>> ^marbles:

>> ^NetRunner:
The essence of any utopianism: Conjure an ideal that makes an impossible demand on reality, then announce that, until the demand is met in full, your ideal can't be fairly evaluated. Attribute any incidental successes to the halfway meeting of the demand, any failure to the halfway still to go.
>> ^soulmonarch:
The Free Market barely even gets a place in the debate, due to the simple fact that it was circumvented by corrupt politicians long before it would have made any difference. "Freedom" requires that the law treats us all equally, and that freedom disappeared the moment politicians decided to use their positions to profiteer. (i.e. The second they got into office, for most of them.)
The "Free Market" is an ideal... one that has never held any real place in economics, except in the wistful dreams of poets and Presidential candidates.


Are you saying freedom is an impossible ideal? That we must submit to a greater authority to manage our lives?


If your ideal of "freedom" is "no one can ever tell anyone else what to do", then yes, I think that's an impossible demand on reality.

If your ideal of "freedom" is "property owners get absolute unchecked authority over how people may interact with their property", then it's not freedom, it's authoritarianism.

But mostly I'm saying proponents of free markets should try to address claims in this video about the negative effects of a shift toward free market policies, and not just deny that looking at events in the US can tell us anything meaningful about conservative/libertarian/free market/right-wing ideology because we haven't abolished things like taxes, the Federal Reserve, and Congress yet.

>> ^NetRunner:

The essence of any utopianism: Conjure an ideal that makes an impossible demand on reality, then announce that, until the demand is met in full, your ideal can't be fairly evaluated. Attribute any incidental successes to the halfway meeting of the demand, any failure to the halfway still to go.
>> ^soulmonarch:
The Free Market barely even gets a place in the debate, due to the simple fact that it was circumvented by corrupt politicians long before it would have made any difference. "Freedom" requires that the law treats us all equally, and that freedom disappeared the moment politicians decided to use their positions to profiteer. (i.e. The second they got into office, for most of them.)
The "Free Market" is an ideal... one that has never held any real place in economics, except in the wistful dreams of poets and Presidential candidates.



Are you saying freedom is an impossible ideal? That we must submit to a greater authority to manage our lives?

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/11/13/weekinreview/deficits-graphic.html?choices=03l1n5rh


As we can currently observe, the richest persons/companies in the USA sit on their money and do not create new jobs.

Imho, "middle class" should represent the largest bracket in lieu of a population's makeup, driving culture, education, job creation and comfortable wealth. This is the most desirable realistic state (way of being) most persons would want to be in.

Democratically, from the bottom up, a society can thrive most, imho. This does not exclude anyone: A secure "low" society lifts the quality of living for the top gainers as well. The two-party system is highly detrimental for lasting change and sensible reforms. It is unlikely the two partys would part with the old system in favour of a more democratic coalition-based system, but a girl can dream.

I like Keynes, but Keynesian politics are hard to come by when the economy gets better. One big factor in the USA is the gaining economic libertarianism, which is on a utopian level of ideology on par with Reagonomics. Personally I prefer the soft ideology of reasonable adjustments orienting themsleves not along the lines of a factional party-framework, but along the lines of the realistically most beneficial proposal for the entire population. This sounds utopian as well, because it is: It is only possible in a multiple-party state, which the USA is unlikely to become.

What to do? Political "extremists" (left and right) should be shunned and kicked back to the margins where they belong, at least for a functioning two-party system.


This is all just my opinion, and it is in flux. If you spot a "mistake" in my reasonings or views, please tell me, I'm happy to learn and adjust my opinions, if reasonable. --> Tea-Partyers, fascists, communists and Libertarians can try, but they will probably just waste my time and theirs. --> Hard ideologies are all utopian in one way or another, secular religions all.

I'm not so sure it's human nature to always proselytize, regardless of the situation. Certainly there are some people who do it (I'm guilty of it for sure), but I think they're the exception and not the rule.

I also don't think it makes someone a zealot if they say "I disagree with your utopian zealotry because what you promise is impossible, and what you've done in pursuit of it has caused serious harm."

That seems like skepticism to me, not dogmatic belief.
>> ^soulmonarch:

Of course. And is it not in the nature of man to push those lofty ideals on everyone else, regardless of whether they are relevant to the discussion?
My intention was only to point out that both sides equally play the zealot, interjecting their belief that all evils of the world are caused by/fixed by lassiez faire economics. Arm-chair idealists, if you will.

>> ^NetRunner:

The essence of any utopianism: Conjure an ideal that makes an impossible demand on reality, then announce that, until the demand is met in full, your ideal can't be fairly evaluated. Attribute any incidental successes to the halfway meeting of the demand, any failure to the halfway still to go.
>> ^soulmonarch:
The Free Market barely even gets a place in the debate, due to the simple fact that it was circumvented by corrupt politicians long before it would have made any difference. "Freedom" requires that the law treats us all equally, and that freedom disappeared the moment politicians decided to use their positions to profiteer. (i.e. The second they got into office, for most of them.)
The "Free Market" is an ideal... one that has never held any real place in economics, except in the wistful dreams of poets and Presidential candidates.



Of course. And is it not in the nature of man to push those lofty ideals on everyone else, regardless of whether they are relevant to the discussion?

My intention was only to point out that both sides equally play the zealot, interjecting their belief that all evils of the world are caused by/fixed by lassiez faire economics. Arm-chair idealists, if you will.

The essence of any utopianism: Conjure an ideal that makes an impossible demand on reality, then announce that, until the demand is met in full, your ideal can't be fairly evaluated. Attribute any incidental successes to the halfway meeting of the demand, any failure to the halfway still to go.
>> ^soulmonarch:

The Free Market barely even gets a place in the debate, due to the simple fact that it was circumvented by corrupt politicians long before it would have made any difference. "Freedom" requires that the law treats us all equally, and that freedom disappeared the moment politicians decided to use their positions to profiteer. (i.e. The second they got into office, for most of them.)

The "Free Market" is an ideal... one that has never held any real place in economics, except in the wistful dreams of poets and Presidential candidates.

>> ^quantumushroom:

Fedgov has zero Constitutional authority to "educate" anyone. If it got out of the education racket I imagine children would still be educated, just more efficiently and for FAR less money.
A "tax break" as the left likes to call it, is a bully allowing the extorted to keep a few cents of their lunch money. We have the 2nd highest corporate tax rate in the world behind Japan.
How about giving US a break, socialists? How about going after the pr1cks who loot 60 billion from your wonderful Medicarecaid EVERY year?
Or mayhap you're right, tis better to just RAISE TAXES on the herd. After all, we live only to serve your wonderful leviathan government.


So just how much more of the nation's total wealth do the richest people need before this utopian capitalist paradise blossoms? I mean They've been slowly getting more and more, I kinda figured the top 20% having 85% of the total wealth would have been enough, but guess they don't have enough. So its up to you sifters, open those check books, and sign over those titles and certificates to your favorite millionaire. Maybe once they own 95% of the total wealth jobs, healthcare and education will bloom out of their asses and we can all dance gleefully through the golden showers of prosperity.

>> ^Fade:

Anarchy does not automatically imply lawlessness or chaos. In much the same way that being an atheist does not imply that you are immoral. >> ^bcglorf:
>> ^blankfist:
>> ^quantumushroom:
Any questions?
On Garbage Day, which anarchist is going to pick up the trash and for what wage?

It's negotiable.

Ah, so kind of like what they have in Somalia.
If I can ask an honest question of you Blankfist, do you see the existence of a middle ground between Statism and Anarchy?
I don't mean it to be offensive, but it seems your constant advocacy is to simply burn all institutions to the ground and the public will be better for it.



I think you meant to say Anarchy doesn't imply lawlessness, but your statement is correct as it is. Anarchy means there is no law, by definition. The moment you introduce a law like declaring murder illegal you have instituted a form of a state, and enforcement of said law is once again the act of a state. Any other use of the word Anarchy is a hijacking of it describe something that is NOT in fact Anarchy. Call it minimal government, call it some variation of Libertarianism, but Anarchy it is not.

Anarchy, from Websters:
1
a : absence of government
b : a state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority
c : a utopian society of individuals who enjoy complete freedom without government

2
a : absence or denial of any authority or established order
b : absence of order : disorder <not manicured plots but a wild anarchy of nature — Israel Shenker>

3
: anarchism

You'll note the only 'positive' definition for Anarchy presupposes that human beings will collectively get along and play nice with each other be default. If that were true we'd have a utopia with or without any form of government period.

The video pushing coffee as a utopian nootropic (mind-enhancing drug) should raise red flags, so as always, do your own research when your long-term well-being is on the line.

>> ^DerHasisttot:

Ok, I don't see how libertarianism could be feasible. Too utopian for my taste.
http://www.slate.com/id/2297019/


Don't be too hasty. It's a strawman attack piece. A couple responses:

http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/robert-nozick-and-the-value-of-liberty/
http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/capitalist-acts-between-consenting-adults/

There seems to be a lot of attacks on Libertarianism these days. Just goes to show you that the idea is gaining popularity.

Ok, I don't see how libertarianism could be feasible. Too utopian for my taste.

http://www.slate.com/id/2297019/

@Sagemind

Being a slave to another person is a wretched life.
Being a slave to a concept is unfathomable.
Religion is a concept of man.
Religion is a concept designed to subjugate and control a population.

Religion is a man made system that has been used for good and evil. We know God through faith alone.

There was a time when education was unheard of and only a relative few were exposed to it. Rulers kept everyone else dumb so they could be controlled. Religion was and always will be designed as a tool to control. In the beginning there were many sects and religions. As the religions caught hold, they slowly choked out as many other religions as they could to exercise their brand of control. Christianity happened to be one of the few that was more ruthless at destroying the others. (Many are documented in the bible - Genocide in the name of religion included.) The smaller religions only needed to be discredited and be called cults - as they continue to do today.

The early church was heavily persecuted by many different dictators. Believers were frequently martyred because they reufsed to worship other Gods. The expansion of the early church under these circumstances is one of the positive evidences for Gods existence as it is unlikely it could have happened in that climate of persecution. There was nothing to gain from being a Christian in those days except being an outcast.

Genocide is committed in the name of many things, and today the masses are no less controlled by secular Governments than they have been under religious ones. Bad behavior is not an exclusive to religion, it is the nature of man himself, who could corrupt anything beneficial. That people have acted badly in the name of Christianity isn't proof of anything except mans inherent corruption.

Now, many, many lifetimes later, man has become educated and has thrown the shackles of religion (a form of slavery) and science has emerged as we seek for fact instead of fiction. There are many who are still bound to religion and can't function without the masters hand to lead them. They have lost, it seems, the ability to reason, with cognitive thinking, on their own.

Many need the presence of a deity to explain the un-explainable. It's a neat fully-packaged explanation that never needs unwrapping. It is easy. It's man's nature to pick the easy route. To many it just makes more sense. To others, those more cerebral, they want to see what is underneath. They refuse to accept what is fed to them and dig a little deeper. What they find is a world of control and dominance but also a world of wonder where education can lead one on many journeys.

The question of whether the Universe is random or deliberately created is not only credible, but utterly necessary and fundemental to understanding who man is and how he relates to the Universe. Perhaps you should try Contrary to popular belief, intelligent design is a scientific theory which seeks to explain the Universe just as evolution does. The question of God is central to philosophy and our most noted philosophers have debated this question of Gods existence throughout recorded history. The complexity of life is inadequately explained by materialistic processes, and many of these theories, such as evolution, are metaphysical to begin with.

There is a percentage of the population that operates on the right side of the brain where zeros and one are absolutes and in-fact they are. They work on a puzzle where the pieces are scattered everywhere in a dark room. The pieces don't always fit perfectly so someone else pulls them apart and the big picture is corrected. Every once in a while a strobe light goes on and larger mistake is noticed and we go back to restructuring out truths.

Religion want's to turn out the lights forever, kick everyone out of the room and continue to control those free thinkers. Individuals with original thoughts scares religion. The control will crumble and individuality will rein. Their fear is that without the control, chaos will ensue. What they don't see is that to stifle education is to bring about that which they fear most.

The most basic and fundemental questions of life have not been advanced one iota. There is a higher truth operating here: Man advances theories of life which convenience his own personal hypocripsy and enable him to do evil without consequence. This is a basic truth:

John 3:20

This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil.

Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that his deeds will be exposed.

But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what he has done has been done through God."

1 Corinthians 2:14

“The natural (unredeemed) man receiveth not the things of the (holy) Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned”.

1 Corinthians 3:19

For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness.

I still am not sure which they fear most. Is it the chaos itself, because look around, it exists with or without religion and often because of religion. Or is it the fear of loosing out on the promise of a Utopian forever. A mythical heaven where every single person has a different definition of. A place of fantasy.

Religion works on some of you. You remain a cow in this life so that you can experience a better life later. Well, heads up people, This is the life and you've been duped. Religion has brain washed you to do it's bidding. You fight the good fight for what you've been told is true by a hierarchy of rulers who seek the top roles in dominance. This isn't just true in Christianity, it goes for all religions. You are the pawns, the people on the front lines, leading the way, taking the brunt of accusation while the leaders at the top live the good live. You send your money (tithes) to them while you scrape to live a decent life.

I neither came to Christianity out of fear, or because I desired another life over this one. Nor was I indoctrinated or persuaded. Rather I was instructed in the spirit, and received personal revelation of the truth. I came to it independently and my convinctions rest solely on that. Your belief about an interdepedence due to a weakness of mind or character is wholly invalid.

I for one will not erase myself to the "Greater Good" of a hierarchy that cares more about it's well being/proliferation than it cares for the individual thought of a free thinking individual. It is my nature to put my thoughts and opinions before those of a mindless juggernaut that is religion. I will not allow my free thought to be controlled, twisted or stifled by anyone or anything.

Anyone with self respect should feel the same. Giving up on reality and calling it faith is really just saying, "Wow, that's just to much to take in and comprehend, I'm just going to shut down now. I will never have to concern myself with trying to keep all the balls in the air anymore. I will let a God sit in the driver's seat and ride out the rest of my life as a passenger." On top of that you spend all your days yelling out the window that you've got it so easy, you don't have to drive, you'll get to enjoy things when you get to your destination. What you fail to see is the person in the driver's seat doesn't have a license to drive, or a body or anything, they are plain fiction and the end of the road is a brick wall. When will you look up and see that you should have taken the wheel and honored the privilege of the ride before it was too late.

This imagined heirarchy of yours is a convenient strawman for your arguments about personal freedom, but it doesn't bear out. There is no conspiracy here. The body of Christ is so fractured at this time that a belief there is a heirarchy of control is simply ludicrous. Belief in God is about personal conviction and personal responsibility. Convinction because we are all sinners who have transgressed Gods laws. Responsibility because God is the moral authority who judicates our lives. You seem to think you're free, but anyone who sins is a slave to sin. You seem to think you're without a god, but you have something you worship. Whether its something in the world, or in the case of many secular humanists, yourself, there is something out there that you bow down and kiss every day of your life. Your freedom is just another box that you feel comfortable in. There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

1 Corinthians 13:11-13

When I was a child, I used to speak like a child, think like a child, reason like a child; when I became a man, I did away with childish things. For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face; now I know in part, but then I will know fully just as I also have been fully known. But now faith, hope, love, abide these three; but the greatest of these is love.

Being a slave to another person is a wretched life.
Being a slave to a concept is unfathomable.
Religion is a concept of man.
Religion is a concept designed to subjugate and control a population.

There was a time when education was unheard of and only a relative few were exposed to it. Rulers kept everyone else dumb so they could be controlled. Religion was and always will be designed as a tool to control. In the beginning there were many sects and religions. As the religions caught hold, they slowly choked out as many other religions as they could to exercise their brand of control. Christianity happened to be one of the few that was more ruthless at destroying the others. (Many are documented in the bible - Genocide in the name of religion included.) The smaller religions only needed to be discredited and be called cults - as they continue to do today.

Now, many, many lifetimes later, man has become educated and has thrown the shackles of religion (a form of slavery) and science has emerged as we seek for fact instead of fiction. There are many who are still bound to religion and can't function without the masters hand to lead them. They have lost, it seems, the ability to reason, with cognitive thinking, on their own.

Many need the presence of a deity to explain the un-explainable. It's a neat fully-packaged explanation that never needs unwrapping. It is easy. It's man's nature to pick the easy route. To many it just makes more sense. To others, those more cerebral, they want to see what is underneath. They refuse to accept what is fed to them and dig a little deeper. What they find is a world of control and dominance but also a world of wonder where education can lead one on many journeys.

There is a percentage of the population that operates on the right side of the brain where zeros and one are absolutes and in-fact they are. They work on a puzzle where the pieces are scattered everywhere in a dark room. The pieces don't always fit perfectly so someone else pulls them apart and the big picture is corrected. Every once in a while a strobe light goes on and larger mistake is noticed and we go back to restructuring out truths.

Religion want's to turn out the lights forever, kick everyone out of the room and continue to control those free thinkers. Individuals with original thoughts scares religion. The control will crumble and individuality will rein. Their fear is that without the control, chaos will ensue. What they don't see is that to stifle education is to bring about that which they fear most.

I still am not sure which they fear most. Is it the chaos itself, because look around, it exists with or without religion and often because of religion. Or is it the fear of loosing out on the promise of a Utopian forever. A mythical heaven where every single person has a different definition of. A place of fantasy.

Religion works on some of you. You remain a cow in this life so that you can experience a better life later. Well, heads up people, This is the life and you've been duped. Religion has brain washed you to do it's bidding. You fight the good fight for what you've been told is true by a hierarchy of rulers who seek the top roles in dominance. This isn't just true in Christianity, it goes for all religions. You are the pawns, the people on the front lines, leading the way, taking the brunt of accusation while the leaders at the top live the good live. You send your money (tithes) to them while you scrape to live a decent life.

I for one will not erase myself to the "Greater Good" of a hierarchy that cares more about it's well being/proliferation than it cares for the individual thought of a free thinking individual. It is my nature to put my thoughts and opinions before those of a mindless juggernaut that is religion. I will not allow my free thought to be controlled, twisted or stifled by anyone or anything.

Anyone with self respect should feel the same. Giving up on reality and calling it faith is really just saying, "Wow, that's just to much to take in and comprehend, I'm just going to shut down now. I will never have to concern myself with trying to keep all the balls in the air anymore. I will let a God sit in the driver's seat and ride out the rest of my life as a passenger." On top of that you spend all your days yelling out the window that you've got it so easy, you don't have to drive, you'll get to enjoy things when you get to your destination. What you fail to see is the person in the driver's seat doesn't have a license to drive, or a body or anything, they are plain fiction and the end of the road is a brick wall. When will you look up and see that you should have taken the wheel and honored the privilege of the ride before it was too late.

>> ^blankfist:

>> ^ChaosEngine:
That's kind of a ridiculous statement. I know plenty of people who could seriously hurt someone if they chose to (i.e. if they were forced to defend themselves). Does that mean they "carry the threat of violence"? Police are required to enforce the law, by force if necessary. That is their given role in society. Do you wish to strip them of the tools to do that?
Now, don't get me wrong, individual police officers (such as this guy) can be assholes, and in some cases there is even a bad culture in police depts, but that doesn't mean that the institution is inherently flawed. Or do you simply not believe we need a police force?

You're comparing self defense with law enforcement. One is defensive. One is offensive. Apples and oranges.
To your other point, the system is inherently flawed and it draws these types of cops that are assholes. If I was a violent person I'd want to be a cop or a soldier, just as if I was a pedophile I'd want to be a kindergarten teacher or TSA agent. When a cop is caught doing bad things (even killing innocent people), there seems to be a "cover up" culture that protects them. It's not always, but mostly.
If you hired a private security company to protect your neighborhood or home, and one of them came up to you and said he was going to "break your fucking face", he'd be fired on the spot. Why? Because you have the option to no longer hire that company. You don't have that option with cops.


The system is flawed, but not 'inherently' as you suggest. Inherently suggests that the flaw is the fact the police force even exists as an arm of society. I can't abide calling that an inherent flaw. We don't live in a utopian world, your freedom ends were mine begins can NOT be maintained without force and the threat of force, and that is, inherently, what a police force is.

Point out the specific problems with the implementation of a police force, but it's mere existence as part of a mandatory social contract is NOT one of them.

>> ^blankfist:

>> ^NetRunner:
Hitler isn't infamous because he built the Autobahn. Making an omelet generally doesn't involve crimes against humanity. Nor does building roads.
You're wrong. His omelet was the greater good of Germany. He broke a number of eggs that involved crimes against humanity, segregation and imperialism.
He was building the utopian society. Through force and coercion.
That aside, the civil rights act is poorly written and a huge encroachment on our rights. It stands in the way of equality because it tips the playing field unfairly and tries to legislate the hearts and minds of men and women. Terrible central planning morass.


But here's the thing, you're aiming for a utopian society too, and though you won't admit it, you're proposing to use force and coercion to get there.

The difference is, I care about the actual outcomes for people in our society. For you, the only thing that matters is that force is always used to uphold your vision of morality. Property owners get absolute authority, and people who challenge that authority should get violently coerced to stop. If it turns out that setting things up that way makes life qualitatively worse for wide swaths of people, you say so be it. You have to break a few eggs to make a liberty omelet.

I say that the goal here is to maximize human happiness. If you could convince me that something I believe in (like the Civil Rights Act) has created more suffering than it alleviates, I'd change my mind.

I think you've got a pretty hard case to make on the Civil Rights Act though. You'd literally have a better chance of convincing me that making an omelet is wrong; to make an omelet you have to kill the unborn children of a living creature! By the same token, you've got a pretty easy case when it comes to the things that made people like Hitler, Stalin, Pinochet, Pol Pot, etc. infamous.