Search the Community

It seems like someone forgot to start a thread on "Enlightened Centrism" and is currently preoccupied with arguing about what they consider to be "important" issues. They are missing out on the opportunity to engage in challenging and possibly outside the box debates. If @Americana Antifa will join this thread, may I ask you, to focus on ideas and not swear when you can't hold. If you can't show respect to your keyboard, is very possible you will miss the opportunity to exchange ideas. I used a grammar software to write the below, for better communication, will start this thread with something original which you got me thinking about, then we can debate the real stuff if you respond: Upgraded my computer from a 386 processor to a 486 and finally to a Pentium in the 1990s. I was thrilled to discover the potential of my computer upgrades and eagerly explored new possibilities. Once I had completed the essential setup for the things that mattered, I found myself getting restless and sought out a strategy game to take breaks from my routine. It was exactly how I use this forum like. Started playing a 1998 game called Dune 2000, a strategy game with three factions: House Atreides, House Harkonnen, and House Ordos. Atreides and Harkonnen were popular picks, known for their dogmatic principles. Just like in politics, these 2 sides constantly were battling for control and assuming they had the answer for everything. Atreides and Harkonnen were the good and the bad. Depending on your ideology of course you will take credit for the good one, but the other side thinks opposite of you, is my estimation. Go ahead and call me a Nihilist. 😄 Found myself drawn to the third faction, Ordos, a group of independent mercenaries not aligned with Atreides or Harkonnen. Constantly preferred Ordos, even when others played Atreides or Harkonnen. The more people screamed about the other 2, I went with the Middle Ordos. Did not have an interest that much in politics at the time, my focus was somewhere else, was listening to some agitators from the right, is true, as I told you my Libertarian right BIAS. Was participating in trips at various irrational football activities 😎 which could turn mob related. Did not really cross that red line but probably did my part for ideology more than most keyboard warriors. I was very interested in ideas that emphasized individual freedom and pragmatism over rigid dogma or ideology and Ordos' focus on strict productivity and independence was appealing. This is something that I keep coming back these days: Pragmatism & Productivity, and rejecting dogmatism. Your rant reminded me of this game and how it relates today. Were they perfect, the radical centrists Ordos? absolutely not! They were quite ruthless at times and showed no backing down to achieve their interests, but at the same time they wanted for the main houses to stand so they can move along too and allow their skills to get maximum results. Just like the idea of centrism that I have, with a BIAS from the right. As long as people like you and your "friends" from the other side tell me that I am not, it means I am doing quite fine. Looking forward to hear your points about how "Enlightened Centrism" is damaging to you and your echo-chamber. Thanks. Will take my time to respond, lots of things on the go. If others want to come in and share their ideas on: "Enlightened Centrism", please go ahead. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dune_2000

Anarchism is a political philosophy that advocates for the abolition of centralized authority and the promotion of individual autonomy and collective decision-making. While some view anarchism as a utopian dream, others see it as a practical and necessary response to the limitations of traditional political systems. @myata While anarchism offers potential benefits such as freedom, cooperation, and creativity, it also presents significant challenges in terms of coordination, enforcement, and ensuring the well-being of members in society. I appreciate the ideals of individual freedom and mutual cooperation espoused by anarchism however I believe that the challenges of coordinating complex societies and ensuring the well-being of all members make it an unrealistic and ultimately impractical political philosophy. What do you think are the pros and cons of anarchism? Is it a viable political philosophy, or are its drawbacks too great to overcome? No Borders, No Banks. 🤣 ---> Can Anarchism still have validity in 2023, when everything is digital, is BitCoin being used by Anarchists, now? what do they mean by no Banks? If one does not use the bank, how is one going to function in society? or do you expect society will adapt to you, the anarchist? All valid questions. I won't talk about the No Borders part, national security is not important for these folks, it seems.

As someone who follows at times Reason.com, Ron Paul, Rand Paul, and other libertarian figures, I'm interested in hearing thoughts on Libertarians in the US. I often see people identify themselves also as <- libertarian right & libertarian left -> Do most Libertarians in the US vote for the Republican Party? What is your opinion?

This is a Federal announcement by Morneau and why I placed this topic here and NOT in 'political philosophy'. But it is just as valid there. I just saw on CTV's news network (or CBC's, given I watch both back and forth) that Morneau is proposing to suggest a law that exposes the ownership of corporate shareholding. I thought about this long ago as what is NEEDED in our day because we cannot determine where conflicts of interest exist. Our society (worldwide) is losing ground on faith in the marketplace precisely because there are highly likely hidden cross-ownerships in shareholding of APPARENT distinct competing companies. This hidden capacity is protected in secrecy mostly for the sake of making shares "liquid" (easy to exchange as dollar bills). This originally was an accidental factor about the nature of that liquidity. Anyways, his announcement is likely a distracting appeal to give those like myself a willingness to overlook his own recent concerns of inappropriate financial behaviors. But this is as much good news to prevent any behaviors of his concern if only because it publicly spells out who actually CONTROLS which industries. Many industries now are 'virtual monoplies' to which we can assert as a conjecture but cannot definitively PROVE because of the secrecy protection provided by Corporate Laws prevent this one major factor from demonstrating it. What do you think, if you follow the economics? Did you ever consider this secrecy concern yourself? AND, do you actually think that this major gesture of change that could expose too many people in the corporate world would actually pass if proposed as a bill?

6 Creative Evolution, Political Philosophy for Human Future By Exegesisme 1, On preparation for expecting change of climate of future and general principles, God choices the good being from the beings of the existing existence, and improves the genome of the being. 2, God choices another being from the being or highly related with the being, and creates the opposite gender of the being. 3, The being and another being reproduce offspring which together form a new species. The process of 1, 2 and 3 is called creation. 4, The beings of the new species migrate to different geographical conditions and forms sub-species in each set of geographical conditions. This process is called evolution, together with creation forms creative evolution. 5, Human being is still in the process of creative evolution. Human civilizing systems should be and will be reformed consciously to cooperate the process of the creative evolution.

4 Tragic False Rule, Political Philosophy for Human Future​ By Exegesisme Where there are communism regimes, where there are evils and demons, where there are tragic false rules. Marx is that original source of all those communism regimes, those evils and demons, those tragic rules. Marx is a general demon. Kant‘s philosophy arrogantly limited the domain of God, opened the door for human arrogance, stressed human morality on no foundation or unknown foundation, set that demon free from hell. That demon rode on that will of human and gradually found and realized its whole nature in that confused elf of Marx, and made Marx become that largest human demon in human history. Human beings and human rational abilities can only transcend on the right way of God. Human will certainly make tragedy on their own arrogant transcendence. Kant is a case, he made that demon of Marx! Every scholar should be aware in front of those two cases, knowledge expressed in wrong way can make such a long and huge tragedy.

3 Five Ways for Ending Evil, Political Philosophy for Human Future​ By Exegesisme Five ways or five principles for ending evil. 1, All evil organizations should be ended. 2, All humans in evil organizations should be forgiven if he or she wants to be forgiven. 3, All humans in evil organizations should be helped if he or she wants to be helped to get rid of those evil organizations. 4, All humans in evil ideologies should be helped if he or she wants to be helped to get rid of those evil ideologies. 5, All sufferings from evil ideologies should be covered by sympathy.

Political Philosophy for Human Future​ 1 Definition By Exegesisme Power Definition: originally in physics, the rate of doing work. Human Power Definition: the rate of doing work on human source, including physical source, emotional source, soulful source, mindful source, and spiritual source. And human, refers from one human to all humans. Being Definition: the appearance of something in the process from its beginning to its end. Politics Definition: the being of human power for the future of itself. Political Philosophy Definition: the study of the being of human power for the future of itself.(1) Interpretation (1) For politics should be full of wisdoms, the study of politics should be political philosophy.