4 ms·

The average person in the world would probably be well served by a system providing a basic income, with the opportunity to reproduce at a replacement rate and

The average person in the world would probably be well served by a system providing a basic income, with the opportunity to reproduce at a replacement rate and enjoy stability and security. We've got enough "wealth and technology" to institute such a system, I believe. Others may disagree that we're there yet. Those of us that are self-motivated to learn and create could still drive "progress" forward and perhaps be afforded more freedom in pursuing those goals, rather than being stifled by the artificial retardation instituted by the control freaks currently in charge. I don't really know what we'd do with them though, maybe designate an island where they can act out their primitive ape instincts and vie for control of each other.

einhverfr 13y ago
But doesn't that essentially reduce culture to a disease as well? I mean traditional indigenous peoples do things to their children in the process of making them adults that we would find to be heinous crimes. For example the Hopi ritually beat 7-9 year olds before revealing that everything they have been taught about religion is a well-cared for lie (something which is critical, adult Hopis say, in understanding Hopi religion). The Sambia require adolescent boys to fellate their tribal elders (you are what you eat so consuming manliness makes you a man). So forth. If you assert that nationality doesn't matter, then we should be doing everything we can to impose our culture on everyone else just because we think we know best. We need not understand the value that these practices provide for these populations. We can look to our culture to define human rights and everyone else must comply. Humanism is nothing but concealed nationalism.
- wavefunction 13y ago
  I did say average, and your examples seem like outliers in a lot of ways. I guess I was falling into the trap of only considering "modern" cultures which have their differences but are pretty similar in many others. For instance, the vast majority of Americans (N + S), Asians, Africans, Europeans and Pacific Islanders don't practice child fellatio. You're right that it wouldn't necessarily accommodate certain sub-cultures very well. I dunno man, just offering my take.
  - einhverfr 13y ago
    But every culture is exceptional in some way, right? For example, is it a violation of the human rights of African Americans that someone can get up in front of a KKK meeting and advocate genocide, and then defend the statements as protected by the first amendment?[1] The US is quite exceptional there. Instead most cultures recognize that there is a right not to be harassed politically by private individuals on account of race, religion, etc. and so uncivil discourse including advocating genocide or other hate speech can be regulated. If you post a cartoon in France glorifying 9/11 expect to be prosecuted for "condoning terrorism" (see the case of Denis Leroy whose conviction was upheld by the ECHR). Your rule, I think, would again move every aspect of culture to the mode, would it not? [1] In Brandenburg v. Ohio, excerpts held to be protected included "Kill the niggers... we intend to do our part..." as recorded in footnote 1 of the majority opinion. Vile stuff, but the court held that in the absence of actions to imminently incite lawless activity, the words alone were protected. I can't think of any other culture in the world which holds that freedom of speech extends so far.
    - dm2 13y ago
      Many things that seem culturally obvious to us have only been around for a couple generations. Ideals around racism, animal rights, age of consent, death, religion, are all things that many well-educated people take for granted. Would you rather have KKK meetings in public or private? At least in public they are inspiring conversation and debate about the issues. Restricting the first amendment would allow for a secret KKK which everyone speculates about and rumors materialize out of thin air, that wouldn't be good. Freedom from persecution for speaking your opinion (whether right or wrong) is probably the greatest freedom we have. Discussion leads to ideas which eventually leads to progress.
      - einhverfr 13y ago
        > Freedom from persecution for speaking your opinion (whether right or wrong) is probably the greatest freedom we have. Discussion leads to ideas which eventually leads to progress. Sure. But if nationality no longer matters, then everyone else gets a say in how far we recognize this, right? That's my point really. If we are so sure nationality no longer matters and we should be one global culture, are we going to be happy with the tradeoff? I don't think we would. BTW the other is just as valid. My wife is Chinese-Indonesian and she and I have shared what are essentially very foreign views with eachother regarding these sorts of things. I can say without a doubt that American culture in this area is not something that you just show people and they come running to.
- bjourne 13y ago
  > But doesn't that essentially reduce culture to a disease as well? I mean traditional indigenous peoples do things to their children in the process of making them adults that we would find to be heinous crimes. Children are not property. The expression "their children" is (at least to a humanist) an oxymoron since they are not owned by their parents. From that simple statement it follows that if something is done to a child that is a crime when done to an adult person, then that is a crime because a child is a person.
dm2 13y ago
It's almost impossible to propose such a ideology because it will be instantly interpreted as Socialism. I'm not saying Socialism is good or bad, but I do think that people give too much credit and loyalty to Democracy. What we have isn't a Democracy, the handful of representatives we have are bombarded constantly by self-interested groups and corporations who couldn't care less if anyone indirectly suffers from their actions. I agree that humans should have larger goals and responsibilities such as providing basic needs and should funnel a large majority of funding into projects that are progressive for humans and life in general. The problem is that there are 7+ billion people on the Earth right now, most are hungry, most are religious, most lack sufficient education. Most Americans can't wait to watch a play-by-play of every pointless sporting event that they can find time to watch. I find it refreshing when someone gets on stage and tells then entire world to get their head out of their ass. Unfortunately, group think is strong and ignorance is rampant. We've come so far, but have such a long way to go. Humans are very similar but environment plays a huge part in personality, thankfully rational and logical debate are tools that we are able to use to inspire progress. Sure, there is the possibility that there is a "God" in another dimension, but the US in particular has an overwhelming percentage of adults and brainwashed children that what the bible says goes, that discrimination is acceptable because "God is on our side", and that progress is evil. I've always considered myself agnostic, but after encountering so many people who blindly consider themselves Republican Christians, I have slowly become against organized religion. We need more community centers and less Churches. I wish I had a community center to turn to for life advice, mentors, and guidance in general that my parents and teachers were unable to provide, but instead my community pooled all of its funds towards a huge new chapel for everyone to come worship a myth. /rant Transparency is key. Checks and balances need re-balancing. Preventing corruption should be a top priority. Only then can we efficiently progress as a species.
- einhverfr 13y ago
  I actually think the problem is different,and it is the fundamental problem with the social democracy which governed the US from about the time of FDR until the time of Reagan when the Neoliberal era arrived. The problems are well laid out rather presciently by Hillaire Belloc in his 1914 book "The Servile State" where he discusses the problems of capitalism the consequences of class warfare. Belloc should be on everyone's reading list in this way because he represents a very cogent criticism of both capitalism and centralized efforts to resolve the fundamental class struggles that inevitably occur. Belloc notes that the classes have different goals out of class warfare. The employed class wants security while the capitalist class wants profit. The ultimate arrangement which perfectly provides both would be a system of regulated slavery, where the would-be slave knows he gets certain guarantees and the would-be slave-owner gets compulsatory work for his own profit. He notes further that through the ancient world, this was the normal economic order. His thesis then is that the working poor are willing to let things move towards slavery in exchange for subsistence, and this is the logical direction for the elites to push. So what he suggests then is that class warfare is most often won by the elites, and history agrees with him. He then argues that without land, and ownership of one's own tools, the workers cannot be free. He then attacks worker protections as undermining the status of the worker as a free agent and suggests that instead we should seek to eradicate the border between worker and business owner. If we take Belloc's theories reasonably seriously, I think we have to consider the possibility that the social democracy of FDR directly lead to the Neoliberalism of Reagan, and that if we don't seek to undo the damage caused, we will simply slowly regress to classical liberal capitalism of the sort that both Belloc and Marx believed was unstable, but with the added factor that self-employment will be heavily discriminated against, and the prison system with forced labor will be the safety net for the poor. Forget wages. Focus on land, tools, and business opportunities. 1. Tax rental income unless the rental agreement is convertable to a rent to own agreement. 2. Get rid of the estate tax, or at least exempt productive property from it, since such a tax privileges corporate ownership over individual ownership. 3. Exempt businesses with fewer than 5 employees from most federal and state regulations. Make it the default and require that Congress or the state legislature explicitly includes such businesses when passing additional regulations. 4. Provide tax breaks for businesses owned and operated by married couples. 5. Tax overseas increases in balance sheet equity (assets minus liabilities) as corporate income, thus eliminating a major loophole major corporations use to pay less or even no taxes. In other words decentralize the economy. Let's encourage self-employment and household self-employment, and let's encourage even the middle and lower classes to go into business for themselves and own their own homes without going through the banking system. BTW, one of the amazing things about open source software is that it brings the worker ownership of the tool ideal into a reality in a way that we seem to be otherwise losing.

einhverfr 13y ago

But doesn't that essentially reduce culture to a disease as well? I mean traditional indigenous peoples do things to their children in the process of making them adults that we would find to be heinous crimes. For example the Hopi ritually beat 7-9 year olds before revealing that everything they have been taught about religion is a well-cared for lie (something which is critical, adult Hopis say, in understanding Hopi religion). The Sambia require adolescent boys to fellate their tribal elders (you are what you eat so consuming manliness makes you a man). So forth. If you assert that nationality doesn't matter, then we should be doing everything we can to impose our culture on everyone else just because we think we know best. We need not understand the value that these practices provide for these populations. We can look to our culture to define human rights and everyone else must comply. Humanism is nothing but concealed nationalism.

wavefunction 13y ago
I did say average, and your examples seem like outliers in a lot of ways. I guess I was falling into the trap of only considering "modern" cultures which have their differences but are pretty similar in many others. For instance, the vast majority of Americans (N + S), Asians, Africans, Europeans and Pacific Islanders don't practice child fellatio. You're right that it wouldn't necessarily accommodate certain sub-cultures very well. I dunno man, just offering my take.
- einhverfr 13y ago
  But every culture is exceptional in some way, right? For example, is it a violation of the human rights of African Americans that someone can get up in front of a KKK meeting and advocate genocide, and then defend the statements as protected by the first amendment?[1] The US is quite exceptional there. Instead most cultures recognize that there is a right not to be harassed politically by private individuals on account of race, religion, etc. and so uncivil discourse including advocating genocide or other hate speech can be regulated. If you post a cartoon in France glorifying 9/11 expect to be prosecuted for "condoning terrorism" (see the case of Denis Leroy whose conviction was upheld by the ECHR). Your rule, I think, would again move every aspect of culture to the mode, would it not? [1] In Brandenburg v. Ohio, excerpts held to be protected included "Kill the niggers... we intend to do our part..." as recorded in footnote 1 of the majority opinion. Vile stuff, but the court held that in the absence of actions to imminently incite lawless activity, the words alone were protected. I can't think of any other culture in the world which holds that freedom of speech extends so far.
  - dm2 13y ago
    Many things that seem culturally obvious to us have only been around for a couple generations. Ideals around racism, animal rights, age of consent, death, religion, are all things that many well-educated people take for granted. Would you rather have KKK meetings in public or private? At least in public they are inspiring conversation and debate about the issues. Restricting the first amendment would allow for a secret KKK which everyone speculates about and rumors materialize out of thin air, that wouldn't be good. Freedom from persecution for speaking your opinion (whether right or wrong) is probably the greatest freedom we have. Discussion leads to ideas which eventually leads to progress.
    - einhverfr 13y ago
      > Freedom from persecution for speaking your opinion (whether right or wrong) is probably the greatest freedom we have. Discussion leads to ideas which eventually leads to progress. Sure. But if nationality no longer matters, then everyone else gets a say in how far we recognize this, right? That's my point really. If we are so sure nationality no longer matters and we should be one global culture, are we going to be happy with the tradeoff? I don't think we would. BTW the other is just as valid. My wife is Chinese-Indonesian and she and I have shared what are essentially very foreign views with eachother regarding these sorts of things. I can say without a doubt that American culture in this area is not something that you just show people and they come running to.
bjourne 13y ago
> But doesn't that essentially reduce culture to a disease as well? I mean traditional indigenous peoples do things to their children in the process of making them adults that we would find to be heinous crimes. Children are not property. The expression "their children" is (at least to a humanist) an oxymoron since they are not owned by their parents. From that simple statement it follows that if something is done to a child that is a crime when done to an adult person, then that is a crime because a child is a person.

dm2 13y ago

It's almost impossible to propose such a ideology because it will be instantly interpreted as Socialism. I'm not saying Socialism is good or bad, but I do think that people give too much credit and loyalty to Democracy. What we have isn't a Democracy, the handful of representatives we have are bombarded constantly by self-interested groups and corporations who couldn't care less if anyone indirectly suffers from their actions. I agree that humans should have larger goals and responsibilities such as providing basic needs and should funnel a large majority of funding into projects that are progressive for humans and life in general. The problem is that there are 7+ billion people on the Earth right now, most are hungry, most are religious, most lack sufficient education. Most Americans can't wait to watch a play-by-play of every pointless sporting event that they can find time to watch. I find it refreshing when someone gets on stage and tells then entire world to get their head out of their ass. Unfortunately, group think is strong and ignorance is rampant. We've come so far, but have such a long way to go. Humans are very similar but environment plays a huge part in personality, thankfully rational and logical debate are tools that we are able to use to inspire progress. Sure, there is the possibility that there is a "God" in another dimension, but the US in particular has an overwhelming percentage of adults and brainwashed children that what the bible says goes, that discrimination is acceptable because "God is on our side", and that progress is evil. I've always considered myself agnostic, but after encountering so many people who blindly consider themselves Republican Christians, I have slowly become against organized religion. We need more community centers and less Churches. I wish I had a community center to turn to for life advice, mentors, and guidance in general that my parents and teachers were unable to provide, but instead my community pooled all of its funds towards a huge new chapel for everyone to come worship a myth. /rant Transparency is key. Checks and balances need re-balancing. Preventing corruption should be a top priority. Only then can we efficiently progress as a species.

einhverfr 13y ago
I actually think the problem is different,and it is the fundamental problem with the social democracy which governed the US from about the time of FDR until the time of Reagan when the Neoliberal era arrived. The problems are well laid out rather presciently by Hillaire Belloc in his 1914 book "The Servile State" where he discusses the problems of capitalism the consequences of class warfare. Belloc should be on everyone's reading list in this way because he represents a very cogent criticism of both capitalism and centralized efforts to resolve the fundamental class struggles that inevitably occur. Belloc notes that the classes have different goals out of class warfare. The employed class wants security while the capitalist class wants profit. The ultimate arrangement which perfectly provides both would be a system of regulated slavery, where the would-be slave knows he gets certain guarantees and the would-be slave-owner gets compulsatory work for his own profit. He notes further that through the ancient world, this was the normal economic order. His thesis then is that the working poor are willing to let things move towards slavery in exchange for subsistence, and this is the logical direction for the elites to push. So what he suggests then is that class warfare is most often won by the elites, and history agrees with him. He then argues that without land, and ownership of one's own tools, the workers cannot be free. He then attacks worker protections as undermining the status of the worker as a free agent and suggests that instead we should seek to eradicate the border between worker and business owner. If we take Belloc's theories reasonably seriously, I think we have to consider the possibility that the social democracy of FDR directly lead to the Neoliberalism of Reagan, and that if we don't seek to undo the damage caused, we will simply slowly regress to classical liberal capitalism of the sort that both Belloc and Marx believed was unstable, but with the added factor that self-employment will be heavily discriminated against, and the prison system with forced labor will be the safety net for the poor. Forget wages. Focus on land, tools, and business opportunities. 1. Tax rental income unless the rental agreement is convertable to a rent to own agreement. 2. Get rid of the estate tax, or at least exempt productive property from it, since such a tax privileges corporate ownership over individual ownership. 3. Exempt businesses with fewer than 5 employees from most federal and state regulations. Make it the default and require that Congress or the state legislature explicitly includes such businesses when passing additional regulations. 4. Provide tax breaks for businesses owned and operated by married couples. 5. Tax overseas increases in balance sheet equity (assets minus liabilities) as corporate income, thus eliminating a major loophole major corporations use to pay less or even no taxes. In other words decentralize the economy. Let's encourage self-employment and household self-employment, and let's encourage even the middle and lower classes to go into business for themselves and own their own homes without going through the banking system. BTW, one of the amazing things about open source software is that it brings the worker ownership of the tool ideal into a reality in a way that we seem to be otherwise losing.