Conciliation of UU and Nightwatchmen state

If you aren't willing to work with everyone else, you are not welcome into a CSC.

New Society- you work for others there for the same reason you work for yourself here.

But you said you wouldn't exile anyone.

The vast majority would work, and the infinitesimal amount of people who don't would likely leave voluntarily, because their whole worldview would be radically different from everyone else's, and they would likely find it difficult to get along. Human nature is really cultural, anyway.

Quote :

Human nature is really cultural, anyway.

How is it that different cultures can understand one another then, unless there is an underlying human nature that we all share?

Why would the 'vast majority' decide to work? And who distributes the resources?

For the same reason the vast majority of people in our society work for their own benefit- because working causes gain for everyone, and in that society the fundamental unit would be every intelligent being (in this case humans) as opposed to oneself.

Resources are there- it is a city, remember- and if you need them you take them.

But the resources are there, whether I work or not - why would I work for them?

In the current society, if you don't work, only you get affected. In your society, if you don't work, everyone else gets affected.

And thus why people work.

New society, new standards. That is why I called it Universal Utilitarian- everyone acts in a utilitarian manner. Simple, no?

That applies in today's society, but in yours, I can slack off and my work won't be missed, while I still reap the rewards.

Except that you don't, because as opposed to personal gain being the goal, it's societal gain. If you don't work, everyone loses, and in that society, that would be equivalent to personal loss in ours.

How difficult is that to understand?

Then you need to explain how you are going to fundamentally change human nature, which is the result of millions of years of evolution.

There is no such thing as human nature, only society. Society determines our conception of human nature, and if we can establish a different society, in which altruism is the norm, we will have utopia.

Quote :

There is no such thing as human nature, only society. Society determines our conception of human nature...

This statement is a contradiction. If human nature doesn't exist, then society can't have an effect on it, or how it's viewed.

Not to mention I'm sure academia would disagree with the statement that there is no such thing as human nature.

Something can be nonexistent while we think it exists. For example a certain deity in which belief has been widespread for the last 2000/5000 years.

Frankly, I don't care what academia thinks. I can come to my own conclusions.

After all, never let the facts stand in the way of politics.

Redsand, the societal loss from me not working would be the personal loss in today's society spread thinly over the rest of the population, while the personal gain isn't. So when the personal gain is greater than personal loss = better to stop working. Taking food for an example: in your 'UU', if I stop working the amount of food drops by 1 persons, but if there's a thousand people there it drops by 1/1000 per person. The gain I get (not having to work) isn't spread out.

You obviously missed it. Again/

Personal gain is not the object.

As I said I'm wasting my time here, and I know that once I've tried to explain it at least 10-20 times and you have failed to understand it, that I am wasting my time.

Farewell.

Personnel gain is my object. Moving to your nation will allow me to carry out that objective a lot easier, since all my needs will be provided for by the suckers who are actually working, while I can slack off an do what I want.

Persoanl gain is not the object of Universal Utilarianism, but it is the object of a lot of people who are going to end up there.

I understand the system you're suggesting, but stating that you don't care what academia thinks shows you really don't care about governmental systems at all and your motivation is really your own pride and the desire to be right.

NoMoreLies wrote:

Personnel gain is my object. Moving to your nation will allow me to carry out that objective a lot easier, since all my needs will be provided for by the suckers who are actually working, while I can slack off an do what I want.

Persoanl gain is not the object of Universal Utilarianism, but it is the object of a lot of people who are going to end up there.

I dunno. I kind of feel for what 11j is trying to say. I'm not sure if *most* people would, if given the opportunity, "suck off all the hard-working people". Just sitting there and feeding off other peoples success is kind of boring in the long-term. I wonder whether people would be happy to sit on their asses all day while others are having great success being more involved. I wouldn't underestimate the motivation effect of having a little competition. But ultimately, I guess we just don't know.

- Mike

"I wonder whether people would be happy to sit on their asses all day while others are having great success being more involved."
Someone's got to do the hard, not very rewarding jobs of working in the sewers. If you can slack off that and join a team that's doing something better, why not?

As an example, try asking for volunteers to do a list of jobs. Some jobs nearly everyone will volunteer for, whereas other jobs will require 'volunteering' some people to do them.

Quote :

I dunno. I kind of feel for what 11j is trying to say. I'm not sure if *most* people would, if given the opportunity, "suck off all the hard-working people". Just sitting there and feeding off other peoples success is kind of boring in the long-term. I wonder whether people would be happy to sit on their asses all day while others are having great success being more involved. I wouldn't underestimate the motivation effect of having a little competition. But ultimately, I guess we just don't know.

The welfare systems in most developed countries seem to disprove this. Those on welfare typically stay on it their entire life. There is no motivation for them to work if they are guaranteed an income. In fact, welfare systems encourage and reward, albeit unintentionally, laziness (...or is it unintentional?).

Complete removal of the welfare system would force people to work. Certain extenuating circumstances would be covered by charities and private donations.

I don't see what Redsands problem is with the Federal Nightwatchmen system. All it exists for is guaranteeing basic rights, after all.

Seems like things have cooled off for the most part. What other aspects of our governmental model need to be refined at this time?

Basic Rights? The right to ones body (life), the right to follow ones political ideology (liberty), and the right to sufficient knowledge to make a choice about your politcal ideology (the pursuit of happiness).

And property.

The federal government model I've come up with so far -

1. A congress, divided into two sections: a house of representatives, elected using proportional representation, and a senate, one senator per state that has above a certain number of people.

2. An executive branch, elected by Congress. This would consist of three people - a triumvirate - who would appoint a cabinet. The appointments must be passed by Congress. They would also appoint the Judiciary, in much the same way they appoint the cabinet.

3. The judicial branch. These deal with constitutional issues, and whether x is a guaranteed right.

I'd set term limits, but in such a way that people can only hold office for a given number of years, not terms. Once this number is exceeded, they leave office. Two years for the executive term, one for the Congress, and five for the Judiciary. This ensures that the executive branch and congress can't appoint judges who would just nod and agree, since they'd be out of power before the judges.

Now, has Redand stopped being such an idealist?

Actually, I'm tending away from having it completely ultraminimal. I'm thinking it should be a sort of confederation of city states, except that there is a basic law everyone is expected to follow. Inbetween the city states would be land directly under the juristiction of the federal government, where people can live if they don't like any state governments. Or create their own.

Side note - I'm going to be ordering a book soon called Coup d'etat - A Practical Handbook. That's one way of getting the land.

Violence begets Violence. In the long run a Coup d'etat says that it is okay to overthrow by force a government with which you disagree. Who's to say that having established that precedent, someone won't go after you.

Or, as Shakespeare said in Macbeth:

Quote :

If it were done when ’tis done, then ’twere well
It were done quickly. If th’assassination
Could trammel up the consequence, and catch
With his surcease success: that but this blow
Might be the be-all and the end-all, here,
But here upon this bank and shoal of time,
We’d jump the life to come. But in these cases
We still have judgement here, that we but teach
Bloody instructions which, being taught, return
To plague th’inventor. This even-handed justice
Commends th’ingredience of our poisoned chalice
To our own lips.

(IIRC the play Macbeth is based on real history)

Coup d'etat's are a very bad way to get territory.

I jest.

It's a bit of a catch-22, aint it?