As good as it gets

[cladking]

The worlds not a cesspool at all it is a beautiful and wonderful place, a pity it had to be populated with remedial barely functioning apes with a penchant for stupidity, and then violence when stupidity does not work, but the world is not to blame for that.

I think one has to look at the bigger picture: if we don't learn from our mistakes we will be wiped out and replaced by something else - archaeology and history has taught us this at least - the only thing you can hope is that when that race of arachnids or insectoids or the planet of the other apes or whatever, is sifting through the detritus we left they learn something about dumb. It is all the hope we have.

Indeed!

Perspective is everything.

Right now we're trying to fool mother nature and can't see that this is impossible.

Mother nature keeps her own books.

The meek will inherit the earth and it just might be sooner rather than later.

[Gary Childress]

Hmmm. So Athens was a democracy and the people of Athens put the very best man in all of Athens to death (Socrates). That was inexcusable. ...

Nope, he didn't have to die, he chose this exit.

It has been argued that was the case. I am familiar with the argument regarding the apparent custom of Athenians to "allow" prisoners to "escape" or flee. They even had a means of escape waiting for Socrates if we are to believe Plato's account of events. However, it sounds to me like Socrates was probably a man of honor and to seek escape from the verdict of the court may have been a huge dishonor to him. It probably would have amounted to complete and utter character suicide. So it may very well have effectively been a death sentence for him irrespective of "custom", would you agree?

[Gary Childress]

...
One would like to hope that there could be "aristocracy" (rule by the best). ...

Why? Do you mean a Meritocracy?

Either/or I suppose. Why? Would you argue that society should be ruled by the worst or least abled? I guess I don't understand the reason for your objection.

[Arising_uk]

Either/or I suppose. Why? Would you argue that society should be ruled by the worst or least abled? I guess I don't understand the reason for your objection.

Because an aristocracy is not a meritocracy.

[Gary Childress]

Either/or I suppose. Why? Would you argue that society should be ruled by the worst or least abled? I guess I don't understand the reason for your objection.

Because an aristocracy is not a meritocracy.

I know aristocracy is not meritocracy. Please tell me something I don't already know for a change. You seem to be a wealth of common knowledge for me. Which one is better, aristocracy or meritocracy and why?

EDIT: I personally don't see a lot of difference between rule by the excellent and rule by the most able. I would think those most able to rule are excellent and the excellent are those most able to rule. But I'm not the expert here, you seem to be.

[Arising_uk]

I know aristocracy is not meritocracy. Please tell me something I don't already know for a change. You seem to be a wealth of common knowledge for me. Which one is better, aristocracy or meritocracy and why?

My apologies, I was thinking of aristocracy as in the form of rule by inheritance, which by my lights does necessarily produce the excellent. How would these best be chosen in your aristocracy?

EDIT: I personally don't see a lot of difference between rule by the excellent and rule by the most able. I would think those most able to rule are excellent and the excellent are those most able to rule. But I'm not the expert here, you seem to be.

As do you but I differ as I disagree with the idea that because someone rules they are produce the best for the rest of us, as British history has numerous examples that say different. I prefer the muddle of Democracy but for this to be truly successful we'd need to offer equality of opportunity to all and raise the general level of education significantly.

[Gary Childress]

But I'm not the expert here, you seem to be.

As do you. . . .

Just between us two "experts", then I don't have "MY aristocracy". I don't WANT an aristocracy. But everywhere I look in the world it seems like an "aristocracy" from what I see.

So either "aristocracy" is the way things should be or else our world is a complete and utter mess, because I have yet to encounter much in the way of the "democracy" you apparently want to have. Where is this "democracy"? Am I just missing the obvious? I've looked high and low for 47 years of my life (my current age) and I have not yet encountered this "democracy" in which you apparently live. Do I need to move to the UK to find it?

EDIT: I live in the United States BTW.

[Arising_uk]

Just between us two "experts", then I don't have "MY aristocracy". I don't WANT an aristocracy. But everywhere I look in the world it seems like an "aristocracy" from what I see.

Sorry, I got confused by you saying this? "One would like to hope that there could be "aristocracy" (rule by the best). ...".

So either "aristocracy" is the way things should be or else our world is a complete and utter mess, because I have yet to encounter much in the way of the "democracy" you apparently want to have. ...

You're confusing me again? Either you have your rule of the best or you don't, which is it?

Where is this "democracy"? Am I just missing the obvious? I've looked high and low for 47 years of my life (my current age) and I have not yet encountered this "democracy" in which you apparently live. Do I need to move to the UK to find it?

No, you live in one, its just not perfect as that would involve its citizens engaging with the process and that would involve a raising of political and philosophical education and that would involve an increase in the motivation of citizens to become active and start the change.

[Gary Childress]

You're confusing me again? Either you have your rule of the best or you don't, which is it?

Fair enough....

I don't know which it is or who is in status of rule, whether it is the best or not. Are the "best" in charge in our society? I don't have that answer. I have heard many complaints that those in charge are just "greedy" and when they fail they are the ones bailed out with great amounts of money while the rest of the citizens suffer bankruptcy and other misfortunes. Capitalism doesn't seem very "democratic" to me. Most people have very little power in a capitalist society. Those who own the means of production make all the real decisions while the vast majority of us who may be "superfluous" don't. Are those who own the means of production the "best"? Should anyone own the means to production?

Please don't split up my paragraph above into a bunch line by line replies. Try to interpret it as a whole idea, not as a series of "one liners". What are your thoughts about Marxism, Capitalism, and Aristocracy?

[Arising_uk]

What are your thoughts about Marxism, Capitalism, and Aristocracy?

Marx wasn't a marxist, Capitalism is a necessary step in Historical Materialism, Aristocracy is a hang-on from previous forces of production. Democracy needs citizens willing and politically and philosophically educated enough to make it work and to achieve this it may well need just a few to start agitating via the democratic processes available to reduce capitalisms current influence upon what is considered valuable, as capitalism can work with most systems but in these cases only for the benefit of the few, to make it work for the benefit of all the values it espouses need to be countered by clear Democratic values as to what being a democratic society entails. My tuppence worth.

[Gary Childress]

. . .as capitalism can work with most systems but in these cases only for the benefit of the few, to make it work for the benefit of all the values it espouses need to be countered by clear Democratic values as to what being a democratic society entails. My tuppence worth.

Thank you for your clarification above.

Three basic points of question. . .

1.) What are the values that capitalism espouses and how can they be "countered by clear democratic values"?

2.) You mention "agitating" but that usually involves clashes with the police and things of that nature and usually comes at a personal price to the agitators. And would agitating be a perpetual project? In other words is there ever a point where agitating can stop and we can be assured that there "is" a democracy and no more effort is required to "agitate" to keep democracy flourishing? Or is democracy itself a process of agitating against the gravitational forces of wealth accumulation under capitalism? Can you elaborate a little on this?

3.) I have always heard that capitalism naturally develops into monopolies of ownership of resources and that the monopolies will have the economic power to perpetuate themselves and therefore pose a direct threat to democracy. For example the Billionaire oil tycoon David Koch recently gave the Smithsonian money to refurbish some of their exhibits. Now the exhibits apparently play down environmental activism in favor of "adapting" to the "inevitability" of global warming. In essence Koch can "buy" the conclusions of scientists that he favors over those that he does not. I do not deny that Koch may be among the "best" at accumulating personal wealth but I'm not so sure he is among the best to use that wealth in his political endeavors, which he does. Do you think there should be a limit on wealth accumulation? Otherwise wouldn't there be too much danger of a slide toward plutocracy? Great concentration of wealth seems to lead to great ability to influence politics and decision making.

[Arising_uk]

1.) What are the values that capitalism espouses and how can they be "countered by clear democratic values"?

That the only value of a person to a society is to be based upon a monetary evaluation, that the values of a society are to be based only upon a monetary evaluation. I find myself hoisted as I think now that 'democratic values' may be the wrong term but cannot think of a better one at present.

2.) You mention "agitating" but that usually involves clashes with the police and things of that nature and usually comes at a personal price to the agitators. And would agitating be a perpetual project? In other words is there ever a point where agitating can stop and we can be assured that there "is" a democracy and no more effort is required to "agitate" to keep democracy flourishing? Or is democracy itself a process of agitating against the gravitational forces of wealth accumulation under capitalism? Can you elaborate a little on this?

I think Mao's and Lenin's 'perpetual revolution' incorrect. I think by agitation I mean using the processes and functions of a democracy to make the changes we wish, this involves finding a message the masses can agree with and if we succeed then the wealthy will have to accede or abandon democracy which would at least make the task of achieving it simpler.

3.) I have always heard that capitalism naturally develops into monopolies of ownership of resources and that the monopolies will have the economic power to perpetuate themselves and therefore pose a direct threat to democracy. For example the Billionaire oil tycoon David Koch recently gave the Smithsonian money to refurbish some of their exhibits. Now the exhibits apparently play down environmental activism in favor of "adapting" to the "inevitability" of global warming. In essence Koch can "buy" the conclusions of scientists that he favors over those that he does not. I do not deny that Koch may be among the "best" at accumulating personal wealth but I'm not so sure he is among the best to use that wealth in his political endeavors, which he does. Do you think there should be a limit on wealth accumulation? Otherwise wouldn't there be too much danger of a slide toward plutocracy? Great concentration of wealth seems to lead to great ability to influence politics and decision making.

Laissez faire capitalism may go that way but most democratic capitalist nations install monopoly and mergers commissions to curb this tendency, I think in America you call this Anti-Trust, as they view such developments as stifling competition and free enterprise. The rich will always attempt to buy favours, the trick is to get the masses to act.