Equality? No such damned thing!

[Shwa]

In the private sector, it did reduce the number of clerks and so on.

Damn, you avoided the ringer, but I'll tell you anyways: more and better technology means more people means more politicians and bureaucrats. But you get a point for style.

Printing was previously controlled by the church. The relatively cheap and portable printing press allowed individuals with divergent views to make themselves known. These debates eventually resulted in a great schism (and wars) which fractured the church into protestant sect.

Schism, sure. But the Catholic Church is hardly "down" and even might be going through a mini-resurgence. Despite the printing press escaping their clutches, there they are, every Sunday calling people to their knees with their softly spoken magic spells.

I would say that technology serves itself, like any virus.

That sounds rather uncharacteristically pessimistic. Did you watch The Matrix on the weekend or something?

Edited November 30, 2010 by Shwa

[bloodyminded]

Technocracy, eh? For more on this technology-first, politicians-second idea please see '1984' by George Orwell.

PS - luckily since you live in a liberal democracy you are able to access and read 1984. Please take note of this irony.

Thank you.

In fact, some might argue that politics (and politicians) are an inherent part of human nature.

It's at least an arguable point, yes. Gack was chosen to lead the hunting party, because Gack had proven himself a sophisticated tactician; further, he had a certain charisma, that fellows like Zorak (for one obvious example) lacked; so the men were willing to take his lead. However, Gack became corrupted by his Power--which, as told to us by Tolkien, Bertrand Russell, and Gack's wives--is what men crave above all else. And when Zorak achieved Power, he was, if anything, even worse; and he was forced to tell lies about his opponent in order to win the poeple's favour. At any rate, often, these men had many sincere wishes for the betterment of their tribes. But the bad qualities came automatically with the good. Hell, even Jesus occassionally seemed more of a hardass than was strictly necessary.

Edited November 30, 2010 by bloodyminded

[Michael Hardner]

Damn, you avoided the ringer, but I'll tell you anyways: more and better technology means more people means more politicians and bureaucrats. But you get a point for style.

The civil service accumulates, that can't be denied. To blame technology for that is kind of like blaming sunlight, for sunlight, technology, and civil service growth seems to always be with us.

Schism, sure. But the Catholic Church is hardly "down" and even might be going through a mini-resurgence. Despite the printing press escaping their clutches, there they are, every Sunday calling people to their knees with their softly spoken magic spells.

Compared to before Henry VIII, they're not doing so well.

That sounds rather uncharacteristically pessimistic. Did you watch The Matrix on the weekend or something?

Not so much. There are good viruses. William S. Burroughs said that language is a virus. It's a metaphor, not to say that it's something that makes you sick but something with a life of its own.

[The_Squid]

Liberal democracy is a complete and utter failure

To steal a quote from Sir Churchill:

Liberal democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others that have been tried....

Or, in the form of a question, what would you suggest in place of our liberal democracy?

The highlights of a liberal democracy (off the top of my head, there are more, obviously):

rights and freedoms, with certain restrictions. i.e. free speach, but not for hate speach, yelling fire in a crowded theatre, etc.

equality between citizens

right to vote for a government

independant judiciary

Do I consider Canada to be perfect? Far from it! Citizens need to work hard to retain the benefits of our liberal democracy... an apathetic citizenry is starting to allow the government to steal some of our hard-won freedoms... "freedom isn't free" as they say...

But is there a better system than a liberal democracy? Enlighten us as to what that might be....

[Shwa]

The civil service accumulates, that can't be denied. To blame technology for that is kind of like blaming sunlight, for sunlight, technology, and civil service growth seems to always be with us

I am not blaming technology at all. Nor the sun. But you gotta admit, good technology allows for bigger governments. And a "service" economy.

Compared to before Henry VIII, they're not doing so well.

Really? Is this before or after the spread of Catholicism in the Americas? I mean, how many Catholics were in the Phillipines in 1548? They've done pretty good over there since ol' Henery the Eight-I-Either-I-Am.

Not so much. There are good viruses. William S. Burroughs said that language is a virus. It's a metaphor, not to say that it's something that makes you sick but something with a life of its own.

Yes, but language doesn't serve itself. Or... hmmm... does it? But you must admit, after talking about Big Brother and technocracies, mentioning a self-pleasuring technological virus had me a little worried there for a minute. LOL. Carry on...

Edited November 30, 2010 by Shwa

[Shwa]

No I am not, I am an anarchist, I would never advocate for Big Brother. I don't think governments are relevant anymore, I don't think money is relevant anymore.

You're no anarchist. If you were, you wouldn't be farting around on the Internet, you'd be huddling downtown somewhere with your fellow wags swapping ad-busters magazines. I see you as a radical only and that is not a bad thing. However, while governments and money might not be relevant, you haven't touched on governance or currency.

All I am suggesting is we use technology to solve the problems that are common to all of man. We all need food, we all need water, we all need a house or a home, these are problems common to all of man. They should be our priority right now.

Ok, but replicators are a few years off yet. In the meantime technology IS being used towards solving the problems common to all man. You just want it yesterday. Understandable.

What I am advocating is a different way of thinking in order to solve the problems that are common to all of us.

The real difference makers were those who advocated different ways of doing in order the solve the problems common to all of us. Then they demonstrated it. Even Edison got off his ass once in a while.

Example:

Say you are in a plane and it is making a crash landing into the middle of the North Atlantic, a life preserver or raft isn't going to do much to save your life in the cold waters. Why not make the cab of the plane detachable from the rest of the plane, make it durable enough to withstand a collision into the ocean, in the cab there would be all the food and necessities for the people, they can later be towed to safety.

A real anarchist would have taken a boat instead.

[ToadBrother]

Don't call me silly old man....I can be silly when I please...in fact Ms. K...I am more of a man than any young man that you know or will ever know..so there!

I'm not sure why you feel the need to wear your testicles on the outside of your pants. If your trying to look hyper-macho, you're only begin to look more suspect.

At any rate, equality is not about where you end up, but where you start. Obviously absolute equality is impossible. What counts is that the system, or the government, or society or however you formulate it, isn't putting up artificial barriers against certain groups attempting to achieve what they will. You know, the whole "pursuit of happiness".

[maple_leafs182]

Your advocating for Big Brother. No thanks.

No I am not, I am an anarchist, I would never advocate for Big Brother. I don't think governments are relevant anymore, I don't think money is relevant anymore.

All I am suggesting is we use technology to solve the problems that are common to all of man. We all need food, we all need water, we all need a house or a home, these are problems common to all of man. They should be our priority right now.

What I am advocating is a different way of thinking in order to solve the problems that are common to all of us.

Example:

Say you are in a plane and it is making a crash landing into the middle of the North Atlantic, a life preserver or raft isn't going to do much to save your life in the cold waters. Why not make the cab of the plane detachable from the rest of the plane, make it durable enough to withstand a collision into the ocean, in the cab there would be all the food and necessities for the people, they can later be towed to safety.

[Michael Hardner]

All I am suggesting is we use technology to solve the problems that are common to all of man. We all need food, we all need water, we all need a house or a home, these are problems common to all of man. They should be our priority right now.

Technology tends to spread like a virus when the conditions are right. Money itself started out as a system of keeping accounts, by scratching symbols in the clay. It was rudimentary, but as a system it created a revolution. Cities of hundreds of thousands of people sprang up from the economic advantages from that system.

I have long thought that new media had potential to supplant money in the same way. One of the reasons is that the web provides market information instantly without regards to place. Some of the advantages of competition may indeed not apply in a web based market.

If you can think about a better form of money, then do so. It will succeed and no one will be able to stop it.

[ToadBrother]

No I am not, I am an anarchist, I would never advocate for Big Brother. I don't think governments are relevant anymore, I don't think money is relevant anymore.

All I am suggesting is we use technology to solve the problems that are common to all of man. We all need food, we all need water, we all need a house or a home, these are problems common to all of man. They should be our priority right now.

A lovely thought. But what happens when someone who has lots of food doesn't want to share, or wants to be paid for the effort that they put into growing the food?

What I am advocating is a different way of thinking in order to solve the problems that are common to all of us.

Example:

Say you are in a plane and it is making a crash landing into the middle of the North Atlantic, a life preserver or raft isn't going to do much to save your life in the cold waters. Why not make the cab of the plane detachable from the rest of the plane, make it durable enough to withstand a collision into the ocean, in the cab there would be all the food and necessities for the people, they can later be towed to safety.

I can't quite tell what you're advocating.

[maple_leafs182]

double post

Edited November 30, 2010 by maple_leafs182

[maple_leafs182]

A lovely thought. But what happens when someone who has lots of food doesn't want to share, or wants to be paid for the effort that they put into growing the food?

Nobody would be in that position.

We as a society would develop an automated farm system that would grow the food for the people. Maintaining the system would become the peoples responsibility, I would assume we would eventually develop computer/robotic systems that would maintain the systems for us.

There would be no need to sell food for we would create an abundance. You can't sell what is already in abundance.

I can't quite tell what you're advocating.

This is why I have no plans to become a teacher, I am terrible at articulating my thoughts.

[ToadBrother]

Nobody would be in that position.

We as a society would develop an automated farm system that would grow the food for the people. Maintaining the system would become the peoples responsibility, I would assume we would eventually develop computer/robotic systems that would maintain the systems for us.

There would be no need to sell food for we would create an abundance. You can't sell what is already in abundance.

Utopias have been tried before. They don't work. If they did, we would have the Peoples Republic of Earth by now.

[Michael Hardner]

Utopias have been tried before. They don't work. If they did, we would have the Peoples Republic of Earth by now.

I would say our utopia came before technology, maybe. When we were in the garden of paradise, if you want to get poetic and metaphoric about it. This is because that was the environment into which we evolved, and to which we are best suited.

[ToadBrother]

I would say our utopia came before technology, maybe. When we were in the garden of paradise, if you want to get poetic and metaphoric about it. This is because that was the environment into which we evolved, and to which we are best suited.

I don't think any such thing existed. We seek for paradise because we have never really known it. We evolved into a fairly harsh environment that forced us to spread across the globe in a race for resources. Any stability we've had we've pretty much made.

[Michael Hardner]

I don't think any such thing existed. We seek for paradise because we have never really known it. We evolved into a fairly harsh environment that forced us to spread across the globe in a race for resources. Any stability we've had we've pretty much made.

It was harsh, true, but it was what we were made for. Also the life expectancy of 30 yrs too.

[Oleg Bach]

Your righteous indignation don't mean a damn thing. You were easily bested by a smart young woman and it had nothing to do with liberalism, Black Friday shoppers or 1776.

Now, make like a good boy, sit up and shake a paw...

There ! You silly people is my point...the person calling me a dumb dog is total proof that there is no such thing as human equality. I am clearly an inferiour...sweet how most answering to the call of this thread like to put themselves on the high ground when it comes to evolutionary prowess.

[Oleg Bach]

I would say our utopia came before technology, maybe. When we were in the garden of paradise, if you want to get poetic and metaphoric about it. This is because that was the environment into which we evolved, and to which we are best suited.

Looks like we all missed the point...Maybe I was trying to instill real class into the equation. The ancient concept of nobelity originated in the superiour person taking care of his lessers..It was what public service was originally all about..The old term aristocrat literally meant best to rule...now who ever is the best liar- cheat and thief rules..and we comply like dumb dogs...Look at how many people in the world comply and eccept every nasty thing - if in return they get food - lodging and cash...does that make the average person inferiour on a moral and social scale - as compared to what true good human potential should be?

[Oleg Bach]

You've got the whole premise wrong, silly old man.

People are supposed to start with the same opportunities. The rest is up to them. There's nothing about forcing people to stay equal.

-k

Liberal socialism forces people to be mediocre..translated..EQUAL. And as you have proclaimed - If you are YOUNG your are superior to a silly OLD man...Never under estimate...OLD - Old age and treachery as they say...BUT - I am not big on the treachery...stuff...cos' once I got started in that direction I would genocide everyone under 30...and their poodles..

[The_Squid]

A ruling class, aristocracy and monarchy are what will replace our liberal democracy? Sure, I'm all for it as long as I am part of the "blue-blood". Bow down serfs!! bwahahaha.... what a bunch of drivel...

[Oleg Bach]

A ruling class, aristocracy and monarchy are what will replace our liberal democracy? Sure, I'm all for it as long as I am part of the "blue-blood". Bow down serfs!! bwahahaha.... what a bunch of drivel...

Nothing wrong with an uprising of deposed decendents of old kings - nobles - and aristocrats stepping up to the plate - so far the peasants have made a mess of the estate.

[Oleg Bach]

Yesterday I spoke to this jerk...He imagines himself as the elite - very powerful in a legal and finacial way I suppose..but in reality he is a boorish peasant boy with a lust for power...BUT - this guy moves billions of dollars per year...and...there is no purpose or plan to his actions other than domination of the populace..THIS is the aristocracy that is presently in place - and they are NOT the real thing - they are pretenders.

[charter.rights]

Yesterday I spoke to this jerk...He imagines himself as the elite - very powerful in a legal and finacial way I suppose..but in reality he is a boorish peasant boy with a lust for power...BUT - this guy moves billions of dollars per year...and...there is no purpose or plan to his actions other than domination of the populace..THIS is the aristocracy that is presently in place - and they are NOT the real thing - they are pretenders.

"...they are pretenders."

No more than the poor boy who sits on his ass in the mistaken belief that he holds the secret of all life. I mean the rich guy the and poor guy are exactly the same people. Both worship money, one for what it can do and the other for what it can't. The truly gifted person is one who can balance both sides to benefit not only him or herself, but others around them, without tipping into one or the other. And those who hold the secret needn't boast about it, since knowing does not require showing.

[The_Squid]

Nothing wrong with an uprising of deposed decendents of old kings - nobles - and aristocrats stepping up to the plate - so far the peasants have made a mess of the estate.

Where in the world has that system of government worked well?

I don't know why I am even bothering to ask.... the response will be more drivel....

I will answer that myself Oleg. No need for you to respond at all.

No where in the world has a government of ruling class aristocrats and kings worked. They have always been great for those in power and downright vile for those that aren't.

[Oleg Bach]

"...they are pretenders."

No more than the poor boy who sits on his ass in the mistaken belief that he holds the secret of all life. I mean the rich guy the and poor guy are exactly the same people. Both worship money, one for what it can do and the other for what it can't. The truly gifted person is one who can balance both sides to benefit not only him or herself, but others around them, without tipping into one or the other. And those who hold the secret needn't boast about it, since knowing does not require showing.

Nicely put but a tad shifty - love the term "gainfully employed" - which means when coming from the mouth of a power monger..."what have you done for ME lately" - I agree with most that you say...and in truth - this particular man has envy for my TYPE of wealth...as I mature...everyone that I come in contract with benefits by knowing me - one way or the other - so I am generous in MY way ...It is not all about fluid currency..It is about actually having empathy and caring for your fellows..and sometimes the care givers are not paid...Rich people like to get things for nothing...always..Because with out their material wealth they have no sense of personal importance.

As for the "mistaken belief that he holds the secret to all life" - only in the end will we know who was mistaken and who was not..In the meantime _ I suspect that I hold the cards of real value.