Ace Boobtoucher
Founder and Captain of the Douchepatrol
By that I mean I hope an overweight, underpaid copper hoses you down with pepper spray and deports you.
-
Hey, guys! FreeOnes Tube is up and running - see for yourself!
-
FreeOnes Now Listing Male and Trans Performers! More info here!
Occupy thread!
- Thread starter vodkazvictim
- Start date
-
- Tags
- occupy wall street
By that I mean I hope an overweight, underpaid copper hoses you down with pepper spray and deports you.
Yeah, I hate it when the NYC cops go around just caving in people's skulls for no reason. We need to face it, the NYPD is knows for their brutality and lack of bravery, right? They don't try to serve the people, they are just oppressive storm troopers. So, I think the light in which the NYPD are being painted in some instances is totally on the mark. They are just thugs for those who want to oppress society. They are not trying to protect the citizens of New York City.
The Occupy protesters are making a good point. I think people fully understand their message and their anger is well directed at all times. They are completely considerate of the people who live and work in the neighborhood and are never posing a threat to other protesters or to those in the neighborhood or those who work in the area.
It is sad how many people the cowardly NYPD have sent to the hospitals because of their harsh beatings. Sadder yet is how many have been sent to the morgue because the NYPD have killed them.
The protesters have assembled legally. It isn't like they are occupying private property, right? They have permits. They are also following all of the laws.
I'm just sorry to see every time one of the people who are trying to deliver their message get beat over the head or shot.
The United States is a horrible place. Freedom is completely oppressed there. The New York City Police Department is filled with oppressive thugs who are not service minded, are cowardly, and have a long history of brutality over self sacrafice.
The Occupy protesters are making a good point. I think people fully understand their message and their anger is well directed at all times. They are completely considerate of the people who live and work in the neighborhood and are never posing a threat to other protesters or to those in the neighborhood or those who work in the area.
It is sad how many people the cowardly NYPD have sent to the hospitals because of their harsh beatings. Sadder yet is how many have been sent to the morgue because the NYPD have killed them.
The protesters have assembled legally. It isn't like they are occupying private property, right? They have permits. They are also following all of the laws.
I'm just sorry to see every time one of the people who are trying to deliver their message get beat over the head or shot.
The United States is a horrible place. Freedom is completely oppressed there. The New York City Police Department is filled with oppressive thugs who are not service minded, are cowardly, and have a long history of brutality over self sacrafice.
It's difficult to convince a severely brainwashed slave that they are indeed a brainwashed slave.
“None are so hopelessly enslaved as those who falsely believe they are free.” -Goethe
If these men actually think they are "fightin'fur freedum", and "spreadin' mockracy", then they are brainwashed slaves of low intelligence.
I don't suppose I will be able to convince you of anything either?
"Happy slaves are the most grim enemies of freedom." -Marie von Ebner-Eschenbach
What out-of-place quotes Jenkum. Goethe's quote could be used against you as well. (Considering you think they are slaves, and so you think you are somehow free?)
Fact is they didn't break any laws yet they are being arrested, this is injust even by our own standards.
On a side note: am I now officialy a socially awkward pinguin for giving a long and serious answer to all the questions in the OP...? Damn...
Ace Boobtoucher
Founder and Captain of the Douchepatrol
Marching without a permit.
Obstruction of traffic; bot vehicular and foot traffic.
Trespassing.
Arrested protesters should be charged simply with marching without a permit and/or obstructing traffic.
These are definitive simple laws that have been broken. There can be no defense. Freedom of speech does not allow a person or group of people to break the law.
What to do is difficult to pinpoint. But the protesters have not made even one concrete, doable suggestion. Until a definitive platform is developed, protests are meaningless and will not achieve anything positive.
Obstruction of traffic; bot vehicular and foot traffic.
Trespassing.
Arrested protesters should be charged simply with marching without a permit and/or obstructing traffic.
These are definitive simple laws that have been broken. There can be no defense. Freedom of speech does not allow a person or group of people to break the law.
What to do is difficult to pinpoint. But the protesters have not made even one concrete, doable suggestion. Until a definitive platform is developed, protests are meaningless and will not achieve anything positive.
A slave that knows he is a slave at least has a free mind.
vodkazvictim
Why save the world, when you can rule it?
:offtopic:Seriously, man. What are you expecting? Most guys on here are cops, beer drinkers and tea party reactionaries. They LIKE their lives as couch potatoes and do not want change EVEN if their mortgage is killing them. Because, for people like Jack "0" Bauer or Thomas O´Malley there is nothing worse than change and progress...
:offtopic:
:offtopic:How about this answer?
:thumbsup: but :offtopic:
:thumbsup: but :offtopic:
I declare you a vegetable :tongue:
THANK YOU FOR BEING THE FIRST ONE TO BE ON TOPIC!
:iloveyou:
Ace Boobtoucher
Founder and Captain of the Douchepatrol
You're a vegetable.
Ace Boobtoucher
Founder and Captain of the Douchepatrol
I am the greatest thread-killer around. All you bitches better recognize.
TheOrangeCat
AFK..being taken to the vet to get neutered.
vodkazvictim
Why save the world, when you can rule it?
Wow. Just wow.
As a reward you may kiss my hairy arse and tongue my unwiped hole
Shouldn't this thread be merged with all the other occupy related threads?
No reach around necessary.
No reach around necessary.
That was a great sarcastic post.
I agree with your point that the NYPD is being misrepresented in many instances.
It is dangerous to post sarcastically like that. Let me know if anyone who is challenged with reading comprehension gives you negative rep or flames you because they think you are taking a shot at the NYPD.
I agree with your point that the NYPD is being misrepresented in many instances.
It is dangerous to post sarcastically like that. Let me know if anyone who is challenged with reading comprehension gives you negative rep or flames you because they think you are taking a shot at the NYPD.
Inavading a sovereign country for no reason. NOT having the balls to bomb the crap out of Saudi Arabia who are your real enemy. Yeah, you losers are truly defending freedom. Corporation's freedom.
I for one, like my neighbors to the south.
Should we elect a prime minister, or should a council of 7 (no ties unless somebody abstains) rule in the place of a single leader?
With "the leader" you mean the prime minister? Well, the prime minister doesn't lead alone, he's got al his ministers with him. We could think about who should be in the charge: the members of parliament or the government? This is a question that deals with the trade-off between efficiency and democracy, and the question if the parliament somehow represents the elusive "will of the people".
I won't go down that road, but perhaps we can think of other option. When you google Governance 2.0 you will find a lot of people who're trying to use the internet for more direct representation of citizens. Perhaps this is a road we should take. (But be careful: Advocates of Governance 2.0 have utopian tendencies, so don't believe everything they say.)
THANK YOU FOR BEING ON TOPIC! WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH THE REST OF YOU THAT YOU COULD NOT DO WHAT THIS GUY DID?!
OK Spree, lets just say that I love you and lets acknowledge that the guys who make the decisions have a great many advisors, should we have one guy making decisions on the advice of his advisors or a group of 7 making the decisions, or perhaps the decisions should be made by a group senate?
Utopia as I understand it is a perfect society. What do you mean by warning of the dangers of Utopians?
I will look into governance 2.0, but need I remind you of the inherant lack of security of the internet and resultant potential for vote-hijacking via hacking?
You don't need to. In my bachelorthesis I critized this school of thought precisely because they place too much faith in a very new technology. They look to big business and say it must be an example for government. They believe the so-called Wikinomics (digitalized open source products) should be applied to legislation. The funny thing is that one of the reasons for businesses to resort to Wikinomics is because digital security is expensive, complex and almost always very imperfect.
In my thesis I also made the claim that Governance 2.0 had a lot of utopian tendencies. By utopian I mean that they are extremely confident that their goal is the right one, the only question that remains is how to get there. This can lead to very bad decisionmaking. For example, they also assume that everyone is like them: We all know how to use the internet, want to use it, and we all want to spend a lot of out time thinking about politics. (Or at least: a big part of the population is like them). But they forget that not everyone has the same digital skills. This means that (say we got an entirely digital government) the power hierarchy will de decided (in part) by this skill. This is contradictive with their claim that when the digitalized government is realised, hierarchy will be a thing of the past. (They assume Wikinomics-using businesses are anarchic... what a joke.
What do we think of the idea of passing a law forbidding a company to open more than one outlet in a city in order to aid smaller businesses? (Think how many Starbucks' are preventing the rise of local cafes).
This might even damage small business in my view. Think about how the small businesses (and anyone actually) are dependent upon large scale mass production. From simple nuts and bolts to microchips, mass production is very efficient. It would be wise to translate this dependency is some form of power. The first idea that pops up in my mind is something like a democratic system within economic sectors. Perhaps we could create some system that forces big businesses to answer to the small businesses in their sector. An economist might think that the supply/demand system would be enough for this (because the big business supplies the smaller ones with certain goods) but I don't think so. VV perhaps you can think of some form of institutional arrangement?
Perhaps we could use economic incentives to force big businesses to cater effectively to small businesses.
Of course, in the case of Cafe/Restaurant/Supermarket chains, multiple premises in one city provides too much competition for small businesses IMHO. I also believe that factories for such things as nuts and bolts can produce a good enough quantity of goods in one location in order to provide a region.
I think economic incentives can be a very effective instrument. I recently discovered that Adam Smith's idea of capitalism was that big businesses should be banned because they destroy the workings of competition. Isn't that an interesting thought for those who call our system capitalist?
Should we attempt to bring in genuine Communism?
Well I think it would be a good idea for the US to get a more European system. (because I think our system is a better safeguard for the positive freedom of the citizens). Genuine Communism is, and will always be imho, an utopia. This is because communism needs superabundance. There needs to be enough of everything so that no one has to worry about getting enough. Marx idea was that if everyone would be free from the struggle to survive, only then would we be free as humans. But superabundance will never be reached. No matter how much we have of good X, it will always be a real number. That means it will always be less then infinity and usage of the good by person A will always decrease the amount person B can use.
[color]again, what is wrong with Utopia? And how can we argue that superabundance can never be reached? We have more food than we can eat in the West while Africa starves. Not only that, but is abundance, yet alone superabundance necessary? Many would argue that the Spartans have the right idea as concerns creature comforts.
Aditionally, the fact that good A is depleted by usage of it by person A doesn't necessarily deprive person B of sufficient quantity.[/color]
The bad thing about Utopia is that it can't be reached. Many times people have tried to establish utopia's (mostly by force), one example is the Leninist "communism". And yes we do have a lot of food, but still you can't get it for free. Which was, as I see it, Marx idea of superabundance. That distribution would be solely based on need (and not on work). Interesting in this regard is that he thought that only if people didn't need to work anymore, then they were free. So I think that his idea of superabundance means that stuff's just there, we no longer have to do anything. (In the industrial revolution people had a huge faith in machines, so it seems.)
Should we head for anarchy rather than government?
Nope. Anarchy as I know it means unregulated social interaction. The problem with this system is that the only limits placed on anyone's behavior are internal. It's only the morality of the person which regulates his conduct with others. But no two conceptions of the good have to be the same. There must be some form of organization to regulate the battling conceptions of the good. (If you're interested in this topic: Rawls writes a great deal about the priority of justice (our overlapping consensus about what would be a good society) over the the good (an individuals conception of what would be a good life)). Answered negatively: Violence is a natural monopoly, to have certain authorities who both have dominance in the field of violence (say, private protection bureau's instead of government) would mean war until one remains. (This then would be what we now call: the government). This alarmes us to the fact that governement didn't come to power trough just ways or anything, it was merely the right of the strongest.
The best we van do is to keep this monopolist of violence in check as much a we can, and use it to further our common conception of justice.
This was more of a thought experiment than anything. The fact is that a decision by a nation to adopt anarchy is itself organisation in that the whole nation has chosen the system, ergo, not anarchy.
Not only that, but with anarchy there are, as you so rightly point out, no safeguards.
CAN ONE NOT ARGUE THAT WE ARE ALREADY LIVING IN ANARCHY, BUT THAT WE CHOOSE TO BELIEVE THAT WE ARE NOT? AFTER ALL, THE RULES THAT APPLY TO US DO NOT APPLY TO OUR RULERS, THEREFORE, THERE IS NO RULE BUT CLUB LAW, WHICH IS PRACTICALLY ANARCHY. THOUGHTS PEOPLE?
Well, the rules do apply to our rulers. At least formally. (And there are a few cases were politicians have been punished.)In our system power still plays a very big role though. (That why a lot of mighty people can get away with crimes, like our former Prince Bernhard (I'm a dutchman). The difference with pure anarchy though, is that positions of power aren't related to violence but to other skills. (Note: the power of the government is definitely based on their monopoly on legal violence, but I'm talking about power between citizens.) The idea of representative democracy is not that there is no power anymore, but that these positions are open to as much people as possible. And (and this is crucial) that these positions of power are checked by the opinion of the very people they rule. Of course it is debatable how strong this check is. (A simple vote) I think it could be stronger, but in my opinion this is in principle a very good system.
What should we do with the IMF? They've kept Africa poor and are maneuvering the rest of the world into the same situation.
The problem is that it is very hard to do something with the IMF. But if you want to believe realist international relations theory, a change will come. They explain the rise, fall and change of international organizations by the amount of great powers in the system. Right now we're in an hegemonic system (meaning: the US is the only great power). But, as everyone knows, other countries are rising in power.
The theory about the rise and behavior of international organizations is as follows: The hegemon (sole great power) has the greatest interest in keeping the system at the status-quo, therefore it will try to promote peace (and subordination) everywhere. This is best done with international organizations because the hegemon has the most resources to set up these things and edit the rules in there favor. When you take a look at the IMF, it's obvious it's been build to promote american interests. Considering the change of system in the near future (with multiple great powers).
The IMF will either become a fossil of the past or change with the changing distribution of power. What will it look like? I don;t know, any ideas?
But if we decide we have no need for money and just abandon the whole concept, what can the IMF do? They demand payment, we yawn. Or pay. If we decide money is valueless, it becomes valueless. They can send in the army to sieze money, but if people refuse to trade goods or labour for that monney it is then just pretty pieces of paper.
Well, if we abandon money, some new currency will arrive. The need to acquire goods is not only a human need (food, clothing etc.) it's also (in our individualized world) a method for self expression. Just watch television for a day and count how many times during commercials the emphasis is placed on expressing your individuality. I can tell you: LOTS of times.
Should we eliminate money?
I don't think so. Money isn't the root of all evil. It's the expression of a want present in all of us: the want to sustain ourselves and further our conception of the good. We'll need resources for this, wether it is money or simple trade stock like sheep and cattle. The problem of overacquiring money is an institutional problem. I believe that humans responds to there environment in such an extent that system can be created that promote selfless behavior. To do that, the selfless behavior has to be in the interest of the one doing it. (This sounds paradoxal, but what it actually means is that the personal interest coincides with the social interest). For a long time, and even now, a lot of economist think the perfect market will create this kind of system. But the worsening crises all over the world show that either the perfect market is a utopia that we will never reach, or it's an utopia not worth persuing. Some more limited form of the market, with more institutional checks and balances, will have to be created imho.
Utopia is by definition (unless I'm mistaken) perfect, flawless society. Even if aiming for Utopia is an unachievable goal, surely the improvements on our current society are worth the effort that we would require in order to achieve them?
Yes this is true, but one should always keep in mind that your Utopia isn't mine. We live in a very pluralistic sociey (because of it's size), there are many different interests and every interest has it's own utopia. (And: Utopia also means no-place, it's always out of reach). But perhaps you aren't as critical as I am on the entire Utopian thinking and you side with Oscar Wilde, who said: "A map of the world that does not include Utopia is not worth even glancing at, for it leaves out the one country at which Humanity is always landing." (Possible source: http://www.notable-quotes.com/u/utopia_quotes.html)
Should prostitution be legal?
Insofar as it is within the limits of justice: yes. But wether you answer yes or no, I believe the key point is to diminish the amount of suffering of prostitutes. Either by bettering their economic status (so prostitution becomes a profession one chooses rather then a profession of necessity) or by a more efficient crime reducing system in this sector.
How about if every police station had a wing devoted to housing prostitutes; all the crime connected with prostitutes would then presumably be either eliminated or avenged immediately. Not only would the prostitutes then be better protected, but their work would be taxed and benefit society.
This would solve that problem... But no matter how rich we are, we still have limited resources. Are you gonna tell the parents of an abducted child the police officer who could have saved hem was busy watching at prostitutes? ;-) My point: there will always be a trade of with other priorities. And policing is one of the prime duties of the state (together with the administration of justice).
Should every single policy be put to public vote?
I don't think so. Hard working citizens have more important matters (for themselves) on their minds then the abstract guiding of the state. I do believe our only option is some form of representation. (Think of people who can't read, are retarded, are disabled so they can't vote on a normal way etc.) But it could be more direct. (Think about Governance 2.0).
So the issue is that only those willing to give time and attention will be able to participate in politics? How is this so different from the current system? (Yes, I am predominantly stoking debate here)
This is different in the sense that a direct democratic system places the duty in people to spend a lot of time and effort on politics and the actual decisionmaking. To do this correctly everyone would have to have quite a lot of knowledge on economics, international situations, ethics, sociology and even physics and combat. In a (semi)representative system, the people have their lackies to do this. (At least, in it's best form. The government should be the servant, and answer to, it's citizens. But it should make the decisions, precisely because it can be held accountable.
Should we move to a republic form of government?
More direct representation would not only allow every person the be more involved with politics, it would also put the moral duty on them to do so. I define a republic (res publica: public matters) by the quality that it places the duty on it's citizens to be actively involved in politics.
By this definition we will go to a more republic kind of government if we succeed in making our representative system more direct.
I think you misunderstand what I mean by republic. And I suspect it's my fault. A Republic, in my opinion is a collection of cities that operate together. Each city is it's own country and the people of each city make their own decisions politically, however the cities operate as a Republic (all together) where it is benefficial to do so.
Alright, so I had a different view of republic. But I'll go by your definitions (because the name is not important, but the concept you're debating). If I get it right basicly you want to have a lot of very tiny countries so that direct democracy because more possible? This could be done, and it would perhaps even be ideal in a political sence. But it would be disastrous in an economic sense. Because trade would become very difficult. Suppose you say: alright, then we'll all have forces open borders and one currency. Then I'll respond: look at the discontent that has brought a lot of european citizens. (Altough I'm not one of them). And we're back at the political level.
Should Co-Operatives be the only form of business allowed?
I think that will make market acces very difficult. This raises the bar for small, one person business to compete. Thus I think this rule will benefit only larger companies. And that's something we don't want, because they already have an power advantage.
Good point
I think so too. ;-)
With "the leader" you mean the prime minister? Well, the prime minister doesn't lead alone, he's got al his ministers with him. We could think about who should be in the charge: the members of parliament or the government? This is a question that deals with the trade-off between efficiency and democracy, and the question if the parliament somehow represents the elusive "will of the people".
I won't go down that road, but perhaps we can think of other option. When you google Governance 2.0 you will find a lot of people who're trying to use the internet for more direct representation of citizens. Perhaps this is a road we should take. (But be careful: Advocates of Governance 2.0 have utopian tendencies, so don't believe everything they say.)
THANK YOU FOR BEING ON TOPIC! WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH THE REST OF YOU THAT YOU COULD NOT DO WHAT THIS GUY DID?!
OK Spree, lets just say that I love you and lets acknowledge that the guys who make the decisions have a great many advisors, should we have one guy making decisions on the advice of his advisors or a group of 7 making the decisions, or perhaps the decisions should be made by a group senate?
Utopia as I understand it is a perfect society. What do you mean by warning of the dangers of Utopians?
I will look into governance 2.0, but need I remind you of the inherant lack of security of the internet and resultant potential for vote-hijacking via hacking?
You don't need to. In my bachelorthesis I critized this school of thought precisely because they place too much faith in a very new technology. They look to big business and say it must be an example for government. They believe the so-called Wikinomics (digitalized open source products) should be applied to legislation. The funny thing is that one of the reasons for businesses to resort to Wikinomics is because digital security is expensive, complex and almost always very imperfect.
In my thesis I also made the claim that Governance 2.0 had a lot of utopian tendencies. By utopian I mean that they are extremely confident that their goal is the right one, the only question that remains is how to get there. This can lead to very bad decisionmaking. For example, they also assume that everyone is like them: We all know how to use the internet, want to use it, and we all want to spend a lot of out time thinking about politics. (Or at least: a big part of the population is like them). But they forget that not everyone has the same digital skills. This means that (say we got an entirely digital government) the power hierarchy will de decided (in part) by this skill. This is contradictive with their claim that when the digitalized government is realised, hierarchy will be a thing of the past. (They assume Wikinomics-using businesses are anarchic... what a joke.
What do we think of the idea of passing a law forbidding a company to open more than one outlet in a city in order to aid smaller businesses? (Think how many Starbucks' are preventing the rise of local cafes).
This might even damage small business in my view. Think about how the small businesses (and anyone actually) are dependent upon large scale mass production. From simple nuts and bolts to microchips, mass production is very efficient. It would be wise to translate this dependency is some form of power. The first idea that pops up in my mind is something like a democratic system within economic sectors. Perhaps we could create some system that forces big businesses to answer to the small businesses in their sector. An economist might think that the supply/demand system would be enough for this (because the big business supplies the smaller ones with certain goods) but I don't think so. VV perhaps you can think of some form of institutional arrangement?
Perhaps we could use economic incentives to force big businesses to cater effectively to small businesses.
Of course, in the case of Cafe/Restaurant/Supermarket chains, multiple premises in one city provides too much competition for small businesses IMHO. I also believe that factories for such things as nuts and bolts can produce a good enough quantity of goods in one location in order to provide a region.
I think economic incentives can be a very effective instrument. I recently discovered that Adam Smith's idea of capitalism was that big businesses should be banned because they destroy the workings of competition. Isn't that an interesting thought for those who call our system capitalist?
Should we attempt to bring in genuine Communism?
Well I think it would be a good idea for the US to get a more European system. (because I think our system is a better safeguard for the positive freedom of the citizens). Genuine Communism is, and will always be imho, an utopia. This is because communism needs superabundance. There needs to be enough of everything so that no one has to worry about getting enough. Marx idea was that if everyone would be free from the struggle to survive, only then would we be free as humans. But superabundance will never be reached. No matter how much we have of good X, it will always be a real number. That means it will always be less then infinity and usage of the good by person A will always decrease the amount person B can use.
[color]again, what is wrong with Utopia? And how can we argue that superabundance can never be reached? We have more food than we can eat in the West while Africa starves. Not only that, but is abundance, yet alone superabundance necessary? Many would argue that the Spartans have the right idea as concerns creature comforts.
Aditionally, the fact that good A is depleted by usage of it by person A doesn't necessarily deprive person B of sufficient quantity.[/color]
The bad thing about Utopia is that it can't be reached. Many times people have tried to establish utopia's (mostly by force), one example is the Leninist "communism". And yes we do have a lot of food, but still you can't get it for free. Which was, as I see it, Marx idea of superabundance. That distribution would be solely based on need (and not on work). Interesting in this regard is that he thought that only if people didn't need to work anymore, then they were free. So I think that his idea of superabundance means that stuff's just there, we no longer have to do anything. (In the industrial revolution people had a huge faith in machines, so it seems.)
Should we head for anarchy rather than government?
Nope. Anarchy as I know it means unregulated social interaction. The problem with this system is that the only limits placed on anyone's behavior are internal. It's only the morality of the person which regulates his conduct with others. But no two conceptions of the good have to be the same. There must be some form of organization to regulate the battling conceptions of the good. (If you're interested in this topic: Rawls writes a great deal about the priority of justice (our overlapping consensus about what would be a good society) over the the good (an individuals conception of what would be a good life)). Answered negatively: Violence is a natural monopoly, to have certain authorities who both have dominance in the field of violence (say, private protection bureau's instead of government) would mean war until one remains. (This then would be what we now call: the government). This alarmes us to the fact that governement didn't come to power trough just ways or anything, it was merely the right of the strongest.
The best we van do is to keep this monopolist of violence in check as much a we can, and use it to further our common conception of justice.
This was more of a thought experiment than anything. The fact is that a decision by a nation to adopt anarchy is itself organisation in that the whole nation has chosen the system, ergo, not anarchy.
Not only that, but with anarchy there are, as you so rightly point out, no safeguards.
CAN ONE NOT ARGUE THAT WE ARE ALREADY LIVING IN ANARCHY, BUT THAT WE CHOOSE TO BELIEVE THAT WE ARE NOT? AFTER ALL, THE RULES THAT APPLY TO US DO NOT APPLY TO OUR RULERS, THEREFORE, THERE IS NO RULE BUT CLUB LAW, WHICH IS PRACTICALLY ANARCHY. THOUGHTS PEOPLE?
Well, the rules do apply to our rulers. At least formally. (And there are a few cases were politicians have been punished.)In our system power still plays a very big role though. (That why a lot of mighty people can get away with crimes, like our former Prince Bernhard (I'm a dutchman). The difference with pure anarchy though, is that positions of power aren't related to violence but to other skills. (Note: the power of the government is definitely based on their monopoly on legal violence, but I'm talking about power between citizens.) The idea of representative democracy is not that there is no power anymore, but that these positions are open to as much people as possible. And (and this is crucial) that these positions of power are checked by the opinion of the very people they rule. Of course it is debatable how strong this check is. (A simple vote) I think it could be stronger, but in my opinion this is in principle a very good system.
What should we do with the IMF? They've kept Africa poor and are maneuvering the rest of the world into the same situation.
The problem is that it is very hard to do something with the IMF. But if you want to believe realist international relations theory, a change will come. They explain the rise, fall and change of international organizations by the amount of great powers in the system. Right now we're in an hegemonic system (meaning: the US is the only great power). But, as everyone knows, other countries are rising in power.
The theory about the rise and behavior of international organizations is as follows: The hegemon (sole great power) has the greatest interest in keeping the system at the status-quo, therefore it will try to promote peace (and subordination) everywhere. This is best done with international organizations because the hegemon has the most resources to set up these things and edit the rules in there favor. When you take a look at the IMF, it's obvious it's been build to promote american interests. Considering the change of system in the near future (with multiple great powers).
The IMF will either become a fossil of the past or change with the changing distribution of power. What will it look like? I don;t know, any ideas?
But if we decide we have no need for money and just abandon the whole concept, what can the IMF do? They demand payment, we yawn. Or pay. If we decide money is valueless, it becomes valueless. They can send in the army to sieze money, but if people refuse to trade goods or labour for that monney it is then just pretty pieces of paper.
Well, if we abandon money, some new currency will arrive. The need to acquire goods is not only a human need (food, clothing etc.) it's also (in our individualized world) a method for self expression. Just watch television for a day and count how many times during commercials the emphasis is placed on expressing your individuality. I can tell you: LOTS of times.
Should we eliminate money?
I don't think so. Money isn't the root of all evil. It's the expression of a want present in all of us: the want to sustain ourselves and further our conception of the good. We'll need resources for this, wether it is money or simple trade stock like sheep and cattle. The problem of overacquiring money is an institutional problem. I believe that humans responds to there environment in such an extent that system can be created that promote selfless behavior. To do that, the selfless behavior has to be in the interest of the one doing it. (This sounds paradoxal, but what it actually means is that the personal interest coincides with the social interest). For a long time, and even now, a lot of economist think the perfect market will create this kind of system. But the worsening crises all over the world show that either the perfect market is a utopia that we will never reach, or it's an utopia not worth persuing. Some more limited form of the market, with more institutional checks and balances, will have to be created imho.
Utopia is by definition (unless I'm mistaken) perfect, flawless society. Even if aiming for Utopia is an unachievable goal, surely the improvements on our current society are worth the effort that we would require in order to achieve them?
Yes this is true, but one should always keep in mind that your Utopia isn't mine. We live in a very pluralistic sociey (because of it's size), there are many different interests and every interest has it's own utopia. (And: Utopia also means no-place, it's always out of reach). But perhaps you aren't as critical as I am on the entire Utopian thinking and you side with Oscar Wilde, who said: "A map of the world that does not include Utopia is not worth even glancing at, for it leaves out the one country at which Humanity is always landing." (Possible source: http://www.notable-quotes.com/u/utopia_quotes.html)
Should prostitution be legal?
Insofar as it is within the limits of justice: yes. But wether you answer yes or no, I believe the key point is to diminish the amount of suffering of prostitutes. Either by bettering their economic status (so prostitution becomes a profession one chooses rather then a profession of necessity) or by a more efficient crime reducing system in this sector.
How about if every police station had a wing devoted to housing prostitutes; all the crime connected with prostitutes would then presumably be either eliminated or avenged immediately. Not only would the prostitutes then be better protected, but their work would be taxed and benefit society.
This would solve that problem... But no matter how rich we are, we still have limited resources. Are you gonna tell the parents of an abducted child the police officer who could have saved hem was busy watching at prostitutes? ;-) My point: there will always be a trade of with other priorities. And policing is one of the prime duties of the state (together with the administration of justice).
Should every single policy be put to public vote?
I don't think so. Hard working citizens have more important matters (for themselves) on their minds then the abstract guiding of the state. I do believe our only option is some form of representation. (Think of people who can't read, are retarded, are disabled so they can't vote on a normal way etc.) But it could be more direct. (Think about Governance 2.0).
So the issue is that only those willing to give time and attention will be able to participate in politics? How is this so different from the current system? (Yes, I am predominantly stoking debate here)
This is different in the sense that a direct democratic system places the duty in people to spend a lot of time and effort on politics and the actual decisionmaking. To do this correctly everyone would have to have quite a lot of knowledge on economics, international situations, ethics, sociology and even physics and combat. In a (semi)representative system, the people have their lackies to do this. (At least, in it's best form. The government should be the servant, and answer to, it's citizens. But it should make the decisions, precisely because it can be held accountable.
Should we move to a republic form of government?
More direct representation would not only allow every person the be more involved with politics, it would also put the moral duty on them to do so. I define a republic (res publica: public matters) by the quality that it places the duty on it's citizens to be actively involved in politics.
By this definition we will go to a more republic kind of government if we succeed in making our representative system more direct.
I think you misunderstand what I mean by republic. And I suspect it's my fault. A Republic, in my opinion is a collection of cities that operate together. Each city is it's own country and the people of each city make their own decisions politically, however the cities operate as a Republic (all together) where it is benefficial to do so.
Alright, so I had a different view of republic. But I'll go by your definitions (because the name is not important, but the concept you're debating). If I get it right basicly you want to have a lot of very tiny countries so that direct democracy because more possible? This could be done, and it would perhaps even be ideal in a political sence. But it would be disastrous in an economic sense. Because trade would become very difficult. Suppose you say: alright, then we'll all have forces open borders and one currency. Then I'll respond: look at the discontent that has brought a lot of european citizens. (Altough I'm not one of them). And we're back at the political level.
Should Co-Operatives be the only form of business allowed?
I think that will make market acces very difficult. This raises the bar for small, one person business to compete. Thus I think this rule will benefit only larger companies. And that's something we don't want, because they already have an power advantage.
Good point
I think so too. ;-)
