Should we have a bloody revolt against our governrment?

Democracy wasn't been practice since Greece and early Rome. Most govt use Representatives Democracy with either a federal prez or Pm. There only one country that still uses the early form of Democracy with some variation... Switzerland.

orly? If you're going to make such an accusation about technocracy's flaws then id like to see some reasoning and examples behind it and as to why you think democracy works rather than just a subjective generalization rant.

Leave the human factor out of it, i'm talking from a strictly systematic view. Of course corruption would still exist in communism, that's why it failed and i would suspect the same thing might happen to a technocratic system too but there's a fine line between being idealist and realist.

What i'm say is that we're going to have corruption anyways so why not in a politcal system that runs on logical thinking and reason rather than emotion.

Because for such a system to work we would, sadly enough, have to give up a fucklot of our freedoms. And why would I leave the human factor out of this? I thought we were talking about a system that would work in reality, not only in theory. I can agree that from a theoretical point of view, and in a world where everyone would work against the same goal, uninfluenced by their emotion or egotistical will, then a theocratic system would work just flawlessly, and be the best solution.

But personally I'm not willing to give up my joys, my interest, my way of living and so on just for the greater good of the society, no sir, and I think I speak for the major public when I say Happiness > Development of society. A theocratic society would die within a decade if it weren't ruled under a strict dictatorship, since it is way to reliable on everyone working in the same direction, if anyone decides to work against the system, it would break in seconds.

That's one of the beauties of - a real, mind you, - democracy, where the major public rules, it's by no means a perfect system but it's the only system that can keep a major society alive if people want to be able to live somewhat free to do as they please. A democratic system can also handle someone going against it without falling apart. Democracy doesn't keep everyone happy, but it does keep most people content, or is at least supposed too.

All these major political standpoints are flawed, since none of them will ever work, but in an idealistic world, most of them would, and people would be happy. Too bad we don't live in a utopian world.

Yep.


Even if it doesn't change anything, it'll chunk off some population from a world with too much of it.

I'm all for peaceful resolve- but that needs to come after we slice the worlds' people down to a manageable number given our resources.

And this is what i'm having a problem with. This is the sort of ignorance and individualism that is turning our world into the shitter. You're just thinking of yourself again, your own country. It should be the other way around, Development of society > Happiness. It's a simple moral obligation. Humans seem to be great at thinking about themselves but when it comes to the collective, we are ignorant and bad at it. If you want to be realist, you do understand that for you to have those rights and freedoms of happiness, other people - third world countries and biodiversity have to suffer for them right?

Indonesia cuts down 6 football fields of tropical rain forest per minute because of agriculture. However not to feed it's own people but to sell for money to countries like the US so they can make luxury items that keep first-world people happy. Demand and supply. We in the western world have a stupid idealism of infinite demand and growth and people are suffering because they have to supply this.

that's a good point, it would thin out the idiot masses quite a bit. a foriegn war would work equally as well for that though, and cause less damage to our country.

on the other hand, the aftermath of a domestic war could prompt upgrades and repairs to what's left of our failing, ancient infrastructure.

Kind sir, I would greatly appreciate if you would cease and desist these outrageous claims that individualism is to blame. It is basic logic that a man must be capable of taking care of himself before he can take care of another.



Nothing in that definition even touches on what you claim individualism does. An individual is someone who wants control over their own lives. They don't want a Government, their neighbor, etc telling them what they can do because it infringes on their right of self ownership (aka they can't exercise their rights as the owner of their body). It is not individualism that is causing the world to go into the proverbial shitter. It's the ignorance, complacency and materialism of the first world that is the problem.



What is a society? A collection of individuals working in cooperation with each other for their mutual benefit. Keyword, individual. So to develop society one must develop the lives of the individuals in said society.

It is our responsibility to our fellow countrymen and fellow humans to help them fulfill their two lower levels in Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs.

I'll agree with you all day that we have a moral obligation to help our fellow humans but, we also have an equal moral obligation to respect the rights of other humans. I would never apply force to you or use an organization such as the State or Federal Government to apply force on you unless I am a victim of damages caused by you.

Where we differ is I believe that nobody care use force to bring about that interaction. If I want to be an asshole who sits in my basement and fap to loli all day. Well, then nobody has the right to interfere with my decision to be an asshole who sits in my basement and faps to loli all day.

To deny this, throws out the concept that a person owns themselves. If someone doesn't own themselves then the basis for any argument pertaining to rights is void. All rights stem from the concept of natural/inalienable rights. Except legal rights but, fuck those, they're just glorified privileges.

Also to break a hole in your Indonesian argument.

Indonesian exports to the U.S 2010

Natural rubber … US$711.9 million, up 105.1% (9.1% of total)
Crude petroleum, 25-degree testing and over … $273.5 million, up 313.4% (3.5%)
Cotton pullovers … $250.8 million, up 17.4% (3.2%)
Cocoa beans, raw or roasted … $189 million, up 84.2% (2.4%)
Crude petroleum, under 25-degree testing … $164.5 million, up 23.7% (2.1%)
Shrimps and prawns, frozen … $128.2 million, down 11.1% (1.6%)
Digital video cameras, still image … $118.4 million, down 12.6% (1.5%)
TV set top boxes … $90.8 million, down 21.1% (1.2%)
Insulated ignition wiring sets … $74.6 million, up 88.1% (1%)
Aluminum plates … $74 million, up 808.9% (0.95%).


Top Imports from the U.S 2010

Natural rubber … US$711.9 million, up 105.1% (9.1% of total)
Crude petroleum, 25-degree testing and over … $273.5 million, up 313.4% (3.5%)
Cotton pullovers … $250.8 million, up 17.4% (3.2%)
Cocoa beans, raw or roasted … $189 million, up 84.2% (2.4%)
Crude petroleum, under 25-degree testing … $164.5 million, up 23.7% (2.1%)
Shrimps and prawns, frozen … $128.2 million, down 11.1% (1.6%)
Digital video cameras, still image … $118.4 million, down 12.6% (1.5%)
TV set top boxes … $90.8 million, down 21.1% (1.2%)
Insulated ignition wiring sets … $74.6 million, up 88.1% (1%)
Aluminum plates … $74 million, up 808.9% (0.95%).


Link.

If Indonesia is cutting down rainforest it's to grow more food for their country. Same reason the rainforest is being cut down in Brazil. So farmers can grow more food to satisfy the growing demand within their borders for food.

from what i know there hasent been a purley communist country in the entirety of so far history of man kind. communsim would probably have no actual leader, everyone have equal benifits and equal everything. even countries like cuba and china cant be called actual communistic countries. they still have a government that probably has a higher standing than thier poor and rich.

Im not sure about a bloody revolution but i think what needs to be fixed would be the distribution of wealth, like why should movie stars and athletes be payed more than people who risk their live on a daily basises. or maybe the way taxes are done could be fixed, lower income peopole pay the same as rich people, and that could be fixed with a higher tax rate for the wealthy giving more to lower the burdon of the lower classes. eventually the tension that poor people feel will lead to an actual rebellion, with more than 85% of the american population belonging to the low class group anyway

??? I don't know, but perhaps our interpretations of the world individualism differs? I'll happily agree to your latter though. IMO it is our ethics, this over pursuit of liberty that is to blame for the latter.



This would be perfectly fine and i'm all for liberties if people were trustworthy enough and aware enough to make the appropriate decisions with. Unfortunately people are greedy and like to make decisions based on emotion rather than reason.

http://www.mentalfloss.com/blogs/archives/54171 (Doco called mind over money, in an experiment they show clearly that people use emotion rather than reason and how the entire world economy can fluxuate according to human emotion)

People demand freedom of rights yet they are often forgetful of the responsibilities and consequences that come with it. And TBH i think it comes down to a lack on awareness more than anything else. Either we subject ourselves to a lower standard of life or people become more educated and propaganda is abolished.

With a population of 6.5 billion going onto 9 by 2050, the latter seems to look further and further far fetched. Personally i feel that a technocratic system is the answer even if it breaches on personal liberties. Because IMO, our moral obligation to help not only other humans but other species of animals and to keep sustainability trumps rights and freedoms.



Corruption leads to the demand of food not being satisfied however, the deforestation is also largely attributed to it's large palm oil industry. Which is largely exported to Asia but also partially to the US.

http://www.aceh-eye.org/data_files/english_format/environment/env_palm/env_palm_analysis/env_palm_analysis_2006_03_00.pdf

I specifically separate egoism from individualism. I see egoism as an extreme. Similar to the separation of eating to outright gluttony.




Rights are unconditional, they are inalienable, otherwise they are not rights. It is unfortunate that people think too much of themselves (specificly the level of materialism we find in the developed world) but the best we can do within the constraints of respecting the rights of others is to simply provide an educational experience. Most people don't realize the impacts their decisions have on the world simply because they don't know that their actions have such an impact. A kid who wants an X-box 360 doesn't realize the scope of his decisions impact on the world. His decision provides demand for electronic parts from Asian countries, petroleum from the Middle East, South America or Russia, the fuel required to ship the parts around the world, etc. That kid just wants an 360 so he can run home and play Halo Reach with his friends online.

The Capitalist in me wants to say, that some hipster's decision to buy the latest mac with whatever inane little "innovation" they come up ends up providing better living conditions within China as those workers would have been farmers (which isn't exactly the easy life that Western Farmers have).



Anyone whose spent 5 minutes in a sociology or an economics class would be able to tell you that. For example, after 9/11 people stopped flying. Thinking with emotions



I agree 98% with the remaining 2% disagreeing on abolishing propaganda as I would prefer the situation where people simply question the propaganda until it falls apart. Notice the theme in my posts where I want people to consent in some form or another with no 3rd party involvement.



You throw corruption around like it's heresy in the Warhammer 40k universe.

Man Made causes

1). Our reliance on grazing cattle for our protein. (1 acre of cereal or vegetable productions feeds 10 times the number of people using that same acre for cattle),

2). Government policy (Google Malawi selling grain reserves to pay off interest on debt).

2a). The U.S (and other countries) subsidies to farmers to NOT GROW FOOD.

2b). 1). The asinine concept of corn-ethanol. Our elected officials in their infinite wisdom decided that we should start relying on corn-based ethanol as our alternative fuel. Unfortunately, this means we started putting our food in our cars instead of our mouths (Thanks Brazil for giving these idiots that class A, gold standard clusterfuck of an idea).


Natural causes

1). Degradation of agricultural land
2). Flooding
3). Hurricanes/tornadoes
4). Drought

In short, it's a cluster fuck. We can either try to slow down the rate in which humanity is growing or simply wait for them to outpace their food supply where millions will starve. Then we'll have that reminder that food is not infinite. Another alternative is that necessity being the mother of invention will cause people to develop a cure for our food shortages (for example the aquaponic and hydroponic farms that are developing around the world).

Another idea is for the World to aim it's forks a little lower on the food chain. Start eating smaller fish such as bristling, herring,etc instead of relying on varieties of Tuna and other larger fish.

Side note: by eating smaller fish, we will acquire smaller amounts of mercury as larger fish have a larger amount of mercury in their bodies.

No, at the moment we don't. Yes there is problems with our current system(but which system doesn't have it's own?. Most of our problems(USoA) were caused by our own actions, not only the rich/those in powers.(but they did have a huge role in it)

To think a revolution is necessary is beyond stupid. We need reform, no more tax cuts for the rich, less defense spending, get rid of the old people (social security), etc

...And who's going to do that you? I think not. Sadly reform in the government is easier said than done but I do agree that we don't need a bloody revolution right away. What we need is to protest the government and demand reform by means of civil disobedience like really letting them know we are not going to tolerate their shit and if that doesn't work then as a last resort we unite and attack the government physically. It's unfortunate but sometimes using your words fail when they fall on deaf ears and to clear up another misconception about my view on this issue I'd like to point out that I am in no way saying we need to be rid of the government I am clearly saying that we should strike fear into the governments eyes and let them know they work for us not the other way around.

@SLAYERNEXUS, Never implied I'd do it. One would expect better counter arguments than "Are you going to do it?" in a srs discussion subforum.

Problem with this is idea is; the ideas are unpopular. Politicians stay in power by pandering to popularity (regardless if it's right or not). They will stay the course right up until the Nation collapses Soviet Union style OR the people wise up and start thinking beyond the moment.

Violent revolution would turn America into Lybia as the military would be used to put the people down. With the level of corruption within the Government and the military personnel thinking of themselves or their families first they would fire on Americans citizens before anything else. Not to mention the vast superiority of the military armaments compared to the citizens.

Though this brings up the question of 'would Europe (or select nations) support the American people in a violent revolt?"

Peaceful revolution is really the only option but, that kind of dedication and support is not something the American people are known for.

I see. Well i can't say i agree...



Hmm well the three main inalienable rights are life, liberty and property. However i think the main issue here is defining the bounds of liberty and how far can it reach. Also most people don't realize that your rights also don't have the right to impose on someone else's rights.

The kid shouldn't know about what effect him buying a xbox will have but his parents should; and let's face it, that kid isn't buying that xbox without his parents.

The capitalist in you would also see that it's never as clear cut as that =/.



You'll be waiting forever then =/. People are often sheep who need herding.



As much as i'd like it i'd see no other way. Personally, i'd much rather see the light of day and for there to be an Earth that can actually still sustain life than having libertarian rights.



Well no actually. At current harvest we have enough food to feed something like every person in the world twice over. The problem is not the growing of food but distribution. In short it costs too much money, too much demand on fuel, to transport rice from China to Africa etc.

I agree that ethanol is a complete joke, it takes more oil to produce the fertilizer, run the tractors and transport the ethanol than the amount you gain from producing it. Nothing but a PR stunt imo.

And a big NO to eating fish. We should stop eating seafood period. Over-fishing is a HUGE problem as it is. http://www.smh.com.au/national/oceans-face-catastrophe-panel-warns-20110621-1gdkx.html

The real problem is this. We rely on oil as our main energy source.

We produce enough food to feed people but because our distribution system is reliant on oil it costs too much to transport food to places where it's needed and people continue to starve. Farmers continue to grow more food as their is a constant demand and this process repeats itself over. It doesn't help that countries like China and India are buying all the food around the world either.

[quote="Anesthetize"]You'll be waiting forever then =/. People are often sheep who need herding.

You make it sound as if we have no ability to balance our rights with a sustainable planet. Also, please elaborate on what "libertarian" rights are. Being a libertarian myself I am curious as what "rights" have become associated with my political philosophy. Though, I guess one could say libertarians of all varieties believe that each person has an exclusive right to the fruits of his or her labor as their private property.



I honestly, did not know that we produced enough food. I was under the impression that we were in a shortage. Thank you for enlightening me.




There are two failures here. First, I was not clear enough. When I suggested "aiming our forks lower" I was implying consumption of smaller fish varieties (instead of larger fish such as swordfish and Tuna) which can be farmed in a varieties of ways, either by fish farms, aquaponic farms or by simply catching them (since they are smaller and are destined for shorter lifespans they breed much, much faster than larger varieties.

The second failure is any claim of overfishing address only the larger varieties of fish such as Tuna and others whose names currently escape me. Tuna do not breed as fast as Brisling.

As I mentioned earlier the smaller varieties of fish are more versatile when it comes to farming since they can be included in aquaponic farms. I want to mention that aquaponic farms tend to have fish like Tilapia and Bass so we wouldn't be limited to just smaller varieties.




Even if we moved to alternative fuels, it wouldn't help a single iota. Petroleum is the cheapest form of fuel we have on this planet (Currently). So switching to alternative fuels wouldn't help as it'd simply cause the prices of foods to increase (since cost of operation would likewise increase). The real problem (and the one I assume you meant to address rather than sounding like some anti-oil rally) is that food travels too far from farm to plate which I think is averaging 1500-2400 miles. So we need to start considering ways to migrate the farms closer to home (if not actually make them AT home).

If we consider that an aquaponic farm is small enough to function on a building's roof then we can start alleviate the traveling problem.

But even that won't be a solution since most western counties buy their food outside of there counties. Most tomatoes come from greenland or iceland... i can't remember, since the abundance of sun and greenhouses. Fruits and meat from Chile and Brazil. All because we need to eat stuff out of season. Overfishing does fuck the ecosystem so stuff like Blue fin tuna and others should stop, but we crave tasty shit. Specially when there other variety of fishes that are more plentiful like skip jack and whatever in that tasty filet o' fish at McD's.

Instead of buying your food at mega hugh super walmart or the large chain markets, go to the farmers market, Butcher shops and grow your own food. Use frozen and can foods of simply stop eating shit out of season since they are crappy anyways.. which is better: A vine riped tomato grown in a summer field or a tomato grown in a greenhouse in dec then picked still green to be ship to bumfuck usa to eat with your ham sandwich. The oil spend to ship stuff from a long way foreign counties out beats shipping peaches from Georgia to somewhere in the west.

To the farm raised fishes like catfish and ... EWW Tilapia( tilapia and carp are used in treatment of waste water and they eat shit... then they sell the fish to be eaten.)... it more quicker then actually going out to the lake/river/ponds/canals to get your quick fried fish, but farm raised fish... simple taste like shit compared to wild fish because of the diet of bone meal and chemical treated grain pallets they feed to these fucking poor creatures that taste good with lemon and dill. Salmon is fine since they damned the rivers from them to reach the internal parts of california like back when i was a lad.

Simply eat and fish what local as much as you can then buy stuff you can't get. Im lucky enough i live 30 miles in every direction to where a good portion of where the nation and the world supply of food stuffs and the fruits stands.... except bananas... fucking Florida.

No form of government will be without flaws. Stop being idealistic in your arguments about how it will be so great and blah blah.

Communism will not work because it requires a large group of people to give up a lot of their power to an isolated place to get to the "final stage".

If you are relying on everyone to just be willing to do just an equal share of work and to have an equal share of power and wealth then you are either fooling yourself because you do not understand how people work at all, or you are the people who are taking that power and are lying to be able to keep that power.

For communism to work it would require people to lack differences. That is not the case so it doomed to fail, always.

A Technocracy is flawed for the same reasons that a Militaristic government is flawed.

You're requiring a lot of power to be placed into the hands of people on the sole idea that they "should" know better than regular people.

However, if you have too isolated of a information base then you often make uninformed decisions even though you might know so much about a particular view.

Pretty much, you would get a large scale version of Groupthink going on. Which is one of the worse things to have, especially in a position where their power can make some really nasty decisions.

The whole argument is moot in the US. most of us are so fat and stupid, it would take some huge event to make them get off their asses and swap their cheese burgers and TV clickers for weapons. it would also depend on who could reach them with their message first, and wheather or not the spokes person was pretty and sincere sounding.