History Request

[Ryker]

Libertarian-socialist, yes. The virtual absence of private ownership while maintaining personal ownership with minuscule government authority. *closes eyes and smiles*

[Vilhelm Benkern]

John Galt is a creation of Aynus Rand. Better question, who is Patrick Bateman?

[Kaiser Mo'll I]

Shireroth is an almost direct product of the 1960s when you think about it: formed by the washed up remnants of US West Coast counterculture adulterated by a decade or so of Reaganite kitsch, then dumped conveniently into the latter days of Web 1.0 to set our glorious Imperial Republic in motion.

They probably wouldn't thank me for saying that, mind...

[Aryeztur]

We don't need any of these attempts to radically change or mold society. We need to reverse the 60s, 1914-1919, and 1789.

[Verion]

John Galt is a creation of Aynus Rand. Better question, who is Patrick Bateman?

Patrick Bateman is someone who gets upset about business cards.

[Verion]

We don't need any of these attempts to radically change or mold society. We need to reverse the 60s, 1914-1919, and 1789.

Agreed, 1776 was enough. Life, liberty and the pursuit of hapiness.

[Aryeztur]

I can accept the classical liberalism of the Enlightenment and founding fathers though I prefer the classical and organic conservatism of Burke, Montesquieu, etcetera. But both are preferable to all else. Closes eyes and smiles.

The Canadian words being Peace, Order, and Good Government being a reflection of the British tradition. Within those bounds, I am all in favor of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

[Ryker]

Before literacy went through the roof and public schooling (pitiful as it may be over here) made the population more aware of politics, life, liberty , etc. were all we needed. Now there are too many loopholes to give yourself "more equality" than others. And speaking of Canada, is anyone here from there? It is on the top of my "Move here ASAP" list.
Edit: to those who envy the States way back in the beginning and just after WWI: the union was an isolationist political experiment until the atom bomb, which made the Soviets and States world superpowers. Because we liked the spotlight, the cycle of war-then-isolated ended. It's funny, we're raised with people saying that we are #1 yet still find ourselves dissatisfied.

[Aryeztur]

Equality is nobody's right. The only equality that matters is equality under the law. You can try to arrange things so that there will be equality of wealth or property, but due to the unequal abilities and talents of people as well as their unequal personalities, intelligence, and looks, equality will never stabilize as an equilibrium. It is perhaps natural for societies to be unequal, as virtually every society in history has shown. That being said, obviously many aspects of the current corporate capitalism are disturbing, but there is no ideal solution and if anything the basis of the problem is cultural- how we see things such as money being most important, and giving into an advertising/consumerist culture. That is why though I share some of your sentiments, I see the solutions as being entirely different.

[Ryker]

*rapidly shakes head* Whoa, I really derailed this topic, didn't I? You are welcome to delete or move my tangent elsewhere. I should be more careful when handling RL politics. Let's leave it at this: There is no system which is both idealistic and realistic but we should still strive to make them as close as possible.

[Aryeztur]

I don't mind that you went on a tangent at all. I like talking about politics in a theoretical sense and besides I also like the way this conversation has developed naturally. Often too much attempt is made in this hobby to stick to formulaic posts rather than just have a conversation.

[Ryker]

Very good then.

[Vilhelm Benkern]

The only equality that matters is equality under the law.

I think people working jobs like this might disagree (I picked an inflammatory URL).

You can try to arrange things so that there will be equality of wealth or property, but due to the unequal abilities and talents of people as well as their unequal personalities, intelligence, and looks, equality will never stabilize as an equilibrium. It is perhaps natural for societies to be unequal, as virtually every society in history has shown. That being said, obviously many aspects of the current corporate capitalism are disturbing, but there is no ideal solution and if anything the basis of the problem is cultural- how we see things such as money being most important, and giving into an advertising/consumerist culture.

I want to make a few points in response to this. First, we don't need to tackle 'INEQUALITY', the social phenomenon that sees people being better or worse off than other people, but I think most egalitarians and equality advocates see equality as a guiding ideal or principle from which specific, realistic policies can be distilled - at the moment that means curbing the worst excesses of capitalism. Equality is not a binary set-up, but a graduating scale of 'more' and 'less' equal. A hypothetical society could have a small gap between rich and poor, but all men could be disenfranchised chattels. Or people of Race(A) could have a small gap between rich and poor while people of Race(B) are 75% in the bottom quartile in terms of income while 25% are in the upper quartile. I think framing equality as a single issue, a single goal, misrepresents what it's really about and what people actually argue for.

Second, I question how much of the inequalities in society can be chalked up to unequal personalities, intelligence and looks. I wonder how much is down to social conditions plus a bit of blur - random upward and downward social mobility based on factors such as unexpected genius poor child prodigy and drug-addict rich person's kid. Now we need to turn to the empirical science to find out, but I wonder if the richest people in our society are the smartest, with the best personalities and most attractive? Or did they go to the best schools, were they made comfortable with old boys' clubs in their youth, and can they afford personal trainers and botox? I'm not presenting this as a fully fleshed argument but I want to show how in our present society, those three things play a much reduced role. They would perhaps play a bigger role in a truly equal society because you couldn't get your children tutors (or everyone could), and no-one could afford botox (or everyone could) - but then, would that be such a bad thing? Compared to now where meritocracy is second, third, fourth-reserve fiddle to position and status.

[Vilhelm Benkern]

And a side point about things growing organically - this is as much a criticism of Aryasht's constitution as of this conversation. Nature is a model - but I wouldn't say it's got some perfect quality to it, I think that gives it an air of religosity which only a pantheist can entertain. Conversations and constitutions can grow organically, just like mesothelioma or any other terrible cancer. Nature should be viewed as a resource to be guided, maintained and exploited by human industry. (I will accept brutal criticisms from people who do not draw a distinction between humans and nature.)

[Verion]

I would regard man as part of nature but also as the (currently) ultimate product of evolution. This status gives us the power to rule over the parts of the pyramid of life that are below us. (eg. everything non-human)

[Ryker]

We have a ways to go before we are finished improving, thinking otherwise is admirable though.

[Ryker]

It is mot intelligence which makes humanity successful, but adaptability.

[Aryeztur]

First, (To Benkern), your posting of the article on Dalits. I find that all of a sudden when it comes to India related issues, I become a liberal and shed my Conservative leanings which are more applicable to the West. In India's case, I'm totally in favor of action to equalize society, and get rid of the Caste system though I think a more Japan like solution is better than affirmative action. Laicite is also tempting.

Also, I do agree that a natural constitution requires pruning by human agency. If you feel that way in regards to Aryasht, you are Prince, by all means, graft and prune.

I will reply to the rest later.

[Orion]

There are a few notable old fogeys.

Speak for yourself!

I joined the hobby when I was 19. I'm now 34.