What is the one thing that shapes your whole political philosophy?

[QUOTE="BranKetra"]Frankzappa, you repeatedly mention technocracy as your preferred government. Why?frannkzappa

it is a government controlled by experts (who follow platonic ideals) that have absolute power and bring man to it's fullest potential.

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]it's done a great job of putting duct tape over the problem.

frannkzappa

This is why people don't take you seriously.

i knew that would get you angry... i was joking:P

fvck

[QUOTE="ghoklebutter"] Isn't that technically impossible according to physics?br0kenrabbit

I'm not referring to the matter going in as energy, I was thinking only of the electricity needed to operate the device. In nuclear fusion, you smack two atoms together to form one, but not all parts of the original two atoms nuclei are retained. 0.7% of the mass (in hydrogen fusion, varies depending upon the element being fused) is carried away by kinetic and other forms of energy produced when the nuclear bonds are broken.

Fusion is a hell of a lot more energetic than fission.

That's not what lai believes at all....frannkzappa

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]they didn't need acres they need land, having workable land is what made you middle class, you didn't have money but you could survive without working for someone else.

frannkzappa

Having workable land made you self-sufficient, nothing more. Those people were typically worked themselves to the bone for subsistence and were poor. This really is entirely unrelated to what we think of today as the middle class.

did you not take american history in high school?

Yes, in college, too, and its beginnings are rooted in the industrial revolution.

Only fusion is not exactly unlimitted and in order to achieve it you need to create the ideal environment. Simply high temperatures..

V3rciS

There's the idea of cold fusion, but that could well be a red herring.

There are ongoing experiments that are producing more electricity with fusion than they are using, but only for nanoseconds ATM. But hell, 100 years ago if you told someone we'd have a machine on Mars they'd kick your ass for being stupid.

[QUOTE="V3rciS"]

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

Except they really don't. They rarely even agree with each other.

coolbeans90

Considering that there are real world consequences involved and that they have innumerable mutually exclusive alternatives that they argue for, that is a pretty silly thing to say.

Also, there are various facets of government that should be designed around real-world circumstances which really makes the notion of a singular "ideal" government a rather meaningless concept considering how much that model will vary.

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

Having workable land made you self-sufficient, nothing more. Those people were typically worked themselves to the bone for subsistence and were poor. This really is entirely unrelated to what we think of today as the middle class.

coolbeans90

did you not take american history in high school?

Yes, and its beginnings are rooted in the industrial revolution.

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]That's not what lai believes at all....foxhound_fox

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]yes the middle class has morphed over time i was talking about it's beginnings.

 

did you not take american history in high school?

frannkzappa

Yes, and its beginnings are rooted in the industrial revolution.

He said, she said.

[QUOTE="BranKetra"]Frankzappa, you repeatedly mention technocracy as your preferred government. Why?frannkzappa

it is a government controlled by experts (who follow platonic ideals) that have absolute power and bring man to it's fullest potential.

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

[QUOTE="V3rciS"]
They don't have to agree ... philosophy is not physics or maths.

frannkzappa

Considering that there are real world consequences involved and that they have innumerable mutually exclusive alternatives that they argue for, that is a pretty silly thing to say.

Also, there are various facets of government that should be designed around real-world circumstances which really makes the notion of a singular "ideal" government a rather meaningless concept considering how much that model will vary.

L

O

L

do you know what libertarianism is?frannkzappa

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

[QUOTE="BranKetra"]Frankzappa, you repeatedly mention technocracy as your preferred government. Why?famicommander

it is a government controlled by experts (who follow platonic ideals) that have absolute power and bring man to it's fullest potential.

1. depends on the field, physicists would control legislation based on physics and so on. they would be chosen the same way we choose experts today, based on merit.

2. if they follow platonic ideals then they will seek knowledge above all else, this benefits mankind, plebeians only get in the way. Democracy is tyranny.

3. each man, as said by plato, does one thing the best. a technocracy will make sure these people are happy and productive as well as doing what they are best at.

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]do you know what libertarianism is?foxhound_fox

either way it has nothing to do with government.

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

[QUOTE="BranKetra"]Frankzappa, you repeatedly mention technocracy as your preferred government. Why?BranKetra

it is a government controlled by experts (who follow platonic ideals) that have absolute power and bring man to it's fullest potential.

i trust in the theory of forms, technocracy is the ideal we should strive for.

either way it has nothing to do with government.frannkzappa

physicists would control legislation based on physics and so on. frannkzappa

[QUOTE="BranKetra"][QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

it is a government controlled by experts (who follow platonic ideals) that have absolute power and bring man to it's fullest potential.

frannkzappa

i trust in the theory of forms, technocracy is the ideal we should strive for.

Why?

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]either way it has nothing to do with government.foxhound_fox

both those people are idiots, so it hardly matters.

[QUOTE="V3rciS"]
Only fusion is not exactly unlimitted and in order to achieve it you need to create the ideal environment. Simply high temperatures..

br0kenrabbit

There's the idea of cold fusion, but that could well be a red herring.

There are ongoing experiments that are producing more electricity with fusion than they are using, but only for nanoseconds ATM. But hell, 100 years ago if you told someone we'd have a machine on Mars they'd kick your ass for being stupid.

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

[QUOTE="BranKetra"] Technocracy is only an idea and no government was ever that kind, so you do not know if the results will be as you think.coolbeans90

i trust in the theory of forms, technocracy is the ideal we should strive for.

Why?

i don't feel like quoting everything Plato has written.

he argues better than me.

both those people are idiots, so it hardly matters.frannkzappa

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

i trust in the theory of forms, technocracy is the ideal we should strive for.

frannkzappa

Why?

i don't feel like quoting everything Plato has written.

he argues better than me.

I didn't think that he made a compelling case. This does not feel like a very productive discussion.

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]physicists would control legislation based on physics and so on. foxhound_fox

it would be easier if you gave a proposed bit of legislation and i told you who would handle it and how.

Either way think of it as removing politicians and replacing them with people who trained all their lives for governing, NOT GETTING ELECTED.

What if the medical peeps get into an argument with the econ peeps?

@frankzappa Don't even dare to analyse Plato or Socrates here on the forums, he's far too great for them to comprehend.

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]both those people are idiots, so it hardly matters.foxhound_fox

we are literally opposites. the only thing we have in common is that we are too absolutist for our own good.

it would be easier if you gave a proposed bit of legislation and i told you who would handle it and how. Either way think of it as removing politicians and replacing them with people who trained all their lives for governing, NOT GETTING ELECTED.frannkzappa

Don't even dare to analyse Plato or Socrates here on the forums, he's far too great for them to comprehend.

V3rciS

i think i love you.:oops:

[QUOTE="foxhound_fox"][QUOTE="frannkzappa"]physicists would control legislation based on physics and so on. frannkzappa

it would be easier if you gave a proposed bit of legislation and i told you who would handle it and how.

Either way think of it as removing politicians and replacing them with people who trained all their lives for governing, NOT GETTING ELECTED.

Cool.

So, they are trained how to swim in bureaucratic oceans, and the system lacks external feedback mechanisms.

Tyranny in two decades.

[QUOTE="V3rciS"]

Don't even dare to analyse Plato or Socrates here on the forums, he's far too great for them to comprehend.

frannkzappa

i think i love you.:oops:

Give it a break. Everyone here has read it.

lai is a randian objectivist libertarian. frannkzappa

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]it would be easier if you gave a proposed bit of legislation and i told you who would handle it and how. Either way think of it as removing politicians and replacing them with people who trained all their lives for governing, NOT GETTING ELECTED.foxhound_fox

the criminal justice system would be controlled and operated by cops, criminology majors and so on. as opposed to know when elected officials control budgets and sometimes even have direct power.

[QUOTE="BranKetra"][QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

it is a government controlled by experts (who follow platonic ideals) that have absolute power and bring man to it's fullest potential.

frannkzappa

i trust in the theory of forms, technocracy is the ideal we should strive for.

idgy platophile won't argue w/ me

i guess its bed time

What if the medical peeps get into an argument with the econ peeps?

coolbeans90

at least the two parties would know what they are talking about.

i never said this system would remove conflict, just incompetence.

[QUOTE="foxhound_fox"][QUOTE="frannkzappa"]it would be easier if you gave a proposed bit of legislation and i told you who would handle it and how. Either way think of it as removing politicians and replacing them with people who trained all their lives for governing, NOT GETTING ELECTED.frannkzappa

the criminal justice system would be controlled and operated by cops, criminology majors and so on. as opposed to know when elected officials control budgets and sometimes even have direct power.

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

[QUOTE="foxhound_fox"] Can you give an example of this?coolbeans90

it would be easier if you gave a proposed bit of legislation and i told you who would handle it and how.

Either way think of it as removing politicians and replacing them with people who trained all their lives for governing, NOT GETTING ELECTED.

Cool.

So, they are trained how to swim in bureaucratic oceans, and the system lacks external feedback mechanisms.

Tyranny in two decades.

why would any external party be of any relevance?

Freedom and personal responsibility. 

physists was just one example... and a bad one i admit. the criminal justice system would be controlled and operated by cops, criminology majors and so on. as opposed to know when elected officials control budgets and sometimes even have direct power.frannkzappa

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

[QUOTE="foxhound_fox"] You could literally choose anything one could legislate, and come up with an infinite number of responses... but choose to evade the question. Pick something. Murder, theft, speeding, drug use, anything. Describe how a person with a Ph.D. in physics has qualifications to make a law.HoolaHoopMan

the criminal justice system would be controlled and operated by cops, criminology majors and so on. as opposed to know when elected officials control budgets and sometimes even have direct power.

look at the post above your's.

Objectivism is only loosely connected with libertarianism. foxhound_fox

Actually, right-libertarianism is pretty much an extension of (her take on) the non-aggression principle. The fact that she tried to distance herself from libertarians was cute, but utterly inconsistent.

http://www.iep.utm.edu/platopol/

http://voices.yahoo.com/plato-his-ideal-leaders-2918157.html?cat=9

if you want quickly to educate yourself

[QUOTE="HoolaHoopMan"][QUOTE="frannkzappa"]physists was just one example... and a bad one i admit.

 

the criminal justice system would be controlled and operated by cops, criminology majors and so on. as opposed to know when elected officials control budgets and sometimes even have direct power.

frannkzappa

look at the post above your's.

each man, as said by plato, does one thing the best.BranKetra

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]physists was just one example... and a bad one i admit. the criminal justice system would be controlled and operated by cops, criminology majors and so on. as opposed to know when elected officials control budgets and sometimes even have direct power.foxhound_fox

are you realy asking how a cop would know more about criminal justice than some old money politician?

in this scenario any who don't won't have a chance.

not to mention the public educational system will need a major overhaul in order to groom the population into productive positions based on merit and talent.

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

 

it would be easier if you gave a proposed bit of legislation and i told you who would handle it and how.

 

 

Either way think of it as removing politicians and replacing them with people who trained all their lives for governing, NOT GETTING ELECTED.

frannkzappa

Cool.

So, they are trained how to swim in bureaucratic oceans, and the system lacks external feedback mechanisms.

Tyranny in two decades.

why would any external party be of any relevance?

Operating under the assumption that what is good for the external party is what we can both agree is desirable, there would be a bias for the system inherent to favor the external party should they have a weigh in the matters. Additionally, it can act as an external mechanism to prevent corruption, as preventing it internally is a pretty silly idea.

[QUOTE="BranKetra"]each man, as said by plato, does one thing the best.foxhound_fox

that is a contradiction.

Actually, right-libertarianism is pretty much an extension of (her take on) the non-aggression principle. The fact that she tried to distance herself from libertarians was cute, but utterly inconsistent.coolbeans90