Author Topic: Government and Laws  (Read 6092 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Yip

  • Species: vulpes vulpes
  • *
  • Female
  • Posts: 4005
    • Furaffinity
Re: Government and Laws
« Reply #25 on: January 25, 2013, 03:43:56 am »
Am I the only one here who thinks that money is a force for good rather than a corruptive influence?
Like Mylo said, it's both.

Quote
Companies are neither evil nor corrupt.
Companies are motivated by profit, not by what is good for society. In many respects they will behave in ways that benefit society (as you outlined). However, if a company can profit from doing something that is detrimental to society, it WILL.  This does not mean companies are evil. I'd say they are not inherently good or evil. But there needs to be something to keep the potential "evil" in check.

Quote
A company will certainly not initiate violence against its competitors if it expects to receive public support.
I wouldn't be so certain. Look at the mafia, it's basically ran like a business, and they have no problem with using violence. The trick is to keep enough probable deniability, like if the other guy's place just happens to burn down in the middle of the night.... And for those that you deal with that you must let them know of your use of violence, you make sure they understand, it's nothing personal, just business.

Offline Alsek

  • The Fluffy Destroyer of Tasty Fish
  • Species: White Wolf Pup
  • *****
  • Posts: 5234
Re: Government and Laws
« Reply #26 on: January 25, 2013, 04:44:50 am »
I think a large part of my problem with today's society is victimless crimes.  The USA's incarceration rate per-citizen is one of the highest in the world which is absolutely absurd for a nation that  touts itself as being, "The land of the free."  I would like to see personal liberties greatly expanded.  I believe in equal rights for all.  I don't believe in laws that single out  race,  age,  gender,  ethnicity,  or sexuality as so many seem to today.  I don't believe that rights belong to groups,  or that rights come in bunches,  but rather that all individuals are judged only be their actions.  (the very concept of a,  "hate crime," implies the policing of thought or opinion,  which disgusts me. If someone commits assault,  charge them for assault.  Why doesn't matter whether or not they hate some aspect about you?)  I believe any individual has the right to say and think anything he wants no-matter how controversial or unpopular it may be so long as he does not make threats against the lives or properties of others.

I am a strong proponent of capitalism.  I believe in the power of a free market with stable currency.  I also see corporatism and corporate person-hood as being extremely dangerous as individuals behind reckless,  property damaging decisions are not held accountable for the lives and properties they ruin.  I want property rights protected and enforced strongly.  If a corporation leaks toxic waste or polutants into a stream,  they should be held accountable for every single property they damage.  By the same token,  i don't believe that anyone should ever have the right to take away someone else's home because the government feels the land would be better suited for a highway,  or worse,  a wal-mart.

These seem like such givens to me.  =\
« Last Edit: January 30, 2013, 11:59:39 pm by Alsek »

Offline Yip

  • Species: vulpes vulpes
  • *
  • Female
  • Posts: 4005
    • Furaffinity
Re: Government and Laws
« Reply #27 on: January 26, 2013, 02:59:09 am »
Oh yes, I wanted to respond to this little exchange from the originating thread.

Foxpup: Furthermore, since the only way to obtain money in the first place is produce something of value, the ones with the most power are those who have done the most good for the community.
Mylo: Power over what?
Foxpup: Over people willing to exchange favours for money, and nobody else.

Foxpup, you can't honestly believe that money only gives power to those willing to exchange favors for money. You say this, but then go on to talk about privatized armies. What is a privatized army is not a way to change monetary power into military power, and military power most certainly gives power over others whether they are willing or not.

Of course, I shouldn't have to point out that the first statement is incorrect also; there IS a way to obtain money that does not involve producing anything of value: it's called theft.

Offline Kobuk

  • The "Malamute Dewd"
  • Hero Member
  • Species: Anthro Alaskan Malamute (Husky)
  • #1 Dew drinker.
  • *****
  • Male
  • Posts: 27533
Re: Government and Laws
« Reply #28 on: January 26, 2013, 05:28:11 pm »
I can't think of any real life companies that are pretty bad and are "evil" off the top of my head, but here's two ficticious companies that always bring out the worst in consumerism, capitalism, greed, etc.  :P I only hope the real world doesn't get as bad as these two.  :o

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omni_Consumer_Products_%28RoboCop%29#Omni_Consumer_Products

And the worst one of all........ :P
http://avp.wikia.com/wiki/Weyland-Yutani
Quote
Weyland-Yutani is consistently portrayed as exhibiting the worst aspects of corporate profiteering, willing to sacrifice decency and life in the endless pursuit of profits.
Click link below for more fursuit information. ;)
http://forums.furtopia.org/kobuk's-fursuit-guides/

Offline Foxpup

  • Hero Member
  • Species: Cyborg Fox
  • *****
  • Male
  • Posts: 1183
Re: Government and Laws
« Reply #29 on: February 04, 2013, 01:57:20 am »
You can't lump together customers and investors.  Investors are satisfied with good stats on behalf of the company, like growth in market capitalization and profit.  Customers don't care about that so long as they are purchasing quality products for fair prices.  I'm going to correct your statement: Actions which do not benefit the customers or investors will simply not be taken by a company. 
Investors won't invest in a company that's not making a profit, and the company can't make a profit without customers. You can't have one without the other.

A company will certainly not initiate violence against its competitors if it expects to receive public support.

So you are saying that even though consumers would want violence, the company wouldn't do it?  Why so?
If consumers want a company to attain a monopoly position by forcing out its competitors, then so be it. Why they would want that is anyone's guess.

So you would be satisfied with very rich people explicitly having more voice in government simply because they have the money to expend on paying for politicians?  Yes, there are flaws with a democratic government, but these problems can be fixed in a way that preserves the principles of democracy.  The best part about a democratic government, at least in the US, is that everyone has a chance to have their opinions heard in the form of voting.  In principle, whether a person has little net worth or is among the richest in the country, they each still have one vote.  Anarchy introduces a system where money determines who has more rights and power.
No, because of one very simple fact: when you spend a dollar, you don't have it any more. So you want to think carefully about what your spending your money on. You make sure you're getting what you're paying for. With voting, there's no such incentive. There's no accountability. Politicians have nothing at stake, no reason to do what's best for the state, only what's best for themselves.

So in introducing a system of anarchy, society would be run by amoral companies who simply give what the consumer wants.  That is a recipe for disaster considering what the public has wanted in the past.  Not all consumers are rational.  The popular mindset of consumers is not always rational.

In a system of anarchy, and you've just said it yourself, not everyone has human rights.
The most fundamental principle of anarchy is that you can't force anyone to have what they don't want. If people don't want human rights, in what sense are they even rights in the first place?

I wouldn't be so certain. Look at the mafia, it's basically ran like a business, and they have no problem with using violence. The trick is to keep enough probable deniability, like if the other guy's place just happens to burn down in the middle of the night.... And for those that you deal with that you must let them know of your use of violence, you make sure they understand, it's nothing personal, just business.
Actually, they do have a problem with using violence against those who have done nothing to warrant it. It's a bad idea to default on a loan from the Mafia. It's a bad idea to run a competing business on the Mafia's territory. And it's an especially bad idea to physically assault a member of the Mafia. But as a general rule, if you don't mess them, they don't mess with you.

Foxpup, you can't honestly believe that money only gives power to those willing to exchange favors for money. You say this, but then go on to talk about privatized armies. What is a privatized army is not a way to change monetary power into military power, and military power most certainly gives power over others whether they are willing or not.
Not if the others have their own military power.

Of course, I shouldn't have to point out that the first statement is incorrect also; there IS a way to obtain money that does not involve producing anything of value: it's called theft.
I disagree. The ability to avoid retaliation from the aforementioned private armies sounds like it would be very valuable indeed. ;) Seriously, though, how many people do expect to get away with theft when the police force is replaced by private agencies that get paid for results?

I also see corporatism and corporate person-hood as being extremely dangerous as individuals behind reckless,  property damaging decisions are not held accountable for the lives and properties they ruin.  I want property rights protected and enforced strongly.  If a corporation leaks toxic waste or polutants into a stream,  they should be held accountable for every single property they damage.
Exactly. And just who are you paying to hold these companies accountable? Do you feel you're getting your money's worth? Are they refusing to give you a refund? Do they threaten you with violence if you politely ask them to stop billing you?

I can't think of any real life companies that are pretty bad and are "evil" off the top of my head, but here's two ficticious companies that always bring out the worst in consumerism, capitalism, greed, etc.  :P
There's a reason those companies are ficticious. (No, the reason is not "the government stops companies being evil". Just looks at what the government lets companies get away with. Bad publicity does more to discourage companies from acting irresponsibly than anything the government does.)
“Hmm... They have the Internet on computers now.” - Homer Simpson

“Art doesn't work without pain. Art exists for compensating pain.” - Till Lindemann

“There's a fine line between sayings that make sense.” - Too Much Coffee Man

Offline Alsek

  • The Fluffy Destroyer of Tasty Fish
  • Species: White Wolf Pup
  • *****
  • Posts: 5234
Re: Government and Laws
« Reply #30 on: February 04, 2013, 07:03:16 am »
Exactly. And just who are you paying to hold these companies accountable? Do you feel you're getting your money's worth? Are they refusing to give you a refund? Do they threaten you with violence if you politely ask them to stop billing you?

     Believe me,  i'm well aware of the concept of monopoly of force.  But i'm a conservative... Not an anarchist.  I do believe in limited government to enforce contracts,  prevent fraud,  and to prevent crimes with victims.  I just happen to believe state governments are better at handling these kinds of issues,  and that you shouldn't use the federal government to do anything you can accomplish on a local level where individuals have some say in how things are run.

     The IRS is a whole different issue entirely... As is the Federal Reserve.

Offline Foxpup

  • Hero Member
  • Species: Cyborg Fox
  • *****
  • Male
  • Posts: 1183
Re: Government and Laws
« Reply #31 on: February 04, 2013, 07:30:35 am »
Believe me,  i'm well aware of the concept of monopoly of force.  But i'm a conservative... Not an anarchist.  I do believe in limited government to enforce contracts,  prevent fraud,  and to prevent crimes with victims.  I just happen to believe state governments are better at handling these kinds of issues,  and that you shouldn't use the federal government to do anything you can accomplish on a local level where individuals have some say in how things are run.
Yes, local government is definitely the lesser of the evils.

The IRS is a whole different issue entirely... As is the Federal Reserve.
Don't even get me started. >:(
“Hmm... They have the Internet on computers now.” - Homer Simpson

“Art doesn't work without pain. Art exists for compensating pain.” - Till Lindemann

“There's a fine line between sayings that make sense.” - Too Much Coffee Man

Offline Yip

  • Species: vulpes vulpes
  • *
  • Female
  • Posts: 4005
    • Furaffinity
Re: Government and Laws
« Reply #32 on: February 04, 2013, 07:57:25 am »
Foxpup, you are clearly stretching to try to make you position sound credible.

No, because of one very simple fact: when you spend a dollar, you don't have it any more. So you want to think carefully about what your spending your money on. You make sure you're getting what you're paying for.
This is a bit of equivocation. When we are talking about those with money here, what we are really talking about is spending power. That is, those with lots of income. What money you currently have on hand is a resource, but the real power comes from having that massive income, that spending power. Thus there is a huge incentive to spend what money you have in order to ensure your income, your spending power. And if legislation is controlled entirely by the free market, as it would be under the system you propose, then you are literally saying that those with the spending power make the laws. And of course they'll enforce things in a way to keep themselves rich, and who cares about the little guy.

With voting, there's no such incentive. There's no accountability. Politicians have nothing at stake, no reason to do what's best for the state, only what's best for themselves.
Not true. They have to worry about their acceptance by the public. So at the very least, they have to give the appearance that the care about what's best for the state.

The most fundamental principle of anarchy is that you can't force anyone to have what they don't want. If people don't want human rights, in what sense are they even rights in the first place?
The US constitution's main purpose is to protect the minority from the whims of the majority. With anarchy, the minority have no such protection.

If anarchy ruled, it'd be a major setback to social progress. Things like racial discrimination, sexual discrimination, and so forth would be rampant under such a system. The gay rights movement, for example, wouldn't have been able to make near the progress it has if those with the power could just stamp out anyone that tries to speak up about such issues.

I wouldn't be so certain. Look at the mafia, it's basically ran like a business, and they have no problem with using violence. The trick is to keep enough probable deniability, like if the other guy's place just happens to burn down in the middle of the night.... And for those that you deal with that you must let them know of your use of violence, you make sure they understand, it's nothing personal, just business.
Actually, they do have a problem with using violence against those who have done nothing to warrant it. It's a bad idea to default on a loan from the Mafia. It's a bad idea to run a competing business on the Mafia's territory. And it's an especially bad idea to physically assault a member of the Mafia. But as a general rule, if you don't mess them, they don't mess with you.
Yes, it's a bad idea to run a competing business in their territory. What makes it their territory? Because they say so. And what makes you a competing business? Because you happen to be located in the area they claim as their territory, quite likely to no fault of your own. This is exactly what I was illustrating. Without laws, there is nothing to stop any very large business from operating in this same fashion.

Foxpup, you can't honestly believe that money only gives power to those willing to exchange favors for money. You say this, but then go on to talk about privatized armies. What is a privatized army is not a way to change monetary power into military power, and military power most certainly gives power over others whether they are willing or not.
Not if the others have their own military power.
Not everyone would have the same access to military power because not everyone has the same spending power. You seriously can't be that naive.

Of course, I shouldn't have to point out that the first statement is incorrect also; there IS a way to obtain money that does not involve producing anything of value: it's called theft.
I disagree. The ability to avoid retaliation from the aforementioned private armies sounds like it would be very valuable indeed. ;) Seriously, though, how many people do expect to get away with theft when the police force is replaced by private agencies that get paid for results?
First of all, I'm not sure what it is you are getting at with the "avoid retaliation" statement. But regardless of what retaliations or punishments there might be, the fact remains that theft is indeed a way to obtain money that does not require producing anything of value. That's pretty much the definition of the word.

Since you claim to disagree, are you honestly making the claim that under anarchy there wouldn't be -any- theft? Because if so, I can't take you serious. Theft has been going on since before human civilization even existed.

There's a reason those companies are ficticious. (No, the reason is not "the government stops companies being evil". Just looks at what the government lets companies get away with. Bad publicity does more to discourage companies from acting irresponsibly than anything the government does.)
The reason those companies are fictitious is because real companies are inherently indifferent towards good and evil. In the movies, however, things are often portrayed as extremes because it makes for more engaging stories.

And while it's true that keeping a good public image goes a long way towards keeping a company in line, so does having the law they must answer to. Public image doesn't matter much for short lived companies. With anarchy, these companies that we generally regard as frauds would run rampant.

Offline Avan

  • Species: Azemdyn Sabertooth Hyena
  • Gender: Non-Binary, YEEN.
  • *
  • Posts: 5010
    • Our FA
Re: Government and Laws
« Reply #33 on: February 05, 2013, 12:15:00 pm »
I'm just going to... cheat here... and say that 'oh hey guess what, this conversation is valid only in the context of humans. It is possible to contrive and engineer (for some associately large cost) a society & people in which money and governance as you know it are not necessary.'

Furthermore, for some large, arbitrary number of humans, you cannot win; there is no way to create a true eutopia, because for those that are mentally human, for a reasonable definition of what a human mind/individual is, the statistical variance in mentalities that it is required to encompass all the individualities necessary for this to be that reasonable definition, is sufficiently great that over all that variance to govern, it is impossible to make all of them happy*.

*This assumes that this is a 'closed society' - ie, they only have access to that which they generate themselves - not being guided/ruled by a benevolent AI overlord or similar with (for all intents and purposes) infinite resources and attention to dedicate to each and every individual.

So maybe these things I'm stating are sort of apparent but you disregard them as trivial or outside the scope of the conversation? Well.. good. Because I'm not making the point that you should use X governance or Y laws, but rather that... you might want to look into... 'broadening the horizons'.
We are Dissociated Identities.

Avatar is of Avan-Syr (Saberyeen)
Old links to art sites we need to update:
Weasyl Page: https://www.weasyl.com/~avankaira
My FA page: http://www.furaffinity.net/user/avanwolf/

Steam: http://steamcommunity.com/id/avan_wolf/

Offline Mylo

  • *
  • Posts: 4761
Re: Government and Laws
« Reply #34 on: February 05, 2013, 04:36:50 pm »
I'm just going to... cheat here... and say that 'oh hey guess what, this conversation is valid only in the context of humans. It is possible to contrive and engineer (for some associately large cost) a society & people in which money and governance as you know it are not necessary.'

Furthermore, for some large, arbitrary number of humans, you cannot win; there is no way to create a true eutopia, because for those that are mentally human, for a reasonable definition of what a human mind/individual is, the statistical variance in mentalities that it is required to encompass all the individualities necessary for this to be that reasonable definition, is sufficiently great that over all that variance to govern, it is impossible to make all of them happy*.

*This assumes that this is a 'closed society' - ie, they only have access to that which they generate themselves - not being guided/ruled by a benevolent AI overlord or similar with (for all intents and purposes) infinite resources and attention to dedicate to each and every individual.

So maybe these things I'm stating are sort of apparent but you disregard them as trivial or outside the scope of the conversation? Well.. good. Because I'm not making the point that you should use X governance or Y laws, but rather that... you might want to look into... 'broadening the horizons'.

There's a saying where "you work with what you've got." The point of this thread I think is to debate what laws, if any, allow the human race to exist closest to a utopian state, which since defined relatively to other systems, may not resemble utopia at all.

I think it is obvious that if you had a perfect people, you'd have a perfect society (semantics aside, you understand what I'm saying).

Also, if you want anyone to believe in a new society, you must provide education and proof.  Otherwise, nobody would support its growth.  Some might even destroy the source simply because it is "unknown". That is the kind of world we live in.

Everything begins with resources.

Offline Avan

  • Species: Azemdyn Sabertooth Hyena
  • Gender: Non-Binary, YEEN.
  • *
  • Posts: 5010
    • Our FA
Re: Government and Laws
« Reply #35 on: February 05, 2013, 10:43:03 pm »
'making do' is only a temporary solution until you can 'make better' - if 'making do' was the optimal solution, the very concept of 'tool' would not exist.

Sure, perhaps 'making better' is beyond the reach of the world right now, but it won't be for long (unless it blows itself up and creates a 'brick utopia')
We are Dissociated Identities.

Avatar is of Avan-Syr (Saberyeen)
Old links to art sites we need to update:
Weasyl Page: https://www.weasyl.com/~avankaira
My FA page: http://www.furaffinity.net/user/avanwolf/

Steam: http://steamcommunity.com/id/avan_wolf/

Offline Mylo

  • *
  • Posts: 4761
Re: Government and Laws
« Reply #36 on: February 05, 2013, 11:24:46 pm »
'making do' is only a temporary solution until you can 'make better' - if 'making do' was the optimal solution, the very concept of 'tool' would not exist.

Sure, perhaps 'making better' is beyond the reach of the world right now, but it won't be for long (unless it blows itself up and creates a 'brick utopia')

I'm not condoning absolute settling.  That's why I said "allow the human race..."  All I'm saying is that, in order to make the society you are describing, you have to convince a lot of people to contribute a lot of resources into a project of which they may never see the final result.  That obstacle can be overcome, but between now and then, we need some type of society to keep your computers running and to prevent other people from taking what's yours in both property and freedom.  That is the government/non-government/society that we are describing/debating right now.

Offline Yip

  • Species: vulpes vulpes
  • *
  • Female
  • Posts: 4005
    • Furaffinity
Re: Government and Laws
« Reply #37 on: February 06, 2013, 02:33:54 am »
I'm just going to... cheat here... and say that 'oh hey guess what, this conversation is valid only in the context of humans. It is possible to contrive and engineer (for some associately large cost) a society & people in which money and governance as you know it are not necessary.'
Perhaps maybe you didn't notice, but we ARE humans. If your suggestion is that we need to eliminate all humans, or that we need to change what it fundamentally means to be human, then that's unacceptable so we can simply disregard it. It's not a case of needing to broaden horizons. It's a case of being realistic.

Quote
Furthermore, for some large, arbitrary number of humans, you cannot win; there is no way to create a true eutopia...
If your goal is to create perfection, then yes that's unrealistic. But that doesn't mean you can't try to make things as best as they can be.

Offline Avan

  • Species: Azemdyn Sabertooth Hyena
  • Gender: Non-Binary, YEEN.
  • *
  • Posts: 5010
    • Our FA
Re: Government and Laws
« Reply #38 on: February 06, 2013, 01:30:30 pm »
The civilizations of this planet are beginning to near the point where they could - I'm not saying will - undergo a technological and sociological singularity. That very well could change what it "means to be human" for some useful definition of "human" (which I am assuming you are using, to the point that my lack of interaction, and empathy with your societies and general populace and high deviation with the perceptual experiences that are likely to constitute a 'human life' under this hypothetical definition could very well set me outside of said definition, unless you mean to say that I have a [neuroatypical] human body, which yes, I do. So... What of it?) to the point that "humans [as you know them] don't exist anymore".

Perhaps you didn't notice, but there's this whole [if speculative, still possible in the future, even if not yet plausible] thing called "transhumanism" - ie, what advancement is possible 'beyond being human' - ie, post sociological singularity. I have no intent of forcing you to not exist, nor do I intend to change your societies for you. However, I do intend to go off and do our own thing, and hope that humanity will choose to follow suite to build better societies and peoples. I see nothing unacceptable about that.

Sure, in the timescale of the next few decades, I think its safe to say that this is rather improbable, and in the scale of the next few years, pretty much 0 probability. However, when you're looking at the next century, its reasonably probable there could be a singularity [or extinction], and over the next centuries, quite likely. Over tens of thousands of years, its pretty much assured. Sure, my theorycrafting and speculation and engineering does little to solve today's problems - I fully admit that. And while you need the ability to get around day to day, you can't go on only planning for the next day, not if you want to do anything meaningful in the long run.

Trying to plan ahead like that though.. looking day to day. Thats not called being realistic. Thats called being short-sighted.
We are Dissociated Identities.

Avatar is of Avan-Syr (Saberyeen)
Old links to art sites we need to update:
Weasyl Page: https://www.weasyl.com/~avankaira
My FA page: http://www.furaffinity.net/user/avanwolf/

Steam: http://steamcommunity.com/id/avan_wolf/

Offline Mylo

  • *
  • Posts: 4761
Re: Government and Laws
« Reply #39 on: February 06, 2013, 02:03:36 pm »
Trying to plan ahead like that though.. looking day to day. Thats not called being realistic. Thats called being short-sighted.

I am fully aware of transhumanism, but that is not the point of this thread.  One cannot have one's head in the clouds so as to ignore the things right in plain sight.  Us being all biological humans, we need some kind of society to allow us to advance in "unnecessary" things, like technology, morals, etc... (I use unnecessary because before humans formed societies and advanced technology, they still survived off of very basic things).  A society allows a group of humans to divide tasks, like hunting/gathering, protection, technological development, etc...  It gives people like you and me time to be on the Internet and ponder transhumanism without worrying about where we are going to get our next meal or who or what might threaten our existence.  

That very well could change what it "means to be human" for some useful definition of "human" (which I am assuming you are using, to the point that my lack of interaction, and empathy with your societies and general populace and high deviation with the perceptual experiences that are likely to constitute a 'human life' under this hypothetical definition could very well set me outside of said definition, unless you mean to say that I have a [neuroatypical] human body, which yes, I do. So... What of it?) to the point that "humans [as you know them] don't exist anymore".
 

Like it or not, you are part of society.  You are using a computer and the Internet, a product of human society.  You have the free time to be able to post on this thread because your food has been gathered for you in exchange for money, both products of society.  You are studying what other humans have discovered and invented, and you are probably building upon that knowledge as well.  This is human society, and you are part of it.  In fact, it is human society that will provide the stepping stones into transhumanism, someday.

One can't be short-sighted, but one must be aware of one's surroundings.  It is also favored to strive for advancement...that is an inherently human thing to do.  

Offline Avan

  • Species: Azemdyn Sabertooth Hyena
  • Gender: Non-Binary, YEEN.
  • *
  • Posts: 5010
    • Our FA
Re: Government and Laws
« Reply #40 on: February 06, 2013, 02:52:34 pm »
I just said I was aware that it wasn't going to fix today's problems. But I'll leave that to someone more qualified. The problem is that with the current approach you're not really looking for a way to connect the two, to bridge the gap. That was my original point. Just looking at tomorrow is unsustainable and won't get you anywhere fast in the long run.

MY OWN goals were not to solve your problems for you - we will incidentally be able to provide some help along the way, but that's not a burden we're going to completely shoulder - at least, not until I've taken care of higher priority tasks; I'm not going to be the one holding humanity's hand from their current state to a transhuman utopian state unless you really do manage to somehow flail around uselessly in technological and sociological stasis for a long enough period of time that you haven't really gotten anywhere by the time I am able to really help.

And re: being human, that's still not a sufficient condition to qualify as being human by any definition useful to me outside of the context of communicating with you. Just becomes some massive AI network keeping the trains running on time and the power grid up and all that stuff is interacting with human society on that level, that doesn't mean it is human [this is a counterexample, not a comparison]. And fine, if that's how you define it, in some way inclusive of me, then whatever, sure, I'm human by that definition. But that is beside my original point.
We are Dissociated Identities.

Avatar is of Avan-Syr (Saberyeen)
Old links to art sites we need to update:
Weasyl Page: https://www.weasyl.com/~avankaira
My FA page: http://www.furaffinity.net/user/avanwolf/

Steam: http://steamcommunity.com/id/avan_wolf/

Offline Mylo

  • *
  • Posts: 4761
Re: Government and Laws
« Reply #41 on: February 06, 2013, 03:02:17 pm »
Is the individual important to you?

Offline Avan

  • Species: Azemdyn Sabertooth Hyena
  • Gender: Non-Binary, YEEN.
  • *
  • Posts: 5010
    • Our FA
Re: Government and Laws
« Reply #42 on: February 06, 2013, 03:11:22 pm »
I do not understand your question.
We are Dissociated Identities.

Avatar is of Avan-Syr (Saberyeen)
Old links to art sites we need to update:
Weasyl Page: https://www.weasyl.com/~avankaira
My FA page: http://www.furaffinity.net/user/avanwolf/

Steam: http://steamcommunity.com/id/avan_wolf/

Offline Purrrl

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Male
  • Posts: 220
Re: Government and Laws
« Reply #43 on: February 06, 2013, 03:27:16 pm »
I.E. Do you value each individual over the total community?

[Correct me if I'm wrong, this is just my interpretation]

Mylo:
As I can see it, it is the over-valuing of the individual  (specifically, oneself) that is the flaw that prevents the human mindset as it is from being able to sustain a utopian society

Offline Mylo

  • *
  • Posts: 4761
Re: Government and Laws
« Reply #44 on: February 06, 2013, 04:01:13 pm »
Do you value the individual at all?  As in, what balance is there between the individual and the society? 

As I can see it, it is the over-valuing of the individual  (specifically, oneself) that is the flaw that prevents the human mindset as it is from being able to sustain a utopian society

You are right.


Offline Mylo

  • *
  • Posts: 4761
Re: Government and Laws
« Reply #45 on: February 06, 2013, 04:10:17 pm »
I just said I was aware that it wasn't going to fix today's problems. But I'll leave that to someone more qualified. The problem is that with the current approach you're not really looking for a way to connect the two, to bridge the gap. That was my original point. Just looking at tomorrow is unsustainable and won't get you anywhere fast in the long run.

MY OWN goals were not to solve your problems for you - we will incidentally be able to provide some help along the way, but that's not a burden we're going to completely shoulder - at least, not until I've taken care of higher priority tasks; I'm not going to be the one holding humanity's hand from their current state to a transhuman utopian state unless you really do manage to somehow flail around uselessly in technological and sociological stasis for a long enough period of time that you haven't really gotten anywhere by the time I am able to really help.

And re: being human, that's still not a sufficient condition to qualify as being human by any definition useful to me outside of the context of communicating with you. Just becomes some massive AI network keeping the trains running on time and the power grid up and all that stuff is interacting with human society on that level, that doesn't mean it is human [this is a counterexample, not a comparison]. And fine, if that's how you define it, in some way inclusive of me, then whatever, sure, I'm human by that definition. But that is beside my original point.

I suppose this is more of a personal value, but I just wanted to make sure that you see the importance of society in shaping you, rather than talking as if you are so highly above it.  It discredits all of the scientific and social advancements that humans as a whole have made throughout history, the ones that finally enable near generations to work to transhumanism. 

Offline Mylo

  • *
  • Posts: 4761
Re: Government and Laws
« Reply #46 on: February 06, 2013, 10:52:55 pm »
you might want to look into... 'broadening the horizons'

Have a go in this thread, if you want. 

http://forums.furtopia.org/index.php?topic=45488.0

Offline Yip

  • Species: vulpes vulpes
  • *
  • Female
  • Posts: 4005
    • Furaffinity
Re: Government and Laws
« Reply #47 on: February 07, 2013, 01:41:31 am »
@Avan: First, I know you think yourself special and somehow different from the rest of society, but you are not.

Second, this stuff you are talking about is well outside the scope of this thread, and you know it. Heck, you started with "I'm going to cheat" so you knew you were going off topic to start with.

Quote
Trying to plan ahead like that though.. looking day to day. Thats not called being realistic. Thats called being short-sighted.
I'm not sure where you get the idea that I'm only concerned with "looking day to day", but you are completely mistaken. You also seem to misunderstand my comment about "change what it fundamentally means to be human". I'm not really sure how I can explain where you'd be able to understand (you do seem to have great difficulty with the concept of being human).

Essentially what it comes down to is that humans are individuals. And so long as there are a large number of individuals having conflicts, there is a need for a governing structure of some kind for resolving those conflicts. If your way of removing the need for a governing structure is to eliminate the element of individuality, then that's what I'm talking about is unacceptable.

Offline redyoshi49q

  • Species: (*please see above*)
  • Avatar from Dexcat's MFF 2013 Photoshoot
  • *
  • Male
  • Posts: 2071
    • Enigma Cipher (software project)
Re: Government and Laws
« Reply #48 on: February 07, 2013, 02:13:08 am »
The point of this thread I think is to debate what laws, if any, allow the human race to exist closest to a utopian state, which since defined relatively to other systems, may not resemble utopia at all.

Political theory (in particular, the consideration of and consequences of alternative governing methods) is something that I find to be of interest, but I refrained from discussing my own ideas of government because I thought the thread's focus was intended to be a discussion of anarchism as a maintainable system.  Given this clarification, though, I'll throw one of my ideas into this thread for discussion's sake.

I've recently considered a form of government that, in essence, would be a hybridization of a direct democracy and a republic.  Each citizen can express their influence on government in one of two ways.  First, each citizen would be permitted to participate in the politics of his/her city, county, state, and nation.  For each level of governance an individual participates in (and proportional to his/her involvement in that level), that individual would receive an extremely small stipend from a tax fueled fund from that level of government.  For instance, an individual who votes on every national level bill would receive $1 USD from federal taxes.  This isn't meant to act as a financial incentive for individual voters; the payment exists because it is relevant to mechanics that will be explained later.

The option to participate directly in government may not appeal to everyone, though.  To participate in politics entails a significant cost of time.  I imagine that most would wish to defer this task to representatives as the US does now.  The second option does exactly this.  Each citizen has the option of naming another person as their representative for each level of government.  They can choose a new representative (or choose to stop having a representative) at any time.  The representative chosen for each level, if any, must also be eligible to vote in the area governed.  For example, a citizen of city A cannot be a representative of someone from city B for city level politics, but he/she *can* be a county level representative if cities A and B are in the same county.  Excluding that requirement, representatives can be *any* citizen eligible to vote; in fact, the same person can be named as a representative for multiple governing levels of the same citizen or as a representative for multiple citizens.

Should a citizen fail to participate in any bill at a level of government for which they have a representative, their vote gets cast as if they voted the same way their representative did, and they forfeit their stipend for that bill to their representative.  Representatives themselves can name representatives as well.  In this fashion, high level representatives garner the support of everyone "under" them when they vote.  They also have the potential to collect compensation for each person under them when they vote.  This can become significant; if 300 representatives hold the vast majority of deferred American votes, they stand to gain an average of $1 million each year.  This stipend would replace politician salaries in function.


Below are some pros and cons that I can foresee coming from such a system.  First the pros:

  • This system strongly encourages those involved with politics to vote in accordance with their constituents' wishes.  Since every constituent can choose a new representative at any time, every politician can immediately suffer from a partial or complete cut in pay for bad votes.
  • This system represents the will of the people almost as well as direct democracy.  It isn't a 100% perfect representation because some citizens may occasionally choose poor representatives at times.  Having said that, it's *much* better in this respect than a system that lends itself to an extremely small number of political parties.
  • The cost of all politicians at each level is bounded by the stipend per citizen at that level, and the vote to change this stipend (and thus the bound) can be directly influenced by constituents (they can choose to vote directly rather than through constituents).  This is vastly more favorable to a system which allows politicians to vote themselves pay raises with minimal accountability to the public.

...Now the cons:

  • This system is very susceptible to tyranny by the majority.
  • It has no safeguard against emotional, knee jerk reactions in political decisions.
  • In US politics, a citizen's vote is kept secret so as to prevent undue influence of public pressure on votes.  Although it may be possible to implement this proposed system while keeping each person's choice of representative secret to others, it would be considerably more difficult to assert and would necessarily require an intelligently designed cryptography based system to implement using today's technology.
  • This system trades the problem of too little choice for one of (arguably) too much choice.
  • It may be difficult to accommodate everyone on bills in cases where the entire populace desires to participate directly rather than through representatives.  Physical locations would be unsuitable in such cases, and even the Internet would be unable to accommodate a sufficiently large involvement with its current scale.  This problem of scalability exists for direct democracy as well, but unlike direct democracy, this system of government would likely only experience this problem in exceptional cases rather than average cases.

...And last, a few things that I couldn't place with either pros or cons:

  • I'm not sure how this system would influence investment in political campaigning.  I'm not sure whether it'd increase, decrease, or stay more or less the same.
  • What I've listed above is far from complete; in particular, I gave no definition to *how* bills would be considered.  Consequently, what I've described is lacking in detail (in spite of my admittedly massive post).


What are everyone's thoughts and opinions on this?  Are there any pros or cons that I've listed that you feel are worth elaborating on?  Are there any that I haven't considered?
"Perfect normality is impossible.  Be unique!"
-- redyoshi49q




^ (click) Puzzle game!

Offline Purrrl

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Male
  • Posts: 220
Re: Government and Laws
« Reply #49 on: February 07, 2013, 02:28:54 am »
It's an interesting system, and different to the norm, but are the majority qualified to make the decisions?

I have a system of my own design, most simply described as a merito-democracy, in which everyone gets a vote, as per usual in many issues, but the votes of those that are specialised/tested on these issues are weighted somehow, and some issues are open to vote only from qualified individuals. It works rather well with small groups of people for project management and stuff, but I wonder, would this work for a government?

(Can't think of pros and cons yet, it's the morning, will edit when I do)