Politico

[chicoazul]

Been doing some thinking D/D/MN/TXB/WT/N.

I know that some things were put on the ban list, rightfully so as they god melted up the max, but would it be possible to take politics off the leash?

Its a big mad now but we used to have some boss debates on here ages ago, with lots of sensible posters contributing. We've gone a little soccer am-ish now but I miss those well put together, thought out threads.

If anyone acted a tit then they could be banned.

Its just an electronic football forum like.


Anyway, chew it over.

 

[Reidy's Bottle Of Grecian]

The titty lip is out again

She took my milk like. Bad form.

i've been far more abusive than i was in the said post btw.....without recrimination.

 

[Nebbiolo]

I think your (one's) own view of politics informs how you see "the show" so Bruce Wayne or TX or you or I might have different ideas about how we would perform if we were "maximum leader".

In this particular case, people were giving grief to Thatcher (something I don't have a problem with). However, if we (and I include myself in that) don't do anything to change the conditions that produce her - or anything else that we strongly disagree with - then we are culpable in our own fate and have abdicated our duty to ourselves.

It's just that in your post you talked about things as though there happened to be an objective reality, which implies that those in the know, would somehow have a privileged position from which to fight-the-fight. I was just saying that we often interpret things very differently so it was open to argument about which reality was indeed the real one. So a call for those in the know to fight for a just state, would mean a conflict of those that believe they're onto something.

I'm not meaning to get all postmodern on you, though. Some groups are nearer to the truth than others. I think broadly speaking the real reality is that which is seen by left-leaning liberals. They tend to advocate solutions that deal with what approximates to the truth; that is, they are nearest to the fact of the matter. From what you tend to write about politcal life and the state, I think we agree on most things, although I'm we have a number of differences.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

I think broadly speaking the real reality is that which is seen by left-leaning liberals.

Nah, I think the real reality is people that think like me

Without wishing to get bogged down in semantics, it's worth remembering that a liberal always used to be small government, ie free market social liberals. It's a recent invention for liberals to become quasi socialists.

i did 5 years of an apprenticeship during whichtime i also attended college, after that is it not reasonable to expect to find employment ?
should i have continued training in something else, then something else ?

Sure, you would think that would give you a strong chance but of course it's seldom as black and white. You may get a qualified person who doesn't attack the job finding process with the gusto of a less qualified person, or doesn't do interviews well, or picks a subject that doesn't provide enough jobs in that period, or there may be people with even more qualifications/experience. Lots of variables go into finding work.

 

[Nebbiolo]

I don't think "quasi-socialism" is entirely accurate. Liberalism tends to focus on individual rights, which is where it has to differ from socialism or fascism. But I think the new breed of liberal has realised that community rights also ought to be weighted against that. It also might be thought that was can be good for community, is able to foster what is good for the individual. After all, we're more than just a collection of individuals.

But liberalism is a broad church, which is why it's usually useful to identify which type of liberal you are. George Bush is a liberal, but not one that I would identify with.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

If you look at things like chaos theory and complexity science though, what is good for the individual nearly always correlates to what is good for the whole.

 

[Nebbiolo]

If you look at things like chaos theory and complexity science though, what is good for the individual nearly always correlates to what is good for the whole.

Not really sure on either theory, to be honest. As far as I remember, chaos theory tells us that determinism is nearly always true but an occasional event can interrupt that cycle making prediction nearly impossible. I don't think I've even heard of complexity science.

As far as what is good for the individual being good for society goes, I could turn that back and say that, logically speaking, what is good for society must therefore always be good for the individual.

Still there are plenty of things that are great for individuals that are bad for society. Unfettered capitalism is great for a number of individuals, but bad for our social fabric. Conversely, meeting the desires of the greatest number of people is good for society, but bad if those desires clash with your individual lifestyle.

That's why there must be a balancing act between the desires of individuals and the desires of their communities.

 

[chicoazul]

You see, thats what Im talking about.

Intelligensa conversation that Im too dim to take part in.

Were back baby.

 

[Nebbiolo]

You see, thats what Im talking about.

Intelligensa conversation that Im too dim to take part in.

Were back baby.

Chico sets people up for a fall there. Seem to remember him all politico in the past, and demolishing all that dared take him on regarding medical care in the US.

You know you're an intellectual, lerd. b)

 

[Goat]

He knows it, we knows it, he wont admit it and we will deny it.

 

[davek]

Not really sure on either theory, to be honest. As far as I remember, chaos theory tells us that determinism is nearly always true but an occasional event can interrupt that cycle making prediction nearly impossible. I don't think I've even heard of complexity science.

As far as what is good for the individual being good for society goes, I could turn that back and say that, logically speaking, what is good for society must therefore always be good for the individual.

Still there are plenty of things that are great for individuals that are bad for society. Unfettered capitalism is great for a number of individuals, but bad for our social fabric. Conversely, meeting the desires of the greatest number of people is good for society, but bad if those desires clash with your individual lifestyle.

That's why there must be a balancing act between the desires of individuals and the desires of their communities.

Spot on, Neb. Some people are in denial that the whole stinking game is up.

 

[chicoazul]

Youre making you blush here you tit.

 

[davek]

Youre making you blush here you tit.

Eh???

 

[chicoazul]

Eh???

I was speaking to Nebs you bad geg.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

Complex systems - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Evolution is a good example. The basic concept is that complex systems cannot be effectively controlled from the top down, and the most effective management is to allow things to evolve from the bottom up.

So taken in a political context, the ultimate top down system is a 1984 style state where the government try to control every facet of peoples lives. The ultimate bottom up system is a form of anarchy.

In most complex systems though basic rules exist that provide a degree of structure to the system. So in the evolutionary system there are the rules of nature, but within those rules individual creatures are free to act as they please (assuming no god exists that's controlling things of course). No government exists for the natural world and it's evolved into the most amazing thing imaginable.

It works because it has that feedback. Survival of the fittest. Obviously whenever such a phrase is mentioned people jump towards social darwinism, of letting the poor and the weak rot, but I don't think mankind is like that, we appear to have a natural compassion for others, providing those others are generally known to us. The banking system won't improve because it hasn't had that feedback, the bad banks are being kept alive when they should have gone bankrupt, and their actions should have been ridded from the system. So the mistakes will be taken on to the next generation and those mistakes replicated again.

Government is little better because we've had the same parties now for centuries by and large. By contrast if you compare the FTSE 100 now to 25 years ago and the turnover will have been immense, and with that turnover comes fresh ideas, fresh impetus.

In many ways you're right in that what is good for society is good for the individual, but the problem with that notion is that I suspect you mean that the societal good is determined by a government. It's a simple logic that the brains of the few simply cannot outdo the brains of the many. The notion of crowdsourcing has become popular of late and it runs along similar lines. 100 people, each trying different ways of achieving a goal will always beat 1 individual trying to achieve the same goal, regardless of how smart the 1 individual is.

It's this basic principle that makes markets more effective than nationalised companies because in a competitive market you're not putting all your eggs into one basket.

 

[davek]

I was speaking to Nebs you bad geg.

I knew that.