Religion has no place in politics!

[ToadBrother]

The idea is to use all our resources, physical equipment, knowledge to benefit the total population.

What an economist has to think about it is just one persons opinion.

I see. So this was formulated by Gene Roddenberry. And I'd sooner trust an economist than some guy on an Internet forum whose idea of economics theory is ridiculous platitudes and an idiotic idea that you can get rid of greed or wealth accumulation. Marx and Lenin thought the same thing, but all Communism did was produce a different kind of aristocracy.

But I'll accept your concession that no one who I would seriously consider an expert has ever bothered looking at this.

[maple_leafs182]

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3932487043163636261#

Maybe you this will explain it all better.

[Bonam]

Maybe you this will explain it all better.

I get it, the idea is a techno-utopia that ignores both the current realities of resources and technology as well as fundamental human nature. The United Federation of Planets is a fictional construct in a TV show, not a real economic model fit for implementation.

[Oleg Bach]

Corruption will continue in politics and the rest of the world as long as we continue to live with a money based economy. That is the root of all our problems.

THAT'S religious! Money is the root of all evil...You can't say that!

[maple_leafs182]

I get it, the idea is a techno-utopia that ignores both the current realities of resources and technology as well as fundamental human nature. The United Federation of Planets is a fictional construct in a TV show, not a real economic model fit for implementation.

There is no such thing as human nature, it is human behavior which is ever changing.

We live in a world where over 20,000 children die a day not because there is a lack of food, because they lack purchasing power. That isn't a good enough reason for them to die to me. There are the slight luckier ones who get to slave away their childhood making clothes for us to buy.

How do you guys not see the corruption and deceit that a monetary based economy breeds.

It may have been useful in the passed, now it is counterproductive and destructive.

When the economy collapses, which it will, you will see how stupid it is to have a monetary based economy. A lot of suffering will come for no good reason.

[Bonam]

There is no such thing as human nature, it is human behavior which is ever changing.

So humans are natureless creatures? Association with one's relatives, the drive to find a mate, the desire to be able to improve one's lot in life? These fundamental aspects of human nature don't exist?

We live in a world where over 20,000 children die a day not because there is a lack of food, because they lack purchasing power.

We live in a world where a greater fraction of the children born survive to reach adulthood than ever before in history.

That isn't a good enough reason for them to die to me.

Then feel free to contribute your own resources to the cause. By all means, go to Africa and help the children. We won't stop you.

How do you guys not see the corruption and deceit that a monetary based economy breeds.

What I have seen is the prosperity and progress that it brings.

It may have been useful in the passed, now it is counterproductive and destructive.

On the contrary, the last century has been the height of the golden age of this system, and human civilization has soared to unprecedented heights.

When the economy collapses, which it will, you will see how stupid it is to have a monetary based economy. A lot of suffering will come for no good reason.

The global economy is continuing its centuries long trend of exponentially accelerating growth. Now, the nations of Asia are joining the trend and rapidly lifting people by the hundreds of millions out of the abject poverty in which they previously existed. As technology advances and more of the nations of the world advance with it, this trend will only become ever faster.

[Oleg Bach]

You seem to speak from strictly from an acedemic point of view..and now I see why I do not like professors that profess endlessly and accomplish nothing - see what you get for calling me a drunk...lol.

[maple_leafs182]

So humans are natureless creatures? Association with one's relatives, the drive to find a mate, the desire to be able to improve one's lot in life? These fundamental aspects of human nature don't exist?

You got it.

Our environment and our experiences determine our behavior.

We live in a world where a greater fraction of the children born survive to reach adulthood than ever before in history.

What about the ones who don't survive or spend their lives struggling to survive.

Then feel free to contribute your own resources to the cause. By all means, go to Africa and help the children. We won't stop you.

Thanks, I know what options I have.

What I have seen is the prosperity and progress that it brings.

Progress towards what?

On the contrary, the last century has been the height of the golden age of this system, and human civilization has soared to unprecedented heights.

No we haven't, we are still the same. We do not learn from our mistakes.

The global economy is continuing its centuries long trend of exponentially accelerating growth. Now, the nations of Asia are joining the trend and rapidly lifting people by the hundreds of millions out of the abject poverty in which they previously existed. As technology advances and more of the nations of the world advance with it, this trend will only become ever faster.

Money is not the driving factor for advances in technology. Solving problems is what drives us to advance our technology.

And the global economy will come crashing down soon.

[Shwa]

To each his own, as long as it is his own and does not make it mine without my consent.

There's the problem. You say that common sense can dictate right and wrong. Well when the 'common sense' - as deemed by the elected majority who happens to be from one religion or another - results in policy, your consent isn't required. You've had your say via the vote. It might be easier to view the problem by changing the saying a bit: to each their own.

[GostHacked]

There's the problem. You say that common sense can dictate right and wrong. Well when the 'common sense' - as deemed by the elected majority who happens to be from one religion or another - results in policy, your consent isn't required. You've had your say via the vote. It might be easier to view the problem by changing the saying a bit: to each their own.

Majority rules, yes. That is the democratic way. However, majority might not always be right. My common sense tells me that.

[ToadBrother]

Majority rules, yes. That is the democratic way. However, majority might not always be right. My common sense tells me that.

I doubt that it does, or rather it is very heavily informed by experience. There's no lack of examples of electorates screwing themselves over.

This is my problem with the notion of "common sense". In essence, I don't think there's any such thing. No one has innate sense of what works or what doesn't, or what will work towards the good or the ill (common or persona). We have certain base instincts like "hot hurts" or "falling bad", but beyond that, we are essentially taught everything. What was common sense a thousand years ago in some cases won't be today.

Better than leaning on that, it's best to work from experience itself. If you take the example of democracies not always taking the optimal or right course, you can review the history of democracies, you can look to other democratic jurisdictions. In short you're reviewing data, formulating testable hypotheses. It doesn't necessarily have to be super-rigorous, but I think things should be approached critically.

[Oleg Bach]

Majority rules, yes. That is the democratic way. However, majority might not always be right. My common sense tells me that.

'the majority is always wrong..because the average person is fearful and unaware - they are ignorant...now - if the God Mammon - the god of riches was worshipped today it would be the state religion - money is a religion ----a belief system...so perhaps money should not play any part in politics - that would solve the problem of self serving corruption ..take the religious motivation out of those that run for public office and the high priests will step down or not partake...To blame religion as a culprit that destroys democracy is a mistake ....I would rather see a Christian based democracy than one based on the god Mammon.

[Oleg Bach]

'the majority is always wrong..because the average person is fearful and unaware - they are ignorant...now - if the God Mammon - the god of riches was worshipped today it would be the state religion - money is a religion ----a belief system...so perhaps money should not play any part in politics - that would solve the problem of self serving corruption ..take the religious motivation out of those that run for public office and the high priests will step down or not partake...To blame religion as a culprit that destroys democracy is a mistake ....I would rather see a Christian based democracy than one based on the god Mammon.

JEZZZ COME TO THINK OF IT - Looking at the signs and heralds on an old Catholic church - I noticed a huge money sign with a cross draw down the middle - as if it was saying all the money belongs to Jesus...well as the contract said in corporate Christian socialism - "sell your property and put the money in a common purse and those can come and take as needed" seems that the contract was in breach - you can deposit but you can not withdraw - looks like there is some hording going on. EVERYWHERE.

[Shwa]

I doubt that it does, or rather it is very heavily informed by experience. There's no lack of examples of electorates screwing themselves over.

This is my problem with the notion of "common sense". In essence, I don't think there's any such thing. No one has innate sense of what works or what doesn't, or what will work towards the good or the ill (common or persona). We have certain base instincts like "hot hurts" or "falling bad", but beyond that, we are essentially taught everything. What was common sense a thousand years ago in some cases won't be today.

Better than leaning on that, it's best to work from experience itself. If you take the example of democracies not always taking the optimal or right course, you can review the history of democracies, you can look to other democratic jurisdictions. In short you're reviewing data, formulating testable hypotheses. It doesn't necessarily have to be super-rigorous, but I think things should be approached critically.

I think common sense exists within small cultural or social groups, but is difficult to apply on a larger societal scale where competing interests from other culture groups makes things a little more complex. Does a moral code exist outside of a particular culture group or does it have to be written down to be authentic or authoritative?

[Oleg Bach]

I think common sense exists within small cultural or social groups, but is difficult to apply on a larger societal scale where competing interests from other culture groups makes things a little more complex. Does a moral code exist outside of a particular culture group or does it have to be written down to be authentic or authoritative?

REAL enduring moral codes are like folk songs - they are orally passed down from generation to generation - to write them down as law creates a problem - relative morality then becomes instilled and institutionalized - usually to support some elite small special interest group - Look at our legal system..immoral in nature but legally effective to maintain the status quo.

[ToadBrother]

I think common sense exists within small cultural or social groups, but is difficult to apply on a larger societal scale where competing interests from other culture groups makes things a little more complex. Does a moral code exist outside of a particular culture group or does it have to be written down to be authentic or authoritative?

I don't think common sense exists at any level. Common sense really is just a shorthand for the general beliefs, morals and social experiences. They may be grounded in reality, or may be flights of fancy.

[Shwa]

I don't think common sense exists at any level. Common sense really is just a shorthand for the general beliefs, morals and social experiences. They may be grounded in reality, or may be flights of fancy.

A rose by any other name is still a rose.

"general beliefs, morals and social experiences" I would say this is a good start to a defintion of common sense.

[ToadBrother]

A rose by any other name is still a rose.

"general beliefs, morals and social experiences" I would say this is a good start to a defintion of common sense.

Except that beliefs and morals, and in particular, may be wildly off the mark. I mean, in the American South 150 years ago, blacks being inferior and naturally born to be slaves was "common sense". My point is that common sense may often be common, but it may also not be very sensible.

In my experience, saying "it's just common sense" really means "accept my claim, because everyone will just naturally think it's true". It's really just a nicer name for argumentum ad populum, the fallacy that a proposition must be true because lots of people think it's true.

Edited June 15, 2010 by ToadBrother

[Oleg Bach]

Money is god and politics is intertwined with religion and scull duggery all based on the coercive power of cash..

[maple_leafs182]

All of life's problems are not religious nor political, they are technical.

The free trade/monetary based economy was developed a long time ago based on the assumption that resources are scarce.

We compete for jobs and market share in order to pull money out of the system in order for us to buy the necessities of life. You having a job steals a job from someone else, in this monetary based economy groups of people are always left with the short end of the stick.

Truth is the essentials we need to live are not scarce, water, food, air, homes, we have the knowledge, technology and recourses to create abundance for all of the people of the earth.

In a monetary based system we will never be able to create abundance for abundance is not profitable and scarcity is profitable.

If you take all the wealth, dollars, gold, diamonds and silver with you on an island deserted island you, what would you really have, those would not help you survive. Those are false wealths, resources, technology and people are wealth.

We need to start asking the question 'do we have the resources' as appose to 'do we have the money'.

In a monetary based economy, corruption is only a matter of time.

We need to start applying the scientific method to politics as appose to going off peoples opinions.

[Oleg Bach]

So in the age of high tech - mankind is just pretending that they are evolved? I remember as a kid when computers first came out...I thought to myself - this machine will assist the world in the fair distribution and management of wealth and resourses so as there will be no more war - but in my disappointment - technology was not utilized for the betterment of mankind - it is now a cruse.

[maple_leafs182]

So in the age of high tech - mankind is just pretending that they are evolved? I remember as a kid when computers first came out...I thought to myself - this machine will assist the world in the fair distribution and management of wealth and resourses so as there will be no more war - but in my disappointment - technology was not utilized for the betterment of mankind - it is now a cruse.

Agreed, on a positive note, I see lights in the distance, they are not far away. Their system of power and privileges will come to an end.

[Oleg Bach]

Agreed, on a positive note, I see lights in the distance, they are not far away. Their system of power and privileges will come to an end.

It is not their fault what cards were dealt out to them - The powers that be inherited their positions...and they did their best to manage a very complex empire..now there are no heirs to that empire - once these guys who are entering their 70s soon will retire and all the power and privledge will be up for grabs _ I sincerely hope that the new blood coming in can handle this huge responsibility...all I have seen in 30 years of observation is that total success has taken place - and the children of these men - really do not want dads job - they want normal lives..who will take the helm and sacrifice themselves to real public service --It seems that there are no takers - just corrupt upstarts - the men that rule now are good, wise and lawful..this breed will soon be gone and things will get worse.

[maple_leafs182]

the men that rule now are good, wise and lawful..this breed will soon be gone and things will get worse.

Define good, wise and lawful.

They seem pretty heartless, ignorant and unjust to me.

this breed will soon be gone and things will get worse.

There is no such thing as a good or bad person, there is just people. People are products of the conditioning they have received throughout there life.

It does not matter if we get rid of all the 'bad' or corrupt people in charge, someone will just replace them in time. Corruption is a symptom of the monetary system.

We are all products of our environment, until we change our environment, we can't expect anything to change. Wars will continue to wage and poverty will go unsolved.

[Shwa]

My point is that common sense may often be common, but it may also not be very sensible.

I agree, which is why blindly using "common sense" as any sort of ethical determinant on any scale outside of what is meant by "common" can end up being a nasty trap. I see common sense having its primary use within smaller social or culture groups, but I am very wary of anyone who spouts on about "common sense" outside of the scope of that particular and limited group. Almost as if "common sense" is thought to be transcendent when all it does is limit ones view in the face of social and cultural complexities. That seems like kind of a delusion to me.

In my experience, saying "it's just common sense" really means "accept my claim, because everyone will just naturally think it's true". It's really just a nicer name for argumentum ad populum, the fallacy that a proposition must be true because lots of people think it's true.

Yep. And the problem becomes more accute when mere "common sense" is dressed up and repackaged as rationalism, or worse, democracy. Which is one of the reasons why religion in politics is so insidious and almost impossible to root out since many people get their "common sense" from their religion.

I mean, even 100 years later, the populus is still is not ready for Nietzsche.