On Thu, Dec 18, 2014 at 12:48 PM, meekerdb <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 12/18/2014 9:52 AM, Jason Resch wrote: > > > > On Thu, Dec 18, 2014 at 11:12 AM, meekerdb <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> On 12/18/2014 2:05 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: >> >> >> >> On Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 9:07 PM, meekerdb <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> On 12/17/2014 8:11 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> On 17 Dec 2014, at 13:03, Alberto G. Corona wrote: >>>> >>>> Starting from the fact that The NHS was introduced by Bismark in the >>>>> German Empire. for the same reasons that it is sustained today by >>>>> "democracies": populism. >>>>> >>>>> Since the introduction of NHS in England no new hospital was >>>>> constructed until recently. >>>>> >>>>> Democracy, an element of the liberal state, lives on premises that it >>>>> can not itself guarantee. (Bockenforde). It is based on the idea that >>>>> people will not act or vote for their inmediate interests but will vote >>>>> for anything that maintain the common good forever. That is absolutely >>>>> false. The only thing that maintain democracy is not democracy, but the >>>>> morality of the people. That morality is contunuously underminded by >>>>> democracy itself by means of the logic of populism and the formation of >>>>> majorities that produce false and impossible and incompatible political >>>>> promises for different groups of people. That divides and confront ones >>>>> with others. >>>>> >>>>> It is based on the idea that a million idiot votes within an urn >>>>> produces wise decissions. On the idea that consensus produce truth. >>>>> >>>>> Democracy is destined to be hyaked by false democrats that do not >>>>> believe in democracy but want to abuse it from inside . They are the worst >>>>> antidemocrats. And the responsibles of that hyaking are te dumb people >>>>> that >>>>> believe acritically in democracy. >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> I disagree. Democracy is based on the fact that people will vote for >>>> their immediate interest, and that it will be implemented reasonably well >>>> by opportunist politicians, and if they don't succeed people will stop >>>> voting against them. (so it is not just vote, but a promise that you can >>>> vote again if dissatisfied). >>>> >>>> Democracy is not perfect, and indeed it can regress easily to tyranny. >>>> Like a living being can die, or a cell become cancerous, democracy can >>>> easily be perverted and misused by bandits or ideologues. There is nothing >>>> we can do about that, except investing in means (like education, logic, >>>> reasoning, ...) helping people to not fall in the trap of the demagogs. >>>> >>>> It is not the system which makes bad people. It is bad people which >>>> makes the system bad. >>>> >>>> How americans have ever accepted prohibition remains a bit of a mystery >>>> to me. In this context, I am not so much for legalization of drugs than for >>>> penalization of prohibitionists, and education explaining how prohibition >>>> illustrates well a technic to kill democracy and its most important key >>>> features like the separation and independence of the different powers, >>>> including the press. >>>> >>> >>> They accepted it out of Puritan theology: that this life is just a test >>> and indulgence in any pleasure is suspect and possibly a sin. It's the same >>> strain of thought that wants to ban any recreational drugs, pornography, >>> prostitution, homosexuality,... >>> >>>> >>>> But the institutionalization of religion, especially when the state and >>>> the religion are not well separated is a deeper cause of the problem for >>>> democracies. It is that mentality which has made possible prohibition: the >>>> very idea that other people can decide for you between the good and the >>>> wrong. >>>> >>> >>> But people who live in a community do need to decide on some rules of >>> behavior in order to live without conflict. The important thing is >>> distinguish between a sphere of personal morals and a sphere of public >>> ethics. This is the thing missing in Islam (and was missing in the West >>> before the Enlightenment). The great advancement of the U.S. was not >>> democracy, the Greeks and Scandanavians had invented democracy long before; >>> it was the invention of constitutionally limited government and inalienable >>> human rights. >>> >> >> I agree. I am a great admirer of the american constitution. Sadly, I >> think it eventually failed. >> In my view the flaw is that the constitution still requires >> interpretation. If it could be written in some formal mathematical >> language, then it could be directly implemented by every citizen, >> policeman, judge, soldier, etc. >> >> >> That's a pure fantasy. The Constitution was written if fairly plain >> language, but it could not (and should not) have foreseen every >> technological advance. It said little about privacy, only prohibiting >> "unreasonable search" because surveillance was impractical in 1780. >> >> Requiring interpretation, the state ends up being ultimately ruled by >> the supreme court. Giving life tenure to the supreme court judges is a good >> strategy but not a perfect one. Eventually we arrived at one of the most >> terrifying scenarios that the constitution was designed to prevent: total >> surveillance of the state over its citizens. The majority is ok with it, >> and so democracy risks ending up in tyranny once again. >> >> >> In the founding father's plan tyranny was to be avoided by having many >> competing factions. I think they didn't realize that the way elections >> were set up would necessarily force a two party system. And of course they >> couldn't foresee the effect of mass communications: radio and television, >> and its implications for those with enormous wealth. >> >> > > Perhaps what's needed is a constitution based on game theoretical > concepts, with proofs that cases of disequal power or ursurped are > inherently unstable and rapidly decay back to more decentralized and > equitable distributions of power. Perhaps this property is already a part > of the human condition, but a framework for achieving it without violence > or necessarily having to change government would be valuable. I think this > was partially the intent of "checks and balances", but the founders wrongly > assumed the branches would always be antagonistic towards each other, > rather than cooperative. What's needed is a system of checks and balances > where the more power one faction accumulates the easier it becomes for > other factions to reduce that power. The perennial problem humanity faces > is that those with wealth and power so rarely want to give that up, and > often find the best way to preserve their wealth and power is to seek more > of it. > > All this debate may be pointless however, as traditional states based on > territories, become obsolete once once there are individuals running in > software. Henceforth they lose all ability to regulate or control: you > can't imprison someone who can be reinstantiated elsewhere, or eliminate a > program which can be copied/backed up anywhere. You can't tax virtual > wealth, nor use laws to regulate the kinds of experiences others can have > in virtual reality. > > > So do you think that all those things are done proves we're not living in > a virtual reality?? >
No, it could still be played as a lesson, or as a game. Jason -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
