doesn't make it evil, but it certainly doesn't make it perfect. I think we're doing pretty well for a race of beings totally driven by selfishness, as far as mutual benefit goes. Man's accomplishments aren't truly impressive until you gauge them by man's aptitude for failure.

Bomby · 10-05-2009, 12:37 PM

^ Considering the alternative to having a government... With the exception of anarcho-collectivism, I'm convinced that if a society could ever function under anarchy, it already would have. Before humans even came up with the idea of government, there was basically only anarchy. Even considering how much more knowledge the human race has acquired over time, I still have doubts that anarchy would provide a very fruitful life for humanity.

Of course, there's also the idea of individualist anarchy, in which the government only exists if you recognize its existence... so by that, technically there is only anarchy because government only exists in the human consciousness.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Saria Dragon of the Rain Wilds

My two cents: all government ideals are flawed at some level. Can't get away from that. Better to just abandon all the pre-classified, pre-defined methods and just do what works. You don't need to cling to every aspect of This Political Standpoint, or That Political Standpoint, but adapt everything to suit.

That's pretty much the point I was trying to make. Also, no single system will work forever. All systems must adapt to face new issues.

***Cosmonautical*** · 10-06-2009, 08:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bomby

Of course, there's also the idea of individualist anarchy, in which the government only exists if you recognize its existence... so by that, technically there is only anarchy because government only exists in the human consciousness.

Bingo.

***Saria Dragon of the Rain Wilds*** · 10-06-2009, 08:12 AM

*snort* Assuming humans can't progress socially, emotionally, and/or spiritually to a point that an anarchist society would work is just being ridiculous, man.

After all, in the middle ages, one could've easily said the same thing. There's always room for growth. I think the race can one day achieve far greater harmony with one another, and the planet. I think we're pretty busy wallowing in our own crap for the time being, though.

Bomby · 10-06-2009, 11:19 AM

^ Well destroy ourselves before we get to that point.

Kil'jaeden · 10-06-2009, 09:36 PM

I think advancing that way is doubtful, since we really haven't advanced all that much. Sure the trappings change, but the same stuff happens again and again.

***Cosmonautical*** · 10-07-2009, 06:19 AM

Well, I imagine if we ever successfully colonize other planets, there'll manage to be another war over independence. It seems like the human race just keeps repeating, only on a grander scale.

Man vs Man, Tribe vs Tribe, City vs City, Nation vs Nation, etc.

Bomby · 10-07-2009, 11:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DEADLY KOOPA WARRIORS

It seems like the human race just keeps repeating, only on a grander scale.

See "Chinese Thought" on Page 89 for more information.

***Cosmonautical*** · 10-08-2009, 06:06 AM

Darth_Flava · 10-10-2009, 09:22 PM

I don't believe in peace for the simple reason that were peace possible it would have already been achieved. I believe in peace in the individual but not in the society, there are just too many differences between each person for peace to work. I also don't believe in trying to create a perfect government because it is only possible in theory. Communism was supposed to be the best choice and look where it has gotten countries like China strife with a massive population that it almost couldn't support. As far as advancement goes, disaster is needed. You wouldn't know to create a new concept or invention or update an existing one unless you ran into a problem. While it's sad that millions upon millions of people have lost their lives due to our own races thought process that is just the nature of the beast.

Bomby · 10-10-2009, 10:03 PM

Because a massive population totally has to do with Communism...

... riiiight...

Darth_Flava · 10-11-2009, 12:57 AM

Sigh you fail to see the point in what I said but thats ok. I'm guilty of taking a few sentences out of context as well so don't feel bad.

***Saria Dragon of the Rain Wilds*** · 10-11-2009, 06:54 AM

How can everyone believe that "if it could be done, we would have done it already"? That doesn't make sense. We don't know what we might do in the future. Not until it's done. I sure as hell don't think people are anywhere near "as good as we're going to get". We, as a race, are continually changing. Our society is constantly in upheaval. We are still in the midst of amazing social change, what with women and non-white persons gaining significant politial power, and homosexuality being accepted as a natural state (by some/most people). What on earth about all that indicates a social stagnation? What about that could show that we're as advanced as we're ever going to be?

***Cosmonautical*** · 10-11-2009, 08:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Darth_Flava

Sigh you fail to see the point in what I said but thats ok. I'm guilty of taking a few sentences out of context as well so don't feel bad.

The point is that you're wrong, unfortunately. China's resource issues stem from lack of resources: Marxism is a global-scale concept, not a single-nation concept. Our capitalist dependency on such things as currency and fossil energy sources don't work in a communist scheme. China hasn't even managed to erect a communist economy: on a global scale, they are externally a capitalist state. Internally, their economy is still driven based on government-directed capitalist trading systems. This means that the government is socialist. China's inability to deal with its population is in large part because of standards of tradition; breeding large families to sustain an individual communal sect detracts from the concept of a universal commune. People still practice those survivalist traditions, because the state is not truly communal, and the familiarity of capitalist functions cannot simply be traded away at the say-so of the government. Your failure to recognize the difference between economy(communism), government(socialism), and philosophy(Marxism) is limiting your breadth of understanding.

Flat out: China is a socialist government. Communism is their ideal, and Marxism is its origin, but in effect they are practicing neither. Communism does not recognize government as a necessary abstract. Marxism declares that for communism to be achieved, government must be eliminated.

Bomby · 10-11-2009, 12:12 PM

You're wrong on the classification of the government as socialist. Socialism is an economic system that can be loosely defined as a transitional phase between capitalism and communism. A government can promote socialism, but the government itself is not the socialism, especially when running the capitalist models that the Chinese government is running. It is not socialism, it is highly regulated capitalism.

A more proper term for China's government (and culture, in general) would be along the lines of collectivism, rather than socialism.

Darth_Flava · 10-11-2009, 10:48 PM

Ok I get it. I mistaken one form of government/economy/whatever for another. That wasn't the point. The point I was trying to make is that there is no single perfect government (in essence I was agreeing with Deadly Koopa Warriors). And to Bomby what do you expect from people when their own political beliefs are being threaten by the very group they are always trying to dominate. I wouldn't expect anything less from the Democratic party if it were in the Republican's shoes. Thats why I stopped caring what either side says anymore. Nothing but a bunch of broken promises and dissapointment one after the other.

10-04-2009, 03:57 PM	#1
Bomby You just freaking blew Joe Biden's mind! Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: WHAT?house Gender: Posts: 19,491 Thanks: 513 Thanked 1,449 Times in 849 Posts Blog Entries: 5	Ideology Idiocy / A personal manifesto People don't think about issues and decide for themselves what to believe. They probably never did, and unfortunately they probably never will. This is dangerous. When a debate comes up about an ideological idea, say, capitalism vs. socialism, instead of trying to find a more useful middle ground taking the best ideas from both worlds, people will instead only look for arguments that make their side look good and make the other side look bad to reaffirm their own previous biases. Right now I feel that the right wing is scared about the current economic climate - not that it won't be solved, but that it might take some "socialist"* ideas to solve it, therefore proving that free market capitalism has flaws. * - Obama is not a socialist. If you think so, you probably don't know what Socialism is and you'd do yourself well reading up on it a bit. My personal feelings: Though I sympathize with socialism, it is in an of itself also a fundamentally flawed system in that it does not provide incentive for members of society to work to keep it functioning. I feel like the best system possible would be a capitalist/socialist hybrid that would increase government regulation but still allow for a wage based personal earning system, though one that would dole out the wages more fairly than it currently does. Why do wages need to be doled out more fairly? Economics is simply a measurement of our resources, most of them finite. Because of their finiteness, we must be careful with how we use them. For example, I am against the manufacturing of gas guzzling SUV's because they consume a grossly disproportionate amount of petroleum to the world's current need for petroleum, which we should be trying to cut down as much as possible. Also, it's simple morality: If I make ten million dollars in a year, and you only make ten thousand, I apparently have the rights to one thousand times the resources you are allowed, even though in actuality we are both singular persons. This is grossly disproportionate and morally reprehensible. As Is stated before, we can't simply distribute wages exactly evenly because this would eliminate the motivation to work to create a functioning society. However, with greater regulation, we could create a system in which the hardest workers make more money, yet not an amount as disproportionate as currently happens.

10-04-2009, 05:27 PM	#2
Metal Man Fairy-Slaying Maniac Join Date: Apr 2000 Location: 1592 Miles Away From Here Gender: Posts: 18,062 Thanks: 148 Thanked 683 Times in 482 Posts	Of course, taking the middle path is EVIL because ideaologues prefer to ALWAYS be right and oversimplify everything down to binary opposition. Even though binary opposition is a Roman/Greek idea and has rivals such as the Native American 'circle' and so on. That's your problem--people want to see things as one side or another. Rather than a circle or other idea where there are many gray areas, and often the best policies are pragmatic rather than partisan.

10-04-2009, 05:42 PM	#3
Valigarmander The Bee's Knees Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: The land of rain and trees (Oregon) Gender: Posts: 29,755 Thanks: 1,649 Thanked 5,700 Times in 2,580 Posts Blog Entries: 20	My beliefs are right, all others are wrong. Evidence that supports my idea only proves how right I am even more, while evidence that doesn't support it is devil-magic and should be ignored.

10-05-2009, 08:25 AM	#4
*Saria Dragon of the Rain Wilds* Admin "mine.. not yours. NO. MINE." Epic Ladynerd Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: Forteresse de Valois Gender: Posts: 28,504 Thanks: 1,658 Thanked 1,820 Times in 1,042 Posts	My two cents: all government ideals are flawed at some level. Can't get away from that. Better to just abandon all the pre-classified, pre-defined methods and just do what works. You don't need to cling to every aspect of This Political Standpoint, or That Political Standpoint, but adapt everything to suit. I'm really, really beginning to hate proper nouns. They hold too many specified connotations to each individual. Blah blah blah.

10-05-2009, 08:58 AM	#5
*Cosmonautical* Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: I rub my tilde all over your asterisk Gender: Posts: 28,100 Thanks: 2,151 Thanked 5,338 Times in 2,433 Posts	The government concept is flawed, because no matter what it does it subjugates freedom. That doesn't make it evil, but it certainly doesn't make it perfect. I think we're doing pretty well for a race of beings totally driven by selfishness, as far as mutual benefit goes. Man's accomplishments aren't truly impressive until you gauge them by man's aptitude for failure.

10-06-2009, 08:12 AM	#8
*Saria Dragon of the Rain Wilds* Admin "mine.. not yours. NO. MINE." Epic Ladynerd Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: Forteresse de Valois Gender: Posts: 28,504 Thanks: 1,658 Thanked 1,820 Times in 1,042 Posts	snort Assuming humans can't progress socially, emotionally, and/or spiritually to a point that an anarchist society would work is just being ridiculous, man. After all, in the middle ages, one could've easily said the same thing. There's always room for growth. I think the race can one day achieve far greater harmony with one another, and the planet. I think we're pretty busy wallowing in our own crap for the time being, though.

10-06-2009, 11:19 AM	#9
Bomby You just freaking blew Joe Biden's mind! Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: WHAT?house Gender: Posts: 19,491 Thanks: 513 Thanked 1,449 Times in 849 Posts Blog Entries: 5	^ Well destroy ourselves before we get to that point.

10-06-2009, 09:36 PM	#10
Kil'jaeden Member Join Date: May 2003 Location: in your mind Gender: Posts: 2,132 Thanks: 21 Thanked 146 Times in 99 Posts	I think advancing that way is doubtful, since we really haven't advanced all that much. Sure the trappings change, but the same stuff happens again and again.

10-07-2009, 06:19 AM	#11
*Cosmonautical* Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: I rub my tilde all over your asterisk Gender: Posts: 28,100 Thanks: 2,151 Thanked 5,338 Times in 2,433 Posts	Well, I imagine if we ever successfully colonize other planets, there'll manage to be another war over independence. It seems like the human race just keeps repeating, only on a grander scale. Man vs Man, Tribe vs Tribe, City vs City, Nation vs Nation, etc.

10-08-2009, 06:06 AM	#13
*Cosmonautical* Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: I rub my tilde all over your asterisk Gender: Posts: 28,100 Thanks: 2,151 Thanked 5,338 Times in 2,433 Posts	?

10-10-2009, 09:22 PM	#14
Darth_Flava Junior Member Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: North Carolina Gender: Posts: 137 Thanks: 2 Thanked 7 Times in 7 Posts	I don't believe in peace for the simple reason that were peace possible it would have already been achieved. I believe in peace in the individual but not in the society, there are just too many differences between each person for peace to work. I also don't believe in trying to create a perfect government because it is only possible in theory. Communism was supposed to be the best choice and look where it has gotten countries like China strife with a massive population that it almost couldn't support. As far as advancement goes, disaster is needed. You wouldn't know to create a new concept or invention or update an existing one unless you ran into a problem. While it's sad that millions upon millions of people have lost their lives due to our own races thought process that is just the nature of the beast.

10-10-2009, 10:03 PM	#15
Bomby You just freaking blew Joe Biden's mind! Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: WHAT?house Gender: Posts: 19,491 Thanks: 513 Thanked 1,449 Times in 849 Posts Blog Entries: 5	Because a massive population totally has to do with Communism... ... riiiight...

10-11-2009, 12:57 AM	#16
Darth_Flava Junior Member Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: North Carolina Gender: Posts: 137 Thanks: 2 Thanked 7 Times in 7 Posts	Sigh you fail to see the point in what I said but thats ok. I'm guilty of taking a few sentences out of context as well so don't feel bad.

10-11-2009, 06:54 AM	#17
*Saria Dragon of the Rain Wilds* Admin "mine.. not yours. NO. MINE." Epic Ladynerd Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: Forteresse de Valois Gender: Posts: 28,504 Thanks: 1,658 Thanked 1,820 Times in 1,042 Posts	How can everyone believe that "if it could be done, we would have done it already"? That doesn't make sense. We don't know what we might do in the future. Not until it's done. I sure as hell don't think people are anywhere near "as good as we're going to get". We, as a race, are continually changing. Our society is constantly in upheaval. We are still in the midst of amazing social change, what with women and non-white persons gaining significant politial power, and homosexuality being accepted as a natural state (by some/most people). What on earth about all that indicates a social stagnation? What about that could show that we're as advanced as we're ever going to be?

10-11-2009, 12:12 PM	#19
Bomby You just freaking blew Joe Biden's mind! Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: WHAT?house Gender: Posts: 19,491 Thanks: 513 Thanked 1,449 Times in 849 Posts Blog Entries: 5	You're wrong on the classification of the government as socialist. Socialism is an economic system that can be loosely defined as a transitional phase between capitalism and communism. A government can promote socialism, but the government itself is not the socialism, especially when running the capitalist models that the Chinese government is running. It is not socialism, it is highly regulated capitalism. A more proper term for China's government (and culture, in general) would be along the lines of collectivism, rather than socialism.

10-11-2009, 10:48 PM	#20
Darth_Flava Junior Member Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: North Carolina Gender: Posts: 137 Thanks: 2 Thanked 7 Times in 7 Posts	Ok I get it. I mistaken one form of government/economy/whatever for another. That wasn't the point. The point I was trying to make is that there is no single perfect government (in essence I was agreeing with Deadly Koopa Warriors). And to Bomby what do you expect from people when their own political beliefs are being threaten by the very group they are always trying to dominate. I wouldn't expect anything less from the Democratic party if it were in the Republican's shoes. Thats why I stopped caring what either side says anymore. Nothing but a bunch of broken promises and dissapointment one after the other.