My thoughts on politics

[philosopher]

This is a thread about my political beliefs and thoughts and how I get to these beliefs.
I divided this very long post into three sections, the first one is to prove my knowledge of history and politics so I won't be accused of stupidity or retarded beliefs when I present my opinions. The first is only facts, so if you already know this, you can skip the first section.

The second section is my reasoning/logical deduction.

The third is my opinion.

--------

Chapter 1 - Ideologies/History:

There are many ideologies in this world and throughout history. But generally speaking, they can be boiled down to nuances of Left (Liberal) and Right (Authoritarian).

I am familiar with the political compass (economic: left/right, social: up/down) but I believe it needs another definition.

Left-liberals believe in man's liberty while Right-authoritarians believe in the State and Class-divisions with special privileges.

In the 18th century where the ideologies were born or at least popularized, Liberal meant to believe in liberty, the liberty to take any job and earn your money in your own (legal) way as well as the right to free speech and all that.

On the other side you had the Conservatives who favored Authoritarianism where the nobility enjoyed special rights and only they should enjoy liberty. The rest, peasants as well as merchants and other citizens, had to obey their masters - lords, kings etc.

Throughout the 19th century the Liberal/Conservative ideologies were further developed and turned into the Bourgeoisie (equivalent of upper-middle class citizens and above) ideologies - like for instance Edmund Burke's Conservatism, a somewhat softened version of the old aristocracy and the Liberals had their Smithsonian economics - essentially the differences was about trade - Liberals favored free trade, Conservatives favored protectionism. Aside from this, Liberals believed free speech and other rights (known as Negative Rights).

Common for both Liberals/Conservatives was that they forgot all about the lower classes, which enjoyed no liberties under their rule and they refused to extend the liberties to the lower classes.

This is all examplified very well in the French Revolution of 1789 and throughout the 1790's Revolutionary France: Peasants enjoyed no liberties because only the upper-middle classes was thought to deserve them. Again, mainly merchants and upper-class citizens. Workers still had to obey their masters and be submissive just like during the days of the monarchy. This was despite many poor people and workers alike fought the main battles in the revolution.

It was exactly because of this class-division of the Bourgeoisie ideologies of Left/Right that Socialism was introduced as a third ideology.
But this too could be either left (liberal socialism (Bernsteinism, Trotskyism etc.) or right (Leninism, Stalinism).

They shared the same economic policies - somewhat but differed on social ideology: Should government accept people's liberties or crush them?

Even the most extreme left wing economic policies can be boiled down to its own local versions of left and right, and just like with a black hole in physics where time and space are reversed near the center, I believe the same is true for politics: Extreme left wing economics turns into the most extreme authoritarian (and hence right wing) policies.

For example, Social Democracy in its early days was an attempt for mix free marked forces with planned economy: Mixed/Regulated economy with Liberal principles (socially). (disclaimer: nowadays social-democrats are the most authoritarian nationalists who believe in Populist Dictatorship - mob rule).

Likewise Leninists/Stalinists believe in planned economy all the way through, and without room for one's own thoughts.
It is right wing authoritarian. Yes, you read correctly. I believe Lenin and Stalin was right wingers, because of their authoritarianism.

Fascism, formerly known as Coorporatism, was an ideology developed by Benito Mussolini and which nazism was built upon - despite its name (national-socialist) it has nothing to do with socialism in the Marxian sense. Quite the contrary, it is strict Authoritarianism with so-called free marked forces. That is, private enterprise was favored over planned economy. Its strength lies in private competition, but unlike planned economy with private customers buying from the State-owned shops, Fascist private economy has only one customer - the State. Nazism is Fascism with Racism. That simple, really.

Chapter 2 - Logical Deduction

Now, what is the purpose of an ideology? It is to reform or adjust the Government to fit its purpose - but which purpose?

Strong economy? Strong State/Government? Again, what is the purpose of a strong economy or a strong government?

I assume It must be to have social stability. That is as much peace as possible. As much wealth as possible. As much power as possible.

Again I ask: What is the purpose of peace, wealth and power?

Isn't it to make as many people as happy as possible? Should this not be the ultimate goal of any society?
Then peace, wealth and power are only secondary things - they are mere tools of achieving this goal. It can never be the goal in and of itself.

Of course there are the individual goals as well... To make yourself as happy as possible.
Set aside selfish goals and trying to achieve something of the greater good:

So, if you want to make as many people as happy as possible you must first:

1. Know what your are doing. This means Science, using the Scientific Method.
2. Know how to use the tools (peace, wealth and power) in order to achieve:
3. Know what happiness means.

I'll start with no. 3: What is happiness. Of course this is individual, but it is localized in specific brain regions and through specific neurological and chemical balances. The most obvious answer to the question "How to achieve happiness" would be to induce perpetual happiness-inducing drugs in every human. This is virtually impossible, so let's instead try something more realistic:

Each individual knows best what makes him/her happy. Aside from harmful and possible illegal activities, the most straightfoward method would be to give each individual its own unique way of achieving happiness without destroying it for others.

This could be something like individual rights and privileges and individual duties - From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs (Karl Marx). While there are many definitions and opinions as of which abilities and needs one has, I believe that with modern science we can - with very good effiency - tell what the needs and abilities are of each individual.

Chapter 3. My Opinions

I believe if we remove the politicians from deciding the fate of individuals - or even government affairs, we can achieve much more progress for society. Instead of having a politically elected PM/Head of State why not have experts who excelled in their expertise - health, economy - you name it, have to vote for who should be PM/Head of State?

Why should gut feelings decide the fate of people? It MUST be made from objective criteria! Be it decisions in welfare or economics or state affairs, we should never give the power to politicians!

The same with the Members of Parliament.
Why not have the members of parliament elected for some years term, but with voting rights restricted to those graduated from a university?

Of course university and other education should be free for all (through taxation).
Everyone should be entitled the right to have an educated and prove him/herself worthy of the right to vote.

Why not?

And of course, the people should have free speech, free assembly, right to a fair trial etc. Just not the right to vote.

Would I go left or right in politics? I say, we should only go to the Left if we're on the Right path!

[FlashDangerpants]

I divided this very long post into three sections, the first one is to prove my knowledge of history and politics so I won't be accused of stupidity or retarded beliefs when I present my opinions. The first is only facts, so if you already know this, you can skip the first section.

I'm afraid your collection of facts is highly questionable.

None of these claims looks factually accurate to me
"Left-liberals believe in man's liberty while Right-authoritarians believe in the State and Class-divisions with special privileges."
If that one is true, I wish you the very best of luck in persuading Henry Quirk that he is a left-liberal. He may threaten you with firearms for a while, but I'm sure he'll calm down.

Anyway, this left and right thing isn't really a statement of even a possible fact. Left and right, and any one dimensional diagramatic schema cannot really be thought of as describing the full range of opinions out there about this stuff (Adding additional axes is no fix, please don't create a 7 dimensional cubezoid of political opinion), these things are shorthand ways of referencing a phenomenon that cannot be boiled down to any geometric concept. So they are largely matters of opinion.

"Common for both Liberals/Conservatives was that they forgot all about the lower classes, which enjoyed no liberties under their rule and they refused to extend the liberties to the lower classes."
That seems somewhat unfair to, off the top of my head, Voltaire, Bagehot, Swift... I'm not even convinced it is fair to the Conservatives.

"in the French Revolution of 1789 and throughout the 1790's Revolutionary France: Peasants enjoyed no liberties because only the upper-middle classes was thought to deserve them."
Hmmm, really not sure about that tbh. I mean I guess you can possibly carry it with a line about how life didn't really change for the average peasant far from the cities, but I think the claim is rickety at best. Also, France might be a cherry picked example, and possibly not a good choice. The Ancien Regime was not remotely liberal, until (see de Tocqueville for more) it attempted to become so and at the point where it relinquished some authority, it became weak and was overthrown. England and Holland at that time were much more liberal than France, and arguably the lowest classes had more rights and freedoms than their French counterparts. They were allowed to not buy salt if they didn't want to for example.

The second section is my reasoning/logical deduction.

I'm not really sure the logical deductions follow from any of the stuff you put in part 1. Even if we granted part 1. I'm not even convinced logical deductions are an appropriate aim in political philosophy tbh.

"Isn't it to make as many people as happy as possible? Should this not be the ultimate goal of any society?"
This bit is a question-begging assertion of utilitarianism, you haven't established or deduced anything to reach it. So it is opinion.

And this bit...
"Each individual knows best what makes him/her happy."
Appears to contradict...
The most obvious answer to the question "How to achieve happiness" would be to induce perpetual happiness-inducing drugs in every human.
Which isn't how deduction properly works.

The third is my opinion.

Well I think you've spotted by now that I am arguing here that so is all the rest.

I believe if we remove the politicians from deciding the fate of individuals - or even government affairs, we can achieve much more progress for society. Instead of having a politically elected PM/Head of State why not have experts who excelled in their expertise - health, economy - you name it, have to vote for who should be PM/Head of State?

That gives you a bunch of obvious problems, but here's a more obscure one. All of this is predicated on the perfectibility of people and societies. If people only had the BEST possible rulers, they would become the BEST possible citizens, right? I mean obviously, if not, they would ultimately resent the technocratic utopia that ignored their wishes in order to do the best for them and overthrow it. It would be self-defeating if it made everyone unhappy, so at the very least, it improves the people by making them become happier versions of themselves, even against their objections when they don't approve of all these experts making their choices for them.

But here's the thing, how would you define totalitarianism? I've decided to cook up my own definition which is this:
A society is democratic exactly to the extent that its politics must change to suit the desires of the people, and it is totalitarian to the extent that the people must change to accomodate the needs of its politics.

That's a homebrew partly because I find the dictionary defintions boring, but also I am aiming there at roughly what Isiah Berlin is warning against in 2 concepts when he points to the parallels between all the competing dangerous utopian fictions that require a vision of humanity as fallen but perfectible. I think your thing is another dangerous utopian fiction.

Why should gut feelings decide the fate of people? It MUST be made from objective criteria! Be it decisions in welfare or economics or state affairs, we should never give the power to politicians!

Trust me, I would really prefer it if people didn't do that, but I'm fairly sure we have little choice but to allow it. As far as I am concerned, people who don't understand basic monetary policy or the simplest workings of trade. should not take political positions with reference to economics. But somehow millions voted for Brexit and even more millions for Trump. It's as if all those gruntuing halfwits don't respect my opinion - or even they might not think I am cleverer than they are. The UNGRATEFUL PIG BASTARDS WHO DON'T DO WHAT I TELL THEM WILL REGRET IT WHEN THEY GET A TASTE OF THE LASH!!!! ...*ahem*... so I was saying...

Perhaps these inconveniences are some sort of price we pay for freedom and equal political representation for all - and perhaps a bunch of experts knowing better than the voters isn't really any way to deal with their frustrations. After all, unless Trump does get all pokey with the nuclear button, neither of these objectionably ignorant choices should actually be the end of the world. If your panel of experts are really all that good, I think they would immediately vote themselves out of office and go back to the imperfect old way of doing things. And I don't think writing that suddenly makes me a conservative.

Why not have the members of parliament elected for some years term, but with voting rights restricted to those graduated from a university?

Only the better universities I hope? Surely a Desmond in Complementary Healthcare from Cardiff Metropolitan isn't equal to a first in Classics from Oxford like what the ever so worthy Boris Johnson has got?

Of course university and other education should be free for all (through taxation).
Everyone should be entitled the right to have an educated and prove him/herself worthy of the right to vote.

That potentially conflicts with your other claims. Surely whether or not a university education is for all should be a decision made by a panel of experts who have expertly established that it would make everyone happy? Why are you assuming this in advance of collecting the data? Also there is a good econometric argument for not providing university tuition for free - students are more likely to choose a challenging course with good career outcomes if they are having to choose how they spend their own money. Also free university tuition is, economically speaking, mostly a subsidy for the middle classes paid by the lower classes who are both less likely to attend university and more likely to drop out before realising their gains.

[henry quirk]

"Left-liberals believe in man's liberty while Right-authoritarians believe in the State and Class-divisions with special privileges."

"I wish you the very best of luck in persuading Henry Quirk that he is a left-liberal. He may threaten you with firearms for a while, but I'm sure he'll calm down."

Yeah, I'm no lefty/liberal/progressive/commie piece of shit...I'm my very own special piece of shit and if you have to box me, lump me in with the lower-case-libertarians (but not those fuckers in the Libertarian party).

And, no: I won't shoot you...this time.

[Impenitent]

if left liberals believed in man's liberty, why wouldn't they leave those with dissenting views alone?

where's the liberty when you disagree with a "liberal"?

1861

-Imp

[gaffo]

if left liberals believed in man's liberty, why wouldn't they leave those with dissenting views alone?

where's the liberty when you disagree with a "liberal"?

1861

-Imp

I'm a liberal and have no problem with dissenting views.

[philosopher]

I divided this very long post into three sections, the first one is to prove my knowledge of history and politics so I won't be accused of stupidity or retarded beliefs when I present my opinions. The first is only facts, so if you already know this, you can skip the first section.

I'm afraid your collection of facts is highly questionable.

It is because you take them out of their context.

None of these claims looks factually accurate to me
"Left-liberals believe in man's liberty while Right-authoritarians believe in the State and Class-divisions with special privileges."
If that one is true, I wish you the very best of luck in persuading Henry Quirk that he is a left-liberal. He may threaten you with firearms for a while, but I'm sure he'll calm down.

Don't know who he is.

But assuming you're right, then he really isn't a left-liberal. To threaten with firearms = believe opponents should die = pro-death penalty opinions = authoritarian values.

Anyway, this left and right thing isn't really a statement of even a possible fact. Left and right, and any one dimensional diagramatic schema cannot really be thought of as describing the full range of opinions out there about this stuff (Adding additional axes is no fix, please don't create a 7 dimensional cubezoid of political opinion), these things are shorthand ways of referencing a phenomenon that cannot be boiled down to any geometric concept. So they are largely matters of opinion.

I agree that individual opinions are mix of left/right up/down, liberal and authoritarian values differing on each topic.
However, it is the overall general picture that draw you on the map. That is, mostly liberal or authoritarian.

"Common for both Liberals/Conservatives was that they forgot all about the lower classes, which enjoyed no liberties under their rule and they refused to extend the liberties to the lower classes."
That seems somewhat unfair to, off the top of my head, Voltaire, Bagehot, Swift... I'm not even convinced it is fair to the Conservatives.

Set aside all these philosophers with their good intentions, whenever it was attempted to be realized in the 19th century societies, poor people got no rights. All the rights like the right to vote, speech, assembly and human dignity in general was reserved to the upper-classes.

"in the French Revolution of 1789 and throughout the 1790's Revolutionary France: Peasants enjoyed no liberties because only the upper-middle classes was thought to deserve them."
Hmmm, really not sure about that tbh. I mean I guess you can possibly carry it with a line about how life didn't really change for the average peasant far from the cities, but I think the claim is rickety at best. Also, France might be a cherry picked example, and possibly not a good choice. The Ancien Regime was not remotely liberal, until (see de Tocqueville for more) it attempted to become so and at the point where it relinquished some authority, it became weak and was overthrown. England and Holland at that time were much more liberal than France, and arguably the lowest classes had more rights and freedoms than their French counterparts. They were allowed to not buy salt if they didn't want to for example.

I never said the French monarchy was even remotely liberal. What I was trying to say, was to set an example of the above statement that whenever liberal ideas were to be realized, it was only for the upper-classes (of course in Revolutionary France, nobility enjoyed no rights either). The reign of terror just makes it more muddy. It is as if neither lower nor upper classes enjoyed any liberties, only the middle class citizens with the "right" opinions were allowed to live. So much for liberal ideology...

"Each individual knows best what makes him/her happy."
Appears to contradict...
The most obvious answer to the question "How to achieve happiness" would be to induce perpetual happiness-inducing drugs in every human.
Which isn't how deduction properly works.

Here you take my assumptions and answers out of context.

If you cannot induce happiness-drugs into people, you are left with leaving it to the individual to achieve his/her own happiness.

That gives you a bunch of obvious problems, but here's a more obscure one. All of this is predicated on the perfectibility of people and societies. If people only had the BEST possible rulers, they would become the BEST possible citizens, right? I mean obviously, if not, they would ultimately resent the technocratic utopia that ignored their wishes in order to do the best for them and overthrow it. It would be self-defeating if it made everyone unhappy, so at the very least, it improves the people by making them become happier versions of themselves, even against their objections when they don't approve of all these experts making their choices for them.

Of course a government run by experts should not violate basic human rights.
It should allow people to think freely and enjoy life, however it should limit the mobs and prevent the mobs from gaining any political influence.

Mob rule is exactly what we should prevent.

But here's the thing, how would you define totalitarianism? I've decided to cook up my own definition which is this:
A society is democratic exactly to the extent that its politics must change to suit the desires of the people, and it is totalitarian to the extent that the people must change to accomodate the needs of its politics.

I disagree with your definition of totalitarianism. Totalitarianism is when you criminalize criticism of the government and prevent free speech, even jokes. When you force people to wear certain types of clothing and certain religious ideas. That is totalitarianism.

If the people of democracies desires to criminalize free speech (Poland, Hungary, Turkey) and impose certin religious ideas the democracy is totalitarian. Democracy becomes mob rule.

Trust me, I would really prefer it if people didn't do that, but I'm fairly sure we have little choice but to allow it. As far as I am concerned, people who don't understand basic monetary policy or the simplest workings of trade. should not take political positions with reference to economics. But somehow millions voted for Brexit and even more millions for Trump. It's as if all those gruntuing halfwits don't respect my opinion - or even they might not think I am cleverer than they are. The UNGRATEFUL PIG BASTARDS WHO DON'T DO WHAT I TELL THEM WILL REGRET IT WHEN THEY GET A TASTE OF THE LASH!!!! ...*ahem*... so I was saying...

Perhaps these inconveniences are some sort of price we pay for freedom and equal political representation for all - and perhaps a bunch of experts knowing better than the voters isn't really any way to deal with their frustrations. After all, unless Trump does get all pokey with the nuclear button, neither of these objectionably ignorant choices should actually be the end of the world. If your panel of experts are really all that good, I think they would immediately vote themselves out of office and go back to the imperfect old way of doing things. And I don't think writing that suddenly makes me a conservative.

I disagree. Society could make a lot of scientific and technological progress and embetterment of billions of people's lives if we could prevent mob rule, Trump and the like.

The election of Donald Trump is exactly the reason why I am against democracy. Turkish voting against free speech and pro-dictatorship is another reason why I am against democracy. The same for Poland and Hungary. Democracy is threatened by itself, so lets abolish democracy but keep the liberties.

That potentially conflicts with your other claims. Surely whether or not a university education is for all should be a decision made by a panel of experts who have expertly established that it would make everyone happy? Why are you assuming this in advance of collecting the data? Also there is a good econometric argument for not providing university tuition for free - students are more likely to choose a challenging course with good career outcomes if they are having to choose how they spend their own money. Also free university tuition is, economically speaking, mostly a subsidy for the middle classes paid by the lower classes who are both less likely to attend university and more likely to drop out before realising their gains.

Education and knowledge in general should be provided for free, even despite the lack of incentives to finish their studies.

I believe the introduction of Basic Income should solve the problem of economic incentives.

People should be encouraged to learn as much about everything as possible.
This too will prevent people like Trump from political influence. We could have a paradise on Earth with Basic Income and rule of Experts!

[henry quirk]

"To threaten with firearms = believe opponents should die = pro-death penalty opinions = authoritarian values."

Could be.

Could also be I just don't like folks monkeyin' around in my business.

Let's break it down...

I'm only gonna raise the coach gun if I feel I need to defend myself...stay on your side of the fence and we got no problem, you and me.

No, opponents shouidn't die...most of you here I'm opposed to...I may not think kindly of you all but you don't have to die.

I'm not in favor of state-driven/implemented execution.

No, not 'authoritarian' values...as I say up-thread, 'lower-case libertarian' values' .

[FlashDangerpants]

"Each individual knows best what makes him/her happy."
Appears to contradict...
The most obvious answer to the question "How to achieve happiness" would be to induce perpetual happiness-inducing drugs in every human.
Which isn't how deduction properly works.

Here you take my assumptions and answers out of context.

If you cannot induce happiness-drugs into people, you are left with leaving it to the individual to achieve his/her own happiness.

That still contradicts "Each individual knows best what makes him/her happy."
Either THEY know best, or the drugs option is best, in which case, YOU know best.
You can't have 'I know best but they know better', this is a matter of extremely simple logic.

I am not unfairly quoting you out of context just by quoting you out of sequence to compare two contradictory sentences you have written, unless in doing so I am somehow changing the meaning of phrases such as "Each individual knows best what makes him/her happy", which would be an utterly absurd claim. I recommend against it.

Of course a government run by experts should not violate basic human rights.
It should allow people to think freely and enjoy life, however it should limit the mobs and prevent the mobs from gaining any political influence.

Why? Just writing 'of course' doesn't explain anything. You are clearly a utilitarian, arguing for the maximising of happiness as the greatest good, so if abusing a small number of people's rights promotes greater happiness for the whole, you would appear to be in favour of that. Otherwise you have to pretty much abandon all of your stuff about happiness and start replacing it with other stuff about rights, dignity, eudaimonia or whatever you really mean instead.

But here's the thing, how would you define totalitarianism? I've decided to cook up my own definition which is this:
A society is democratic exactly to the extent that its politics must change to suit the desires of the people, and it is totalitarian to the extent that the people must change to accomodate the needs of its politics.

I disagree with your definition of totalitarianism. Totalitarianism is when you criminalize criticism of the government and prevent free speech, even jokes. When you force people to wear certain types of clothing and certain religious ideas. That is totalitarianism.

All of that stuff there, as well as much more, such as teaching children to snitch on their parents for minor transgressions, comes under the heading of forcing the people to change for the sake of the politics.

Furthermore, if you are going to insist so unwisely on this details only definition of oppressive regimes, you need to get all of the details. It's not very useful to tell me you have a defintion of totalitariansim that doesn't include a single political party claiming a monopoly on the right to express the will of the people.

That potentially conflicts with your other claims. Surely whether or not a university education is for all should be a decision made by a panel of experts who have expertly established that it would make everyone happy? Why are you assuming this in advance of collecting the data? Also there is a good econometric argument for not providing university tuition for free - students are more likely to choose a challenging course with good career outcomes if they are having to choose how they spend their own money. Also free university tuition is, economically speaking, mostly a subsidy for the middle classes paid by the lower classes who are both less likely to attend university and more likely to drop out before realising their gains.

Education and knowledge in general should be provided for free, even despite the lack of incentives to finish their studies.

I believe the introduction of Basic Income should solve the problem of economic incentives.

Now you are just putting the cart before the horse again. How do you know that this government of excellent technocrats will support either of those things? I've already mentioned technocratic reasons not to provide higher education for free, your answer doesn't reference any way in which we can know in advance that doing otherwise would result in happier people rather than bored students. The same can be done with UBI which is far from a self-evidently good idea.

[philosopher]

That still contradicts "Each individual knows best what makes him/her happy."
Either THEY know best, or the drugs option is best, in which case, YOU know best.
You can't have 'I know best but they know better', this is a matter of extremely simple logic.

Individuals know what is best for them. Though, "knowledge" and "best" are opinions which are nothing but chemical balances.
That is, in theory, drugs can make you change your opinion on what is best.

Free will is an illusion. Your opinions are based on chemical balances in your brain.
In theory your opinions can be changed by certain drugs.

I pointed out that such drugs are unrealistic to achieve let alone to administer to the entire population, that's why I left the choice for the
more "natural" ways of the individual in making his/her own choices.

There is nothing logical contradictory there.

I am not unfairly quoting you out of context just by quoting you out of sequence to compare two contradictory sentences you have written, unless in doing so I am somehow changing the meaning of phrases such as "Each individual knows best what makes him/her happy", which would be an utterly absurd claim. I recommend against it.

What an individual might be doing with his/her own life is a matter of choice, though it is not free nor neccessarily scientific, but it is a choice or decision (better word).

I don't believe the government should prevent individuals from making decisions affecting their own lives for good or bad.
But a democratic government, and I really don't care if it has got a 99.999 % in favor of depriving me of my own choices and decisions.
I don't want anyone other than myself to decide the fate of my life!

Otherwise you have to pretty much abandon all of your stuff about happiness and start replacing it with other stuff about rights, dignity, eudaimonia or whatever you really mean instead.

Happiness = rights, dignity, eudaimonia etc.

All of that stuff there, as well as much more, such as teaching children to snitch on their parents for minor transgressions, comes under the heading of forcing the people to change for the sake of the politics.

Furthermore, if you are going to insist so unwisely on this details only definition of oppressive regimes, you need to get all of the details. It's not very useful to tell me you have a defintion of totalitariansim that doesn't include a single political party claiming a monopoly on the right to express the will of the people.

As already stated, I do not believe other people should take my liberty just because they have some silly ideas on what they believe is best for me.
Regardless of their majority.

I hate democracy exactly because it steals liberty!

How do you know that this government of excellent technocrats will support either of those things?

Because it is in the very essence of Technocracy!

http://www.technocracyinc.org/

Technocrats wants free education for everyone. They want as much science and technology to solve the problems of societies as scientifically and technologically possible.

Furthermore, to take Technocracy to the most extremes is to abolish the monetary system and replace it with energy credits which is distributed to every citizen regardless of their contributions to society!

Read the link I provided!
http://www.technocracyinc.org/what-woul ... ur-dreams/

[FlashDangerpants]

That still contradicts "Each individual knows best what makes him/her happy."
Either THEY know best, or the drugs option is best, in which case, YOU know best.
You can't have 'I know best but they know better', this is a matter of extremely simple logic.

Individuals know what is best for them. Though, "knowledge" and "best" are opinions which are nothing but chemical balances.
That is, in theory, drugs can make you change your opinion on what is best.

Free will is an illusion. Your opinions are based on chemical balances in your brain.
In theory your opinions can be changed by certain drugs.

I pointed out that such drugs are unrealistic to achieve let alone to administer to the entire population, that's why I left the choice for the
more "natural" ways of the individual in making his/her own choices.

There is nothing logical contradictory there.

That is a specious pile of pretentious nonsense. You lazily conflated knowledge and opinion and then just used a blanket denial of free will to argue that nothing means anything.

You wrote a claim that people know something, you used the normal words for it and the usual meanings apply. Then you wrote a claim that they are wrong about that, and again, you used the normal words and the usual meanings still apply. You contradicted yourself, it did happen, squirming makes it worse. The smart move would have been to simply decide which of the two claims to jettison, not to double down with this absurdity.

I am not unfairly quoting you out of context just by quoting you out of sequence to compare two contradictory sentences you have written, unless in doing so I am somehow changing the meaning of phrases such as "Each individual knows best what makes him/her happy", which would be an utterly absurd claim. I recommend against it.

What an individual might be doing with his/her own life is a matter of choice, though it is not free nor neccessarily scientific, but it is a choice or decision (better word).

What has that got to do with bad claims of quoting out of context? It's absolutely irrelevant.

I don't believe the government should prevent individuals from making decisions affecting their own lives for good or bad.
But a democratic government, and I really don't care if it has got a 99.999 % in favor of depriving me of my own choices and decisions.
I don't want anyone other than myself to decide the fate of my life!

But a technocratic government dedicated to the greatest happiness of the greatest number would decide your fate as well. Your individual happiness is neither here nor there in that equation. So what is your point? Are you saying that a proper government has to visit everybody each morning and tickle their taints until they feel good for the rest of the day?

There's no rational consistency in what you are writing. The bits just have nothing much to do with each other.

Otherwise you have to pretty much abandon all of your stuff about happiness and start replacing it with other stuff about rights, dignity, eudaimonia or whatever you really mean instead.

Happiness = rights, dignity, eudaimonia etc.

That's lazy and meaningless. Please specify what actual relationship you believe there is between dignity and happiness. I can't tell whether you are asserting identicality, or that they depend on each other in some circular fashion, or you are applying some sort of hierarchy where one is superior to the other.

All of that stuff there, as well as much more, such as teaching children to snitch on their parents for minor transgressions, comes under the heading of forcing the people to change for the sake of the politics.

Furthermore, if you are going to insist so unwisely on this details only definition of oppressive regimes, you need to get all of the details. It's not very useful to tell me you have a defintion of totalitariansim that doesn't include a single political party claiming a monopoly on the right to express the will of the people.

As already stated, I do not believe other people should take my liberty just because they have some silly ideas on what they believe is best for me.
Regardless of their majority.

That's an entirely irrelevant response to my point.

I hate democracy exactly because it steals liberty!

Feel free to write that on a bumper sticker, or perhaps a fridge magnet.

How do you know that this government of excellent technocrats will support either of those things?

Because it is in the very essence of Technocracy!

http://www.technocracyinc.org/

Are you being serious? That's the website for some club of neckbeards. It's an amateur hour make believe political party. Are you saying that this particular bunch of weirdos are the superior beings that should run society for everybody's improvement and benefit? The guy who founded the club was the one who authored the theory of peak oil and wanted to reorganise society for fear of it. Peak oil was a myth, that society promoted a shit idea with massive consequences had it been implemented based on a consumption graph and no understanding of economics.

Read the link I provided!
http://www.technocracyinc.org/what-woul ... ur-dreams/

"Yes, the new incentive to work will not be money, but the love one has to do something regardless of money."
Utopian bullshit.

[henry quirk]

Okay, you don't want people messin' with you but you favor technocracy.

How the hell is that supposed to work?

You think technocrats are 'finer clay'?

"If the natural tendencies of mankind are so bad that it is not safe to permit people to be free, how is it that the tendencies of these organizers are always good? Do not the legislators and their appointed agents also belong to the human race? Or do they believe that they themselves are made of a finer clay than the rest of mankind" -Frederic Bastiat

I promise you: they aren't.

[philosopher]

Are you being serious? That's the website for some club of neckbeards. It's an amateur hour make believe political party. Are you saying that this particular bunch of weirdos are the superior beings that should run society for everybody's improvement and benefit? The guy who founded the club was the one who authored the theory of peak oil and wanted to reorganise society for fear of it. Peak oil was a myth, that society promoted a shit idea with massive consequences had it been implemented based on a consumption graph and no understanding of economics.

"Yes, the new incentive to work will not be money, but the love one has to do something regardless of money."
Utopian bullshit.

Your opinion. I have no problem with geeks ruling the world to make Utopia become real.

I believe it is all those "normal people" who make the world bullshit.

[FlashDangerpants]

Are you being serious? That's the website for some club of neckbeards. It's an amateur hour make believe political party. Are you saying that this particular bunch of weirdos are the superior beings that should run society for everybody's improvement and benefit? The guy who founded the club was the one who authored the theory of peak oil and wanted to reorganise society for fear of it. Peak oil was a myth, that society promoted a shit idea with massive consequences had it been implemented based on a consumption graph and no understanding of economics.

"Yes, the new incentive to work will not be money, but the love one has to do something regardless of money."
Utopian bullshit.

Your opinion. I have no problem with geeks ruling the world to make Utopia become real.

I believe it is all those "normal people" who make the world bullshit.

So you started off with some big talk about logical deductions, but within a page you have devolved to it's all just opinions and my opinions matter more to me than yours. You really didn't pick the right name when you joined this forum.

[henry quirk]

My thoughts on politics

Let's try economics...

Keynesian or Austrian?

Which is the foundation for utopia?

[-1-]

This thread is like a three-way boxing match* in a cage fight, with no referees and no pain receptors.

Except, of course, for the spectators.

* I have abandoned working on trying to establish if this is a three- or four-way boxing match.