Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Unseen on May 3, 2012 at 11:24pm

Well, for one thing it wouldn't be a theocracy. For another, no Yahweh.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by archaeopteryx on May 3, 2012 at 11:36pm

I believe it was Spock who said, "A difference that makes no difference, is no difference."

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Unseen on May 4, 2012 at 12:22am

I believe it was Spock who said, "A difference that makes no difference, is no difference."

Actually, that is a clumsy paraphrase of the American philosopher William James who observed that where there is no distinction, there is no difference between two things (or ideas).

Of course there are relevant distinctions. For example, a benevolent dictator couldn't claim to have magically created the universe and people, and so could only claim respect based on results.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by archaeopteryx on May 4, 2012 at 1:32am

RE: "clumsy paraphrase" - you'll have to take that up with Spock.

Actually, I don't believe Yahweh made that claim, his supporters did.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Ed on May 3, 2012 at 11:45pm

A government that administered policy and law without regard to influence from money (special interest lobbies; for example- pharmaceutical, big oil, defense) would be greatly appreciated. I also don't think most of the legislators today are even remotely qualified to make the important decisions on critical issues. Hell, most of 'um don't even bother to read the proposed legislation.

A form of government not dependent on political parties who push self serving agendas would be a breathe of fresh air. A "benign dictatorship based on rationalism and technocratic control" would be acceptable as long as those governed retained the ability to remove and replace those in control if the situation was no longer in the best interests of the citizenry. It would be an interesting experiment.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Atheist Exile on May 4, 2012 at 2:30am

“Whenever you have an efficient government you have a dictatorship.” ~Harry S Truman

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Kirk Holden on May 4, 2012 at 11:57am

What, from rationality, is the mass and charge of 'benign'. What are the neurocorrelates of 'benign' -- the brain states of 'benign-ness'. As with most hazy ideas, you have moved the problem around without solving anything interesting.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Unseen on May 4, 2012 at 12:15pm

How about asking your question in everyday English? I think you must be speaking metaphorically, since ideas don't have mass in any literal sense, nor do they carry an electrical charge. So, when I understand what you're getting at in a way that, not just I, but everyone else can understand, I'll reply in kind.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Gaelen Hammond on May 4, 2012 at 12:37pm

What are you even talking about?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Dale Headley on May 4, 2012 at 3:30pm

Define "benign."

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Unseen on May 4, 2012 at 4:47pm

Benign in the sense I intend is one which would be kind, gracious, gentle, and beneficial.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Unseen on May 4, 2012 at 4:58pm

One might say that democracy doesn't work in this sense:

Let's take an imaginary person who feels strongly that Issue A, B, and D are good but Issues C, E, and F are bad.

Candidate #1 supports Issues A, D, and C

Candidate; #2 supports Issues  B, E, and F

Which candidate should he vote for? How does having democracy help him here?

I'm not an Objectivist nut job who worships the TP Ayn Rand wiped her butt with, but even she said things that made sense sometimes, and one thing she said that seems to make sense is that (I paraphrase) "In compromise, everybody loses because neither party really wins." And yet, democracy institutionalizes compromise.

Lately, it seems special interests and extremes of one sort or another seem to be getting their way, damn what the general public or even the electorate wants.

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• Next ›
• Page