Where do you stand politically? - Page 4

Verres · September 13, 2003, 11:15

Basically, using words of very few syllables, i do not believe you can achieve equality if you are ruled by scientists and tecnological experts because then you would be automatically marking out this section of society as being superior. Unless evryone had an equal opportunity to rule, how could they all be equal? (I will understand if you do not deem this worth a reply as it was written in standard english)

Az · September 13, 2003, 11:16

Most of society is driven by technocrats already.

Verres · September 13, 2003, 11:20

Precisely, and you think we have equality????

Buck Birdseed · September 13, 2003, 11:24

Do you want a standard english description of what I believe? Can do! Or I could just explain all of the terms.

BeBro · September 13, 2003, 11:27

I´d be interested in post-socialist and new pluralist. Seriously now - why those distictions, what is new pluralism? Isn´t pluralism enough?

Verres · September 13, 2003, 11:28

Unfortunately for you, i also have an IQ in triple figures so am well aware of what the terms mean. I simply resent it when people use them to try and bamboozle people into believing the writer must be oh-so-intelligent and therefore do not dare to challenge their views. To be honest, I think writing a standard english description of your beliefs would be a very bad idea, as then people may realise you are just as stupid as the rest of us really.

Az · September 13, 2003, 11:29

yes, Verres, but that's because these technologists are doing the wrong things. ( let's keep technocrat to the ideology). What I am saying is that the fact that our society doesn't allocate resources properly doesn't mean that it is not efficient in creating them.

Verres · September 13, 2003, 11:34

I dont disagree with you there at all. I am simply saying that you cannot believe in equality yet also believe the world must be run by technocrats! It's completely nonsensical! (wow, a word of 4 syllables)

Buck Birdseed · September 13, 2003, 11:41

Quote:

Originally posted by BeBro
I´d be interested in post-socialist and new pluralist. Seriously now - why those distictions, what is new pluralism? Isn´t pluralism enough?

Pluralism (of the standard kind) involves a plurality of interests (usually economic or ideological) competing for power. New Pluralism involves a plurality of identities competing for power. In other words, it means that I want a society where many different groups- genders, classes, sexualities, cultures, religions, ages, etc. decide on stuff together, each brininging their unique insights and interests into the decision, each having a fair share of political power, none trampling over the others.

Post-socialist means I reject the one-dimensional class struggle of socialism in favour of many idenitity struggles, where genders, sexualities, etc. are oppressed and excluded from power. I want to allow the "weak" groups in each case to gain more say in the way soiciety is run and make them participate more in the decision-making processess. Of course, I also want groups to be flexible and not run internally by elites if I can help it.

Couple this with Feminism (the belief in such a struggle in the male-female gender axis), Civic Republicanism (the belief that the best way to achieve a good society is citizenship and participation controlled by a rigid, fair constitution) and Radical Democracy (a radical left-wing belief in the democratic process) and you've got a pretty coherent ideology I think.

Az · September 13, 2003, 11:44

I just wanted to point out, that I completely disagree with Buck.

Buck Birdseed · September 13, 2003, 11:47

I know.

Verres · September 13, 2003, 11:50

Just had to be an annoying little s*** and point out that pluralism also refers to someone holding more than one office at the same time. See what happens when you use jargon instead of standard english?

Buck Birdseed · September 13, 2003, 11:52

So what's an acceptable alternative to "New Pluralism"? I'd use "Consociationalism except without the elite theory baggage" but that's even more incomprehensible.

Verres · September 13, 2003, 11:59

My, my, someone has been studying the dictionary lately

I am sure you will now enjoy telling me what consociationalism is, because i have never even heard of it (yes, i am ashamed!). I can guess that it is to do with consociation...but am not sure how it fits in with pluralism etc (doesnt consociation have something to do with close association????)

Buck Birdseed · September 13, 2003, 12:25

consociation just means an "association by fellowship or alliance" (according to my dictionary), ie. people with differences agreeing to something together. Consotiationalism (which is a bollocks word, I agree) was launched by some woman I can't remember the name of (I need to read Anne Phillips's "Democracy and Difference" again!) and basically contests that the most democratic thing to do would be to replace political parties with groups divided according to identity. In other words, instead of the socialists selecting their representatives, the women, blacks, christians etc. would select theirs, thus ensuring a fair division of power and each groups' interests being looked after.

I don't like it becuase I think it makes groups too rigid (ooh, Queer theory creeping in, watch out!), and because it focuses too much on elites within each group. I also don't think such a system is a good replacement for democracy, possibly a compliment.

Az · September 13, 2003, 12:41

Quote:

Originally posted by Buck Birdseed
I know.

I know that you know.

Urban Ranger · September 13, 2003, 13:00

Quote:

Originally posted by Buck Birdseed
each brininging their unique insights and interests into the decision, each having a fair share of political power, none trampling over the others

Therefore, nothing ever gets done

Az · September 13, 2003, 13:04

yes, we need a strong leader to get things done.

BeBro · September 13, 2003, 13:06

I could make it! Elect me! I´ll provide free bananas for all

Verres · September 13, 2003, 13:46

Sounds good to me!

Kirnwaffen · September 13, 2003, 14:05

I think I could be fairly described as a moderate.

Odin · September 13, 2003, 16:44

I am somewhat of a technocrat, mainly because I am ticked off by peoples ignorance of sciene (creationists, anti-GM food people, lumbermen who think they are more important than 2,000 year old redwoods, anti-NASA people, etc.).

All hail the Technocratic-Socialist branch of the CPA!

Buck Birdseed · September 13, 2003, 20:27

Quote:

Originally posted by Urban Ranger

Therefore, nothing ever gets done

Obviously it needs to be managed... In the long term it produces more efficient decisions, jsut like a democracy is more efficient than a dictatorship even if its slower.

Lawrence of Arabia · September 13, 2003, 20:30

DOWN WITH THOSE WHO THINK THEY ARE BRAINIER THEN THE REST!!! :doitnow: :doitnow: :doitnow:

Odin · September 13, 2003, 20:34

Quote:

Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia
DOWN WITH THOSE WHO THINK THEY ARE BRAINIER THEN THE REST!!! :doitnow: :doitnow: :doitnow:

We are Brainer.

My IQ is 140

Spiffor · September 13, 2003, 20:37

Quote:

Originally posted by Agathon
Yeah, it's the CPA versus the Nazis!

Go CPA !!!!!

Spiffor · September 13, 2003, 20:38

Quote:

Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia
DOWN WITH THOSE WHO THINK THEY ARE BRAINIER THEN THE REST!!! :doitnow: :doitnow: :doitnow:

Brainier people know one should put the "!" at the end of the "doitnow!" smiley

Ben Kenobi · September 13, 2003, 22:10

Urban Ranger · September 13, 2003, 23:54

Quote:

Originally posted by Buck Birdseed
Obviously it needs to be managed... In the long term it produces more efficient decisions, jsut like a democracy is more efficient than a dictatorship even if its slower.

My previous post was just in jest.

My major objection to some of these ideologies or political positions is they do nothing to further overall progress. It seems to me that they advocate people to band into smaller and smaller groups, each vieing for power and grab for their own share.

My view is people need to recognise differences, but also recognise that they are members of a greater group. Instead of splintering, they should forge together.

Drogue · September 14, 2003, 08:20

Quote:

Originally posted by Buck Birdseed
Obviously it needs to be managed... In the long term it produces more efficient decisions, jsut like a democracy is more efficient than a dictatorship even if its slower.

I dispute both of those. I think the fatc it has to be managed, and the burocracy involved, means it will be less efficient. I also think democracy is. It may produce a better decision (though I would dispute that too) but it is very inefficient in getting to it.

Quote:

Originally posted by Azazel
I just wanted to point out, that I completely disagree with Buck.

As do I

Quote:

Originally posted by Odin
We are Brainer.

My IQ is 140

Try to find the 'Poly average, and then check that's above it

There are lots of brainy people here, a least a couple who are in the 180+ range too.