Quote from: Kinder_ on September 18, 2014, 05:50:26 PM

Quote from: challengerX on September 18, 2014, 05:41:01 PM

Quote from: Kinder_ on September 18, 2014, 05:38:24 PM

Quote from: Le Dustin on September 18, 2014, 05:19:36 PM

Quote from: Kinder_ on September 18, 2014, 05:13:22 PM

Quote from: Le Dustin on September 18, 2014, 05:00:22 PM

Quote from: Kinder_ on September 18, 2014, 04:57:16 PM

Quote from: Meta Cognition on September 18, 2014, 04:54:05 PM

Quote from: Kinder_ on September 18, 2014, 04:52:26 PM

Nope

And profiting still happens under socialism

. . .

What?

China

If China was socialist you wouldn't have people running around saying that socialism doesn't work.

Except China is Socialist and it proves Socialism doesn't work

China is fast becoming the largest economy in the world.

the government is becoming the largest economy

http://www.newstatesman.com/global-issues/2014/03/china%E2%80%99s-billionaire-politicians-quadruple-their-wealth

Except they don't make up "the economy". When you talk about a country's economy you're talking about everybody, not its billionaire politicians the government does not make the economy. There are a ton of rich criminals and people who are not affiliated with the government.

So how can economy talk about everybody aside from Chinese citizens like political officials who make up a large part of the economy? Really doesn't make sense. They're part of the economy; they own business or conduct business with international corporations which does business in China. They spend money in China, they earn money in China, and they invest money in China. They are part, and a nice size, of China's economy. If they weren't then the regular people would have more money

Quote from: RustingFloor on September 18, 2014, 06:04:37 PM

Quote from: Le Dustin on September 18, 2014, 04:59:05 PM

I no longer believe in democracy,

This fucking guy.


Don't even fucking talk about human rights or any issues regarding ethics or morality, anymore.

If you don't believe humans have an inherent right to self-governance, you're fucking slime.

Your rhetoric really doesn't mean much to me. What would you rather do: send your car to a mechanic to properly fix your brakes or do it yourself and only be semi-satisfied?

What the fuck does that have to do with a government run by the people?

Under a non-democratic system, there is no guarantee that the officials put into power will be any good, either. I know some statist idiots like to dream up some ideal meritocracy or the like, but any system like that will be rife with manipulation and corruption.
The difference is, under democracy, elected officials can be removed at the end of their term. Under any other system, the regime can operate unchecked.

Point being Door is pointing out corruption in government but misses the fact that people are manipulable anyway.

I don't think Door's point was that democracy eliminates manipulable-ness or corruption, merely that it minimises it.

Quote from: RustingFloor on September 18, 2014, 06:22:28 PM

Quote from: Le Dustin on September 18, 2014, 06:19:38 PM

Quote from: Meta Cognition on September 18, 2014, 06:17:24 PM

Quote from: Le Dustin on September 18, 2014, 06:14:51 PM

It seems to be that you've never heard of the concept of memetics.

Well, first of all
>lolricharddawkins

Second of all, don't be cryptic and just say what you mean.

Point being Door is pointing out corruption in government but misses the fact that people are manipulable anyway.

And you think the solution is to just go with the system that's more susceptible to corruption, because the other option isn't infallible?

How is it more susceptible to corruption? The only reason there's corruption in the first place is because we vote in politicians.

If you have any understanding of meritocracy and similar systems you should already know what makes them more susceptible.

And yes, the only source of corruption is voting. Because the Soviet Union, which lacked free elections, was such a squeaky clean operation.

Meritocracies or technocracies don't exist in the sense that I'm advocating so to say I'm supposed to have knowledge on why they're full of corruption is moot. Moreover, the Soviet Union was NOT technocratic and they were NOT the only country with corruption—clearly.

Oh my god, are you giving me the "real communism has never been implemented" argument? Fucking really?

Why wouldn't a technocracy be immune, or at least better immune, to corruption? Because charismatic lawmakers don't exist. Imagine a large government committee of scientists that are tasked to lay out policies to combat global warming. They were hired not just because they're highly skilled but because they're committed to their task. If a corporation says they'll pay them if they make a policy change, they're less likely to deal with them and become corrupt. Unlike lawmakers, they're not expected to be skilled in all subjects of politics (foreign policy, science, security, economics, transportation, health, etc), but rather just the one they're highly proficient in. If they're truly committed to their cause, the likelihood they'll abandon it for selfish reasons is much less. A lawmaker isn't going to be committed to everything they're elected to make decisions upon so they're much more easily convinced.

Election by a committee or jury is going to be extremely susceptible to corruption. It's not like a democratic election, where there are simply too many people to manipulate.

A smaller group of people has more power to push an agenda, and there is no way to change the status quo if things go bad.

Technocracy does not allow the people to remove an inept leader or leaders. It allows the group in control to create and perpetuate an atmosphere where if one does not tow the line, they are replaced with someone who will.

You seem to think scientists are above corruption and manipulation- this is simply untrue. They are people just like the rest of us.

I'd rather have power spread out in the hands of many flawed people, than have a few rule over the rest.

Alternatively, your technocratic system could be given a democratic form.

Positions could be created to legislate in certain fields of expertise, and holding that position requires a background in the relevant field.

People will still vote to decide who gets the position, but it will be someone who is fit for the job.

I could get behind that.