What can Gamers do to save energy?

[Menegrothx]

How do we decide you the most intelligent and skilled are?

Someone has to make tests I would guess. How do we ensure those tests are accurate and impartial?

How do governments and corporations decide who the most skilled are at the current moment when they need to ask advice from specialists of different fields? The most accomplished and respected scientists should do the job. It doesn't have the be the number 1 always.

There are other qualities besides skills and brains that make a good leader. What about that? How do we decide what mix is the best?

Helping to make decisions based on your scientific expertise isn't the same thing as leading the herd, those are two different jobs.

After we put these people in power how can civilians possibly monitor the layers and layers of ensuing government?

There are already organizations which monitor corruption around the world like Transparency International and corruption index is already in use in economics and statistics. Freedom from corruption is one of the indicators used in the measurement of Economic Freedom Index and those "best countries in the world"-lists always take level of corruption into account.

Make the bank accounts of politicians open for the public to see and device a system in which one can't have multiple bank accounts on different names etc. Monitor the e-mail and calls of politicians. That's what they want to do civilians in the name of terrorism prevention, people who claim to want to serve the public intrest need to show some dedication. There shouldn't be any closed doors in the government - if a civilian wants to see what's happening or read some file, then he/she should be able to do so. Only things that are essential to national security like some military files should be inaccessible.

With the sort of power we're talking about corruption is bound to happen.

It's a good thing that corrpution currently does not exist.

If the civilians are armed and the government isn't what prevents mod rule? Or if the government is armed, how can a bunch of civilians easily over come it?

Who said anything about the government not being armed? I just said that if the people are armed, then the government can't oppress them as clearly any sort of shift from the current system would lead into an authoritarian NWO reptilian socialist eugenics dictature in the minds of folks who listen to a lot of Alex Jones.

You seem to believe there is a moral limit to the amount of money a person should have.

More like a rational limit. What does a person really do with 100 million dollars? Where is he/she going to spend it? You could put a lot of it to a, from a collective point of view, better use and the person would still be a millionaire. Money itself isnt the problem, it's the natural resources, media, infrastructure and other things a person can buy with all the money. Like owning all the major media networks in the country.
The world has a limited amount of natural resources.

But I guess you could talk about moral aspective too. Why do you think that its justified and moral that in theory 0,2% of the world population can own 99,8% of it's resources? It's not unreasonable at all to want more than you need so other people would have less?

If we set such a limit, what is the motivation to make anymore money than the government allows you to use?

Because making more money is the only reason why we exist on this planet and the only rational reason for doing anything. The idea that the whole rat race thing has any further purporse than to create more money is inconceivable. We are here to make as much money as we can before we hit retirement age and then hopefully die as soon as possible to a heart disease or something like that so we wont become a burden.

Our tax system is progressive.

And what is progressive tax system about? Rich people paying more taxes because they have more money. And what do we do with the tax money? We spend it on things like education and scientific research. Oh the horror.
So if there already is a progressive tax system in place, what's the big deal? Rich people are still more wealthy than middle class and poor people. The only thing that will change is that we will need to start taxing some things more heavily as resources become more scarce. It's only a matter of do we want to prepare for a disaster, or do we want to start acting when the disaster has already hit us. But I guess some people enjoy looting.

Why should I give up my ideas of freedom and property

...said the Southern slave owner. Ideas of freeedom and property are as subjective as ideas of greater and common good.

so a group of people who think they are better than me can boss me around?

That's what the government already does.

How could mankind genuinely be better off if we give up such important ideals?

Which ideals exactly are you refering to?
Like I said, I don't think that 18th century philosophy or outdated concepts like communism and capitalism are compatitble with 21st century world. The world was so different back then that any ideals set back then could not predict all the technological and societal changes that have happened over the years- like black people and women becoming equal with white men. If we were to write a perfect constitution now, it would be completely outdated by the year 2300. Our view on copy right issues has changed dramatically when we started using the internet. That's one example of how ideals need to change with time and adapt to the situation.


One thing that people seem to forget is that the world is already ruled by a small elite. I doubt any one seriously thinks that we the people and democracy are the forces that are ultimately in charge of things in Western countries.

[Erik_Twice]

Holy mother of quotes! Have you ever thought about writting your thoughts in an elaborated manner instead of, well, jumping at each possible turn of phrase?

The snarkiness is also outweighting the rational arguments, which is quite bad.

[Menegrothx]

So if its bad to have educated people deciding things for masses, do you think we should get rid of the middle man and eliminate representative democracy? I don't know much about the case, but hasnt the state of California attempted to try some sort of direct democracy ("vote yes on prop X"), which eventually led to budget crisis and economic problems? Voters are like gamers, they dont know what they want. Every one wants less taxes and more services.

Have you ever thought about writting your thoughts in an elaborated manner instead of, well, jumping at each possible turn of phrase?

It's better to quote each sentence/paragraph I'm giving an answer to so the reader sees the initial argument and the counter argument.

[Johnodog]

Do you realize how much trash is generated each earth day at these earth day gatherings?
Just cancel the "celebrations" and we can eliminate loads of trash.
Personally, I am not a big "save the world" guy. I think it is the height of human conceit to think the earth needs our protection. Mother earth has outlived the dinosaurs and it will outlive us.

As far as Government goes..both sides stink and they have created a left/right narrative to distract from the fact that there isn't much difference between the two parties.

[Erik_Twice]

It's better to quote each sentence/paragraph I'm giving an answer to so the reader sees the initial argument and the counter argument.

All that achives is an ever-spawnling pyramid of quotes that is barely readable and that focuses more on proving someone wrong instead of presenting a self-standing philosophy. You don't need quotes to have a good debate and just arguing back and forth isn't specially valuable.

Trust me, I used to be in your position and it was good I decided to change it.

[Menegrothx]

All that achives is an ever-spawnling pyramid of quotes that is barely readable and that focuses more on proving someone wrong instead of presenting a self-standing philosophy. You don't need quotes to have a good debate and just arguing back and forth isn't specially valuable.

Yeah, not being able to defend your point of view or to fix flaws in your opponents accusations sure is a great way to present a self-standing philosophy.

All I am saying is that since I am a part of a society, I want that the people spending our collective tax funds are a bunch of qualified scientists that were chosen to do the job due to their merits rather than a bunch of opportunistic profit seeking politicians and bureaucrats that we're chosen to the job due to their expensive ad campaigns, espescially since under the current circumstances it's vital that we dont base everything on the concept of short term profit if we want our grand children to have as good lives as we did. I want that the most qualified people run the society because it's better for the all of us.

I have no problem admitting that I am not smart enough to make big decisions like that. However many people, often insecure men, feel feminized and powerless if they dont have their illusion of free choice and authority. It would just be better for society if people were able to admit "I am not perfect" so we could function more efficiently.

[Erik_Twice]

Yeah, not being able to defend your point of view or to fix flaws in your opponents accusations sure is a great way to present a self-standing philosophy.

My point is that you don't need to quote phrase per phrase to do that, it's bad writting and valuing your own ideas means you should value expressing them well too.

The best posters of Racketboy barely use quotes when debating, which is why it's such a pleasure to read what, say, JT writes. And his arguments come out stronger out of it all.

[Menegrothx]

My point is that you don't need to quote phrase per phrase to do that, it's bad writting

What are you suggesting?
A) Ignore some of the opponents points and arguments
B) Address all of the points but don't quote the poster

I don't understand your logic. It's a lot more frustrating if you have to find the original comment that is being responded to from the previous page of the topic, especially if the poster does not directly address to whose arguments he/she is answering to. If you quote some one, every one reading the thread can see the argument and counter argument side by side.

[ninjainspandex]

No one answered my question of why enviromentalists are almost always anti war i really cant think of a better form of population control.

[Johnodog]

@ninjaspandex. Hilarious. I also wonder why the same kids who wear the picture of the notorious murderer Che Guevara very often decry all the tactics that made Che's career. But the truth is that the young tend to be liberal. ( I was up until College) so they pretty much parrot the liberal talking points of no wars( never realizing that sometimes you don't have a choice) and pro environment( as if everyone else is pro pollution ) etc.
As they get older they will realize that both sides are corrupt and both sides start wars and both sides use oil and both sides lie about the other sides' intentions. Its all a game to distract from the truth that both sides are owned by corporations.