I agree with you - I need a break from all this debating -- Left-Wing Discussion

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: Tue 2003-09-02 14:18:33
Author: arendt
Subject: I agree with you - I need a break from all this debating
In reply to: Redeye 's message, "Re: Trying to deal with "organicism"" on Mon 2003-09-01 10:56:46

Redeye-

> On another note, I think we're dealing with the wrong sort of questions.
> Rather than try and present concrete ideas for this new form of government -
> the way legislatures are elected, the specific SLs and DLs, specific mechanisms
> in the government, etc. - we're debating stuff and not getting too far.

I understand your frustration, and I'm feeling the same thing. But, I've
become Wittgenstein-ian (Of that which can't be described, don't speak of it.).

I mean, I tried to get excited about your Liberal Manifesto. But first, you
buried your points in a huge exposition. And, second, the recounting of
all the various groups made it sound like a term paper in a survey course
on modern European political history - dull. Manifestos are supposed to be
readable and pithy and exciting, with quotes like "a spectre is haunting
Europe..." :-). If you titled it "A History of Liberalism and Its Factions", I
would not have been so disappointed.

My opinion is that all the high words of "government" don't count for
anything without grass roots *political* machinery that is at least somewhat
resistant to tampering, if not completely bulletproof.

There are good enough theories of government. What government needs
right now is some good engineering. The problem is similar to early
autos, where the machine ran, but it frequently broke down and rapidly
became rusted junk. Today's cars last so long, the automakers are worried about
making a profit. That's where I want government to go. As an evolutionist,
you should be in favor of tinkering some design together out of "proven
good" piece-parts.

But, I agree that we are debating too much. I was going to suggest
trying to structure those things about which we agree into as much
of a governmental description as we could. But, you just said you
don't want to do that; and, besides, I think the basic disagreements
would sink such an endeavor.

For now, I really need a break from debating. I need to go back and
restructure my proposals, incorporating your feedback. It would help
if you could produce some kind of a hierarchical diagram of the FLOW
of a bill through your version of unicameral Congress and its subordinate
SLs and DLs. Please include who can veto, who can ask for conference
committee resolution, who can introduce a bill, etc.

Let's just say "good game, guy", and take a breather until the next
game. I try to fight fair, and it seems you do too.

arendt

------------------

Feel free to take a final rebuttal on these if you want, but I won't be
responding immediately. I promise I will stay in touch and look at
VOY-LWD on a regular basis.

My responses:

> B.
>> So, my claim about the proteome is as valid as any claim about
>> the mechanism, for now.

> your claim isn't valid because even if its accuracy and simplicity are
> on a par with the other explanations, it's still only one of many.

Fine, its not *valid* , but its *just as debatable* as any other claim.

> I'm a math major; among other things, it means I don't tolerate so
> high a level of uncertainty.

I guess its about time I asked your attitude towards those 20th century
math results that make life so difficult:

Godel's Theorem
Turing's Stopping Problem
Quine-Duhamel work on logical inference
Chaikin's algorithmic complexity theory

As the complexity people say, "more is different". We can't go on
using 19th century hand-methods to analyze problems so large that
only a computer can hold them.

What do you want in the way of certainty in a highly complex, non-
linear system?

> D.
..>> First, I assume that you apply a similar analysis to fascistic systems promulgated
..>> by business elites, and are equally opposed to their degradation of human rights.

> I loathe corporatism as much as I do communism

OK, I'm clear on that.

> Corporations basically subordinate human beings to existent capitalist structures
> and to money; while all complex socities have the problem of work becoming a
> good to some degree rather than the necessary evil it should be looked at, libertarian
> societies take this problem to its extreme. In other words, I don't think that the ant
> colony argument applies to corporate-controlled societies, but other arguments do.

Sorry, I don't understand your point. Are you saying that because work is necessary
to all, whether or not it is dominated by corporations, therefore alienation of rights
via underpaid work does not lead to your "anthill"?

What are the "other arguments" against corporate control?

..>> Bottom line, I still have no idea which of these many variations you have
..>> decided communism is. However, I suspect it is Stalinism. In any case, your
.. >> use of the word communism adds no new info to the post, so I will just deal with
..>> your issue that "organicism" makes people into replaceable parts.

> The form of communism I attack is best defined the way Old Major talks of animal
> struggle at the beginning of Animal Farm - all animals are equal, every animal must
> work continuously and completely for the Rebellion against humanity even if the
> Rebellion doesn't come in its lifetime, and the animals most sacrifice themselves for the
> animal community.

Fine, but there is a big difference between Stalinist Russia and, say,
Socialist Sweden. If your only definition of communism is that it
promises "jam tomorrow, but no jam today", then every tin pot
dictator in the world is a communist. If you say that at least such
dictators are not totalitarians, you are parroting that ur-neocon,
Jean Kirkpatrick, who made such apologies when she was UN
ambassador under Reagan.

Anyone can take the worst features of an opposing argument, throw out
any possible good features, and go on a jihad.

You didn't address my counter-point:

..>> In my view, the government is here to provide safe "sidelines" for the
..>> economic game that is ongoing. These sidelines include protection of
..>> minority and human rights, support of the old, infirm, and needy, etc.
..>> All the things you want. Any "organic" model I might create would
..>> value all these things highly, preserve the existing Bill of Rights and
..>> extend it.

> E.
..>> When you say "semi-Darwinistic...under individualistic constraints",
..>> are you saying you want a form of evolution different from Darwinian,
..>> red in tooth and claw, natural selection? I.e., you want Darwinism that
..>> isn't Darwinistic? I say this because it is consistent with your objection
..>> to organicism. Is it correct?

> By semi-Darwinistic, I mean that on the one hand the mechanism should
> produce something similar to natural selection, whereas on the other it
> should not kill, oppress, improverish, or otherwise hurt people while doing
> so.

Right, so we are in agreement about what you want. Can you propose any
specific governmental mechanisms that would help such a process resist
decaying into ordinary politics, with the ordinary amount of killing, oppression,
impoverishment, etc?

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

Right... -- Redeye, Wed 2003-09-03 23:20:44