Why mixing religion and politics is bad

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: SoylentGreen Now i have you, define a clear and well-planned government.

The Constitution of the United States.

Quote by: SoylentGreen Complex is relative, It has only been a hundred years since the first cars came into existence. My own mother can still remember horses and carriages. My kids communicate through cyber space. The industrial revolution isn't finished, the technology is opening new doors of possibilities and if we survive, the prediction is it will lead to anarchism.

Fascinating observation!

This may be way off the subject, Soylent, but I can't help it. You've touched on a concept that has had a HUGE influence on my political thinking for many, many years... beginning when I was first introduced to the mathematical construct in Jr. High School.

The hyperbolic curve.

Specifically, the chart representing the growth of the world's human population.



Well, it seems that not only population but every aspect of human society is following the same path. Where the Stone Age lasted 10,000 years, the Bronze Age lasted about 2,500, Iron Age lasted about 1,500 years, the Middle Age about 1,000 years, the Age of Sail & Eploration about 500 years... etc. etc. with technology and cultural innovation piling up on top of each other at an exponentially eploding rate... the Enlightenment, the Steam Industrial Age, the Automobile Age, the Jet Age, the Nuclear Age, the Computer Age.

Advances that once took thousand of years now occur in a generation, just as the doubling of the population once took thousands of years and has now occured within two generations.

It's the reason I have absolutely no doubt whatsoever that Man-made Global Warming is real, once Al Gore pointed out the obvious in his book 20 years ago. Our capacity to pillage and pollute the planet has exploded exponentially right along with everything else, so that it's now at the peak of that hyperbolic curve, beyond the average person's capacity to comprehend the enormity of how we're capable of affecting the planet.

500 years ago, the average person was lucky if they ever traveled further than 10 miles from the village in which they were born, and few could read a letter even if they received one. 200 years ago you had to sail across an ocean, and an international letter could take months. 100 years later, a letter might still take weeks. Today we can be anywhere in the world within a day, and communicate with anyone anywhere instantaneously. Our overwhelmingly large planet has shrunk to nothing in a generation.

You say complexity is relative. It's not relative, it's downright mathematical. What's the conventional wisdom now on the increase in computing power? Moore's Law... that computer power will increase exponentially every two years?

Life and it's complexities has gotten beyond that capacity of most average people to comprehend, like counting stars. Agriculture, economics, medicine, warfare, science... name anything that hasn't become exponentially more complex in the last 100 years. Leonardo da Vince could be a Renaissance Man, a Master of many sciences as well as art. Thomas Jefferson could be an architect, a scientist, an inventor and a statesman.

Who could possibly do that today?

No, Americans are going to need government more and more, just to help them keep up and make sense of a world that's moving faster than most of us can keep up.

.

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: Charlatan I think there should be more religion in the laws that govern us, and that is based on the idea there is a God.

Fine.

Who's God?

.

[WindWip]

Quote by: SoylentGreen Thank you, but what is it about historical materialism you disagree with.

Marx recites history in his first 4 models of society: tribal society, ancient society, feudalism and capitalism. His claim was that the political institutions of one society had to be overthrown for the next model to come about. However I have not seen a strong argument for why one level is 'better' than the previous one - especially in the case of anarchism, or whichever model you view as the final model.

A point many men were quick to bring up when a woman once asked why they could not vote.

That's a straw man if I ever saw one.

[WindWip]

Quote by: Sonart . Fine. Who's God?

Hi, you called for me?

[Diogenes]

Sonart you were the one to bring up witch doctors not me:

the Shaman or witch doctor

Secondly this point you made:

Sure, Diogenes, a swell point... provided you can show me those clans, guilds, unions or townships that are completely sovereign entities unto themselves. The Democratic Republic of Sheep Shearers, perhaps? The Sovereign People's Township of Twin Falls? Or are you talking about semi-autonomous organizations that still fall within the jurisdiction of some larger municipal, provincial, feudal, or national government.

Is completely irrelevant to my point...I was talking about tribes not Twin Falls. You do know what a tribe is don't you?

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: Diogenes the Shaman or witch doctor

It had to do with my point that religion... and government ...are part of the human condition, an instinctual desire endowed on us by evolution. Not something that's destructive.

Quote by: Diogenes Is completely irrelevant to my point...I was talking about tribes not Twin Falls. You do know what a tribe is don't you?

Then my question becomes why? I was talking about government in reasonably advanced, civilized societies. Is the "nasty, brutish and short" tribal existence of hunter/gatherer societies really the example of the blessings of anarchism you wish to sway everyone with?

And besides -- as I was pointing out with the Shaman -- even simple tribes had a basic form of government, even if it was simly the Chief and a tribal council. Heck... wolf packs have a basic form of government. It's not an inherent evil, it's a vital nces

.

[SoylentGreen]

WindWip Marx recites history in his first 4 models of society: tribal society, ancient society, feudalism and capitalism. His claim was that the political institutions of one society had to be overthrown for the next model to come about. However I have not seen a strong argument for why one level is 'better' than the previous one - especially in the case of anarchism, or whichever model you view as the final model

.

In this case the word "better" is synonymous with survival, and survival depends on the ability to adapt and change.

Your wrong in three points . his claim was that struggle is a necessary evolutionary process. Evolution is a natural force not one that was designed to make things better for man. Evolution only stops when the species is extinct, So anarchism is not the final model.

That's a straw man if I ever saw one.

i thought it was spot on. Who are you to say what the limits of freedom are?

[SoylentGreen]

SonartThe Constitution of the United States.

Always nice to start with a bit of flag waving.

No, Americans are going to need government more and more, just to help them keep up and make sense of a world that's moving faster than most of us can keep up.

And what magical ability is given to government that they can keep up.
The charts don't take into account our own natural breaking system to this rampant growth.
We only assimilate what we use. People do not need to comprehend all facets to get on with life.

[loser]

Quote: Quote by: Shade The top two reasons throughout history have been religion and the state. No, you just named the two things that PREVENT us from committing crimes... religion to appeal to our better natures, and the state, to punish wrong doers. Indeed, both can be used for evil purposes, but on the whole, societies can't function without government.

Excellent point!

[Marilyn Monroe]

Quote by: Okieslims In my opinion, right wingers tend to be the most patriotic people in America. That said, they also tend to be the most religious people in America, and they seem to desire their religion to be incorperated into our schools, laws, etc. If you disagree with them, they make claims that we would have no laws or morals without christianity as a guide and point to the decloration of indipendence and many other founding documents that reference God to strengthen the words on the paper. I think this mind set lessens the freedom we have in America and I think it is leading us down a dangerous path. I would like to draw a comparison to other countries that incorperate religion into their laws and schools. Muslim nations that live by the book to a far greater degree than the vast majority of christians ever would. Religion, when mixed into the laws of a society, works to remove freedom from the people. A long time ago a friend of mine, in the air force, witnessed a man get his head cut off in the middle east(forget which country he said) for cheating on his wife. This happened in the middle of a town square. Would this have happened if people didnt use the law to punish this man for sinning against God? Women are forced to cover themselves from head to toe, people that believe in other Gods are expelled from the community or worse(sometimes killed), and punishment for sins follows the brutality of the old testiment. Right wingers love to link left wingers and middle easterners together to make the left seem more radical. I think that the middle easterners have more in common with the religious right though. I think the only difference is that middle easterners live by their religious scriptures..they walk it... and American christians simply talk it.. but they want to incorperate it into the laws and do a whole lot more walking and thats kind of scary. SO I hope this little-early mornin rant helps some of you folks realize why mixing religion and politics is a dangerous-freedom sucking practice.

Although I get your point, I'm thinking it hasn't done all that much harm, and this country did get to be great with it, not without it. They say, "don't tamper with success".

Could be right about the ME's which probably isn't really a good thing. They are happy to die for the 72 virgins. Christians aren't really suicidal, it actually goes against the religion.

[loser]

I need a reference for the obvious? "Holy Cow" refers to the belief that Hindus worship cattle, and declaring them "holy", which takes in vain that which truly is holy... God. But if you insist, go here.

Good enough. Don't say that (Holy ***) or you'll go to hell!

A straight up, ignorant lie. Ask any homosexual. You do know some homosexual well enough to ask them such a thing, don't you. Loser?

Absolutely. It has been my study that has led me to these empirical conclusions. It is a straight up ignorant lie to reject such a well-established truth.

I have an 'adopted son' who has lived with my family for 15 years. He was a practicing homosexual before coming here but not any more. He could tell you why he was homosexual if you like. Also, my sister-in-law is gay but she became a Christian and she no longer lives that way, either. She, also, could enlighten you to some truth.

Most homosexuals have a hard time being honest; with others but also with themselves. All addicts have a hard time admitting that they have a problem with LUST. It is, however, the first step to recovery.

My beef is that interest on loans is now a well established part of business, and perfectly acceptable to the vast majority of American Christians. Yet the Bible clearly and specifically forbids the charging of interest. Such picking and choosing of what is right and wrong is straight up hypocrisy. Wouldn't you agree?

Absolutely. There are a lot of teachings in the Bible, if followed, that would make the world a better place to live. Gleaning in the fields is one example and the Year of Jubilee is another. I would love to see those practices firmly established.

'm sorry to be the one to inform you, Loser, but morality is, in fact, relative. 2,000 years ago, slavery was a necessary and vital part of every civilized economy. It was the labor saving devices of the day, a part of everyday life, and the Bible - both old and new Testament - clearly accept it as such.

Your post proved my point. Thank you. As I said, slavery is not the evil people portray. However, that said, forced slavery like the kind committed by the Egyptians over the Hebrews was NOT acceptable to God and He punished the Egyptians for it.

Good lord, (ooops, there I go, taking Jesus name in vain) you're totally clueless to your own faith.

The verse you posted only show the hierarchy of leadership. Being submissive or in subjection to another in NO WAY makes one inferior. That is only your own deluded thinking. Jesus said:

"Mar 9:35 And he sat down, and called the twelve, and saith unto them, If any man desire to be first, the same shall be last of all, and servant of all."

and a Christian tenet:

"Gal 3:28 Faith in Christ Jesus is what makes each of you equal with each other, whether you are a Jew or a Greek, a slave or a free person, a man or a woman."

Keep reading, you'll get there.

Go ahead and just ignore my post (don't respond). I'll be unsubscribing to this thread and probably won't return.

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: Soylent Green Always nice to start with a bit of flag waving.

So? You asked. Besides, it's the most clear and well planned government I could think of.

Quote by: Soylent Green And what magical ability is given to government that they can keep up.

Who knows, but obviously the electorate can't. You claim that governments are moving towards decentralization. I don't see it. They may be moving toward DEMOCRACY, as an check to centralized power, but not the elimination of it. What I see is a movement towards Socialism... government as the check to the worst excesses of capitalism. The U.S. may be well behind Europe in this, but we're still far more centralized than 100, or even 50 years ago, with more an more regulation and oversight being demanded all the time.

On the other hand, the next step, the move toward anarchist Marxism has been tried... and failed. When the incentive to excel is not longer wealth, then the exceptional seek out another currency... power. And power corrupts far worse than money. Just look at Stalin and Mao.

Quote by: Soylent Green The charts don't take into account our own natural breaking system to this rampant growth.

What breaking system would that be? Armageddon? Or some theoretical concept that we have yet to see, but navel gazing theorists assure us will take place.

Quote by: Soylent Green We only assimilate what we use.

Based on events, the world population will double again within another generation, to 10 billion mouths. That's a lot of stuff people will need to use. Seems an ironic discussion, given your handle. Or is there another magical, theoretical breaking system that we assume will save us.

Quote by: Soylent Green People do not need to comprehend all facets to get on with life.

But someone should, shouldn't they.

Quote by: Loser Good enough. Don't say that (Holy ***) or you'll go to hell!

There is no hell... g'dammit.

Quote by: Loser Absolutely. It has been my study that has led me to these empirical conclusions. It is a straight up ignorant lie to reject such a well-established truth.

Really... well that's fascinating, because I've known literally hundreds of gays and lesbians, many of them as close friends. And every gay that I've ever spoken to, heard on radio, see on TV, or read, who has discussed the issue, has said pretty much the exact same thing... that they realized around puberty that they were somehow different, that by their late teens they were fully aware that -- THROUGH NO CHOICE OF THEIR OWN -- they were gay or lesbian, and that by their early twenties they were reconciled to it -- whether or not they had publicly come out. Many on this board have confirmed that same course of events in their own lives, and many, including some on this board, have also shared another experience.... incredible shame at the realization that they were -- THROUGH NO CHOICE OF THEIR OWN -- something their own society and peers had taught them to despise. And they got down on their knees and, through streams of tears, BEGGED God to remove the curse of homosexuality from them. God, of course, never listens because they are exactly what he made them to be.

Yet somehow you know better. Interesting.

(The one exception, of course, being Bi-Sexuals. One can see how a bi-sexual, terrified by an early temptation into a same sex tryst, might become terrified that they were - omigawd - 'Homosexual' and therefore "chose" to ignore that aspect of their sexuality, and "chose" to limit themselves - and save themselves from the social pressures - to heterosexual relationships.)

Quote by: Loser I have an 'adopted son' who has lived with my family for 15 years. He was a practicing homosexual before coming here but not any more. He could tell you why he was homosexual if you like. Also, my sister-in-law is gay but she became a Christian and she no longer lives that way, either. She, also, could enlighten you to some truth.

Ahhh... so you know two whole gay people who are no longer "practicing" homosexuals.

I hate to inform you, but it's like being an alcoholic. A hetersexual who decides to be celibate is still a heterosexual, just as a homosexual who choses celibacy is still a homosexual... unless, as I said, they're bi-sexual.

I also seriously doubt that your 'adopted son' or you sister-in-law would ever been truly honest with you about it... given your understanding and tolerant attitude towards gays.

Quote by: Loser Most homosexuals have a hard time being honest; with others but also with themselves.

With people who are openly and cruelly hostile to their kind... no sh!t, I just bet they have a hard time being honest. Does that actually surprise you?

With people who they know love them unconditionally and don't judge them... no, they have no problems being honest at all. In fact they're incredibly relieved to be able to be themselves.

Quote by: Loser I would love to see those practices firmly established.

My, my, how righteous are we!!! But I don't see you condemning those who borrow and lend money - a clear violation of the Bible's teaching - the same way you condemn homosexuals. Why would that be? Or do you have another 'Son-in-Law' once once paid interest, but no longer 'practices that lifestyle'.

How about you, Loser? Any credit cards? Bank loans? A mortgage or car loan? Shame, shame, shame on you.

Quote by: Loser As I said, slavery is not the evil people portray.

No, you never said that. You said, "5) Show where slavery is deemed a "perfectly acceptable institution". And I did. You also said,"However, it was tolerated." If it's tolerated, Loser, then it's acceptable.

Quote by: Loser However, that said, forced slavery like the kind committed by the Egyptians over the Hebrews was NOT acceptable to God and He punished the Egyptians for it.

Slavery is not the evil people portray. Really? As to "forced slavery" I must beg your pardon. Maybe God didn't like the Egyptians owning Jewish slaves, but He apparently has no problem with Jews practicing forced slavery.

Exodus 21:1-4: "If thou buy an Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve: and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing. If he came in by himself, he shall go out by himself: if he were married, then his wife shall go out with him. If his master have given him a wife, and she have born him sons or daughters; the wife and her children shall be her master's, and he shall go out by himself."

"Shall be his master's" Sounds like forced slavery to me. You also said, "Also, servitude is often mistaken for slavery. Then please explain how it was that "Servants" could be bought for life. Jeez, one second you're saying slavery isn't so bad, and the next, that it's not really slavery, it's "servitude".

Leviticus 25:44-46: "Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. You can will them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly."

"Slaves for life". That sounds like forced slavery to me too. I love this one...

Leviticus 19:20-22: "And whosoever lieth carnally with a woman, that is a bondmaid, betrothed to an husband, and not at all redeemed, nor freedom given her; she shall be scourged; they shall not be put to death, because she was not free. And he shall bring his trespass offering unto the LORD, unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, even a ram for a trespass offering. And the priest shall make an atonement for him with the ram of the trespass offering before the LORD for his sin which he hath done: and the sin which he hath done shall be forgiven him."

Yeah, it doesn't seem so bad to be a slave. If my master forces himself on me when I'm already betrothed, but not yet free, he can't kill me... just beat the crap out of me. Seems fair.

Genesis 17:13: "He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised: and my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant."

Quote by: Loser The verse you posted only show the hierarchy of leadership. Being submissive or in subjection to another in NO WAY makes one inferior.

That's exactly what it does, Loser. Being a slave makes you inferior to your owner. No matter how Paul might try to sugar coat it...

1 Corinthians 12:13: "For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit."

Quote by: Loser "Mar 9:35 And he sat down, and called the twelve, and saith unto them, If any man desire to be first, the same shall be last of all, and servant of all."

Yeah, so what? Does that change any of the other quotes I've presented?

Quote by: Loser "Gal 3:28 Faith in Christ Jesus is what makes each of you equal with each other, whether you are a Jew or a Greek, a slave or a free person, a man or a woman."

And again, so what. You're still a slave. Yippeee, you'll be free and equal when you die, you lucky slave you.

Quote by: Loser I'll be unsubscribing to this thread and probably won't return.

Completely understandable.

.

[SoylentGreen]

SonartSo? You asked. Besides, it's the most clear and well planned government I could think of.

And differs in what way from constitutions in other countries?

Who knows, but obviously the electorate can't. You claim that governments are moving towards decentralization. I don't see it. They may be moving toward DEMOCRACY, as an check to centralized power, but not the elimination of it. What I see is a movement towards Socialism... government as the check to the worst excesses of capitalism. The U.S. may be well behind Europe in this, but we're still far more centralized than 100, or even 50 years ago, with more an more regulation and oversight being demanded all the time.

Wrong I did not claim the government was moving towards decentralisation. I claimed that the possible future path of social evolution leads towards decentralisation of government.

Yes your right , things are moving slowly towards socialism, and yes it is a check towards the worst of capitilism.

Basic evolutionary steps : From the present and future imbalances created by capitilism, remembering that capitilism creates class division which is the main pivot of social revolution, towards socialism which is the system of leveling out the class system towards a more even playing field for all.

On the other hand, the next step, the move toward anarchist Marxism has been tried... and failed. When the incentive to excel is not longer wealth, then the exceptional seek out another currency... power. And power corrupts far worse than money. Just look at Stalin and Mao.

Failure of practical attempts to create possible societies is not indicative of the failure of the theory. In fact it only emphasis the fact that society must follow along certain paths and wait for all conditions to be right before it can really happen.

Democratic and elected governments did not really work until the industrial revolution was in full swing and the power basis shifted from land owning royalty towards business owning capitalists. Until then those that tried it were failed attempts.

What breaking system would that be? Armageddon? Or some theoretical concept that we have yet to see, but navel gazing theorists assure us will take place.

We only assimilate what we use.

Based on events, the world population will double again within another generation, to 10 billion mouths. That's a lot of stuff people will need to use. Seems an ironic discussion, given your handle. Or is there another magical, theoretical breaking system that we assume will save us.

No, the breaking system is personal, in that each of us only assimilate what we need.
I do not need to know every facet of a computer to use one. Technology only advances if there is a use for it. The concept of electricity has been around for centuries, even the aztecs had apparently made primitive batteries. But without a use for it it never caught on. Farming based populations don't need artificial light, industrial societies do.
As for population, or any form of disaster that might be approaching the human race.
Very few philosophers , as far as i know, stop their treatise on future possibilities to suddenly inject into the theory that a natural disaster will occur to change things.
It could be that all the philosophies are wrong and that man is to stupid to survive,

But someone should, shouldn't they

That sounds like a plea for the existence of god.

[WindWip]

Quote by: SoylentGreen . In this case the word "better" is synonymous with survival, and survival depends on the ability to adapt and change. Your wrong in three points . his claim was that struggle is a necessary evolutionary process.

I didn't say it wasn't, and I don't see how I'm wrong what I said. I simply stated Marx's view on historical materialism and where I thought it was lacking. I didn't even make 3 points.

Evolution is a natural force not one that was designed to make things better for man. Evolution only stops when the species is extinct, So anarchism is not the final model.

There is no design to evolution, it is simply a word that describes a process. Humans and human societies evolve as well, and when our societies evolve they are more adapt at surviving, or "better".

i thought it was spot on. Who are you to say what the limits of freedom are?

You're getting sidetracked. We weren't talking about limits on freedom, we were talking about the possibility of a scenario (idealist non-government, anarchist society) existing. You argued that before universal suffrage, people never thought women would/should vote which is an obvious straw man argument because it is completely rational that in a democratic society women should have the right to vote. You tried to lump the probability of universal suffrage happening with the probability of an ideal Marxist society occurring. The two probabilities are COMPLETELY incomparable. The arguments for why women shouldn't vote were completely irrational, so it is not astounding at all that universal suffrage came about.

[SoylentGreen]

WindWipI didn't say it wasn't, and I don't see how I'm wrong what I said. I simply stated Marx's view on historical materialism and where I thought it was lacking. I didn't even make 3 points.

You did make three points.
1. His claim was that the political institutions of one society had to be overthrown for the next model to come about.
An inaccurate rendition
2, I have not seen a strong argument for why one level is 'better' than the previous one
What does better imply?
3. especially in the case of anarchism, or whichever model you view as the final model.
It's not the final model.

There is no design to evolution, it is simply a word that describes a process. Humans and human societies evolve as well, and when our societies evolve they are more adapt at surviving, or "better".

So now you do have a strong argument for why one level is 'better' than the previous one

You're getting sidetracked. We weren't talking about limits on freedom, we were talking about the possibility of a scenario (idealist non-government, anarchist society) existing. You argued that before universal suffrage, people never thought women would/should vote which is an obvious straw man argument because it is completely rational that in a democratic society women should have the right to vote. You tried to lump the probability of universal suffrage happening with the probability of an ideal Marxist society occurring. The two probabilities are COMPLETELY incomparable. The arguments for why women shouldn't vote were completely irrational, so it is not astounding at all that universal suffrage came about.

Such is the advantage of hindsight. But at the time a woman asking for the right to vote was not considered a completely rational idea.
Just as now the idea that a society can exist without centralized government is considered irrational.

In fact you are using the same type of argument used against woman's right to vote. It has never happened before , no sane person would consider it and therefore not worth considering.

[WindWip]

Quote by: SoylentGreen You did make three points. 1. His claim was that the political institutions of one society had to be overthrown for the next model to come about. An inaccurate rendition

"Society moves from stage to stage when the dominant class is displaced by a new emerging class, by overthrowing the "political shell" that enforces the old relations of production no longer corresponding to the new productive forces."-Source
"Capitalism will never collapse of its own accord. It has to be overthrown." -Source

Marx's book A contribution to the Critique of Political Economy clearly states that to move from one stage to the next requires an overthrowing of the political institutions. I could find 50 more sources in 5 minutes if u want.

2, I have not seen a strong argument for why one level is 'better' than the previous one What does better imply?

I said I haven't seen a strong argument for that - are you now going to prove to me that I already had?

3. especially in the case of anarchism, or whichever model you view as the final model. It's not the final model.

There was a reason I said "or whichever model you view as the final model".

So now you do have a strong argument for why one level is 'better' than the previous one

Where is that argument? I said that evolution makes a society 'better', but I did not say that Marx's levels of society were an evolutionary process.

Such is the advantage of hindsight. But at the time a woman asking for the right to vote was not considered a completely rational idea. Just as now the idea that a society can exist without centralized government is considered irrational. In fact you are using the same type of argument used against woman's right to vote. It has never happened before , no sane person would consider it and therefore not worth considering.

You could have easily said "people used to think the world was flat, and that was completely rational at the time", but it's NOT rational - then or now. It had no evidence to support it, just like there was no valid reasoning for why women shouldn't vote.

Instead of giving me the same strawman argument again, give me a reason why you think that a anarchist society with no central government can thrive, or even exist.

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: Soylent Green And differs in what way from constitutions in other countries?

Does it matter? Is there some point here, Soylent, or are you arguing simply to argue. You asked what's a clear and well planned government and I gave you the example of the U.S. Constitution. But the constitutions of every civilized country are plans for their respective governments, because every country has a government, whether or not it's a good one or a bad one.

Or should compare ourselves to... say... Somalia?

Quote by: Soylent Green Wrong I did not claim the government was moving towards decentralisation. I claimed that the possible future path of social evolution leads towards decentralisation of government.

LOLOL!!! Okay, let me see if I have this right...

Government is not moving towards decentralization, we're moving towards decentralization of government.

Okaaaay, got it.

Quote by: Soylent Green towards socialism which is the system of leveling out the class system towards a more even playing field for all.

Okay... or as government regulating the worst excesses and increasing complexities of capitalism for the safety and benefit of everyone. If that smooths out the class system, so much the better.

Quote by: Soylent Green Failure of practical attempts to create possible societies is not indicative of the failure of the theory.

Well, it is so far. The problem with communism is that, in it's idealist desire to be completely fair, it defies too many aspects of human nature. Humans are ambitious and competitive... it's the engine that drives civilization to constantly advance. Communism is targeted to society's lowest common denominator -- the workers -- not the innovators. It looks after the "to each according to their need" part, but not the "to each according to their ability". If there's no reward for striving to do better, then why bother?

Capitalism, on the other hand, is targeted to society's innovators and alphas, but at the expense of the workers, so it's equally flawed.

Quote by: Soylent Green No, the breaking system is personal, in that each of us only assimilate what we need.

Hasn't worked very well so far.

Quote by: Soylent Green That sounds like a plea for the existence of god.

Perhaps, but... alas.

Quote by: Soylent Green Evolution is a natural force not one that was designed to make things better for man.

Actually it is, albeit through random trial and error. I use the word design freely, but not necessarily as a 'conscious' creation. Rather, its a description of how something is put together, and how it functionals. We humans have a design... meaning a complex series of inter-working systems that is consistent in every human. That's not to say that an intelligence was required to achieve that design, only that it exists and works.

And in the case of human beings, it works very, very well, and has indeed made things much better for us. At least so far.

Quote by: Soylent Green 2, I have not seen a strong argument for why one level is 'better' than the previous one What does better imply?

A group of historians were asking each other, if they could chose any period of history to be reborn into, what would it be. The more pragmatic of group responded, "any time after the invention of anesthetic."

That sounds like a definite example of "better" to me.

.

[Jack]

To address the OP directly, I often wonder if those who want to inject religion into the government have given any thought to what would happen in their town, city or state if the majority of the population were Muslim or members of a religious cult? It's happened in Antelope, Oregon and Clearwater, Florida. Would they still support religious influence in government if that influence weren't Christianity? I don't think so.

[SoylentGreen]

SonartDoes it matter?

True it doesn't except in that the constitution only outlines an ideal of what government should be, not what it is.

Government is not moving towards decentralization, we're moving towards decentralization of government.

Ok, let me put it this way. Government seeks stability, to stay in power , conformity.
Evolution seeks change.
Government is the antithesis of evolution.

The problem with communism is that, in it's idealist desire to be completely fair, it defies too many aspects of human nature.

Lol now it's my turn to laugh. You present the constitution, an ideal that no government has ever been able to live up to and then berate communism for the same thing.

Humans are ambitious and competitive... it's the engine that drives civilization to constantly advance. Communism is targeted to society's lowest common denominator -- the workers -- not the innovators. It looks after the "to each according to their need" part, but not the "to each according to their ability". If there's no reward for striving to do better, then why bother?

Again with the Mc Carthy communism propaganda.
When will you lot get over your cold war syndrome?
There is absolutely nothing in communism that stops anyone from working for a profit or creating wealth. the creation of profit remains the same it is the ownership and distribution of profit that changes.

Hasn't worked very well so far

Nor would it. It is only the selfish "I want it now" attitude that makes people think it should happen in their lifetime.

[SoylentGreen]

WindWip Marx's book A contribution to the Critique of Political Economy clearly states that to move from one stage to the next requires an overthrowing of the political institutions. I could find 50 more sources in 5 minutes if u want.

Good, but why bother. Marx is only of historical relevance . We have over a hundred years to ponder what he said. But times change, people change, the technology has changed. And above all communism has changed. His view of violent revolution reflect the knowledge of capitalism that he had at the time. That form of capitalism has also changed.

I said I haven't seen a strong argument for that - are you now going to prove to me that I already had?

Depends, as i asked, what does better imply? Better in that it is subjectively personally better, or better as in evolution attempts to improve on previous efforts.

You could have easily said "people used to think the world was flat, and that was completely rational at the time", but it's NOT rational - then or now. It had no evidence to support it, just like there was no valid reasoning for why women shouldn't vote.

I could have but then that would have been a straw man.
Instead i used the example of woman suffrage because like any philosophical view, which both woman suffrage and anarchism are. They are dependent on acceptance of the idea.
Unlike your straw man example of the flat earth which is a empirical fact that no amount of philosophising will change

Instead of giving me the same straw man argument again, give me a reason why you think that a anarchist society with no central government can thrive, or even exist.

Because any form of centralised government inevitably leads to revolution whether violent or not. Change is the only consistent factor in society and a centralised government apposes change.