The label 'love' itself is perhaps too misused, — universeness
Isn't that group forming, which is even encouraged, basically the function of political parties? And just what means "on an issue to issue basis"? Somehow there wouldn't be representatives that have basically "conservative" values and then representatives who have "progressive/leftist" values? How do you assume the issue to issue basis?No, group forming of similarly minded individuals will happen, and is encouraged on an issue to issue basis, for the 4 years the elected 650 independents govern. — universeness
Who decides just who gets a "stakeholder" representative woman and man? You don't need anymore lobbyists acting as middlemen, heck, you will have everybody there simply as "stakeholders" obstructing/promoting what they need.The second chamber would have as many members as required to allow one male and one female rep from each group. — universeness
No really, don't you see the threat here?The military and the police would be represented at all levels of government, but the military and police would not be under the full control of the first chamber. — universeness
Isn't that group forming, which is even encouraged, basically the function of political parties? And just what means "on an issue to issue basis"? Somehow there wouldn't be representatives that have basically "conservative" values and then representatives who have "progressive/leftist" values? How do you assume the issue to issue basis? — ssu
The people will decide. I have already indicated how it might be achieved, other stakeholder groups that I have not yet mentioned, would most likely be, two(one male and one female,) from the transport industry, the leisure industry, the fuel industry, the construction industry, etc, etc. They are there to represent the interests of the workers in those fields. All profit based businesses would have a maximum of 4 reps (2 from small and 2 from larger based, privately owned companies). That is my personal view regarding private businesses.Who decides just who gets a "stakeholder" representative woman and man? You don't need anymore lobbyists acting as middlemen, heck, you will have everybody there simply as "stakeholders" obstructing/promoting what they need. — ssu
No.What about foreign countries? Aren't they too stakeholders??? — ssu
The army, navy, air force and police would each have two reps in the second chamber. This is because those fields all have workers, who are the same as any other worker. I have already indicated that the first chamber would not have full control over the assets of the armed forces or the police. The details involved are complex.You are putting part of the government (armed forces, police) that is under the executive branch in control or having partly control also of the legislative branch. This goes totally against the separations of powers principal. Because now, in your system, generals themselves are deciding on the laws that regulate them and how much will the government give money to them. There's really a difference of the generals asking politicians for money and generals deciding themselves on the money. — ssu
This is completely wrong, and money would be removed from our lives completely. Perhaps you should read up a little on how a resource based economy, which employs automation as its backbone, would work. You need to stop thinking of the military and the police as 'them,' when we need to ensure in the future I am attempting to describe to you, that they are an integral part of 'us.'Because now, in your system, generals themselves are deciding on the laws that regulate them and how much will the government give money to them. — ssu
That's your personal view. How about cooperatives, public companies? So I guess you are then the dictator that decides just who get a "stakeholder position" and who don't. :roll:I have already indicated how it might be achieved, other stakeholder groups that I have not yet mentioned, would most likely be, two(one male and one female,) from the transport industry, the leisure industry, the fuel industry, the construction industry, etc, etc. They are there to represent the interests of the workers in those fields. All profit based businesses would have a maximum of 4 reps (2 from small and 2 from larger based, privately owned companies). That is my personal view regarding private businesses. — universeness
That's your personal view. How about cooperatives, public companies? So I guess you are then the dictator that decides just who get a "stakeholder position" and who don't. :roll: — ssu
Only in your, imo, confused thinking.Now here's the problem: your system is extremely convoluted and very hierarchial. It's really about the "etc, etc." and just who decides who are the "etc, etc." in the first place. — ssu
It's very simple. The second house is made up of the main significant stakeholders from human society. These form two broad categories. Workers and Social groupings. The military and the police are workers for example. Binary and non-binary sexuality are two social groupings. Exactly who fits in to which worker or social group, is a matter of decision via democratic debate and such groupings would be open to change, as the term 'social' and what counts as 'worker' is open to change. For example, I consider all home carers as workers regardless of their relationship with those they care for.First, you have members of second house of parliament based on like sexual minorities (how then on sexual majority, no?), then you have members based on where they work (which give a plethora of industries and services, if for example construction industry has it's own representative), then representatives (2) on companies. Then based on age. Then based on education. How about religion? (And missing is that people live in different places in the UK.) — ssu
That does not matter, the young and old will have two reps in the second chamber and your last sentence above is just nonsense.Yet here's the basic problem: people actually are made up of nearly every category: they are either young or old, they are either in a sexual minority or not, they are religious (which can vary) or atheist, they work in some or another work. AND SELDOM none of these issues matter on what they think about policy. — ssu
:lol: Are you serious? Are you really asking me if I think the Russian invasion of Ukraine affects Ukrainians of different ages and different sexual orientations in different ways as well as in the same ways? My answer would be yes!, of course it does, but that would also be a rather 'no shit Sherlock,' statement for any rational thinker, yes?How about let's say assistance to Ukraine that the country is given after the Russian invasion? Is that a sexual minority/majority issue? Is it an age issue, really? — ssu
I assume that you understand that your opinion is just that. So you are a vote against my proposals. If the complete removal of party politics is ever voted on, then you can vote no and I will vote yes. I hope for the sake of our species that you and those who agree with you, lose the vote.The apparent reason to make such a convoluted system to my view is to make the whole system unworkable. When it's unworkable, someone other has to do the actual ruling and day-to-day management of the system. It's like Ghaddafi's Libya. — ssu
It is exactly that, imo. I don't understand your last sentence, as that is exactly what I am advocating and that is exactly what party politicians often promise to do but rarely do, once they are elected, due to either being opportunists or due to being burdened and controlled by party political hierarchy.The system has to be understandable and simple for the ordinary person to understand it. Why cannot it be so that people elect representatives that promise to advance issues that the people want to be advanced? — ssu
Nations that have called themselves socialist and democratic have been typically dictatorships.I think you are rather confused. In a socialist democracy, dictatorship is impossible. — universeness
Isn't that exactly what existing democracies are about?It is exactly that, imo. I don't understand your last sentence, as that is exactly what I am advocating — universeness
Again, who defines what stakeholders are significant? And once you have decided that, how are you going to change it?. The second house is made up of the main significant stakeholders from human society. — universeness
Where do you define the young and old? Who is young and old? And how do these differ from others?That does not matter, the young and old will have two reps in the second chamber and your last sentence above is just nonsense. — universeness
No, I'm asking about the second house of the Parliament in the UK you are describing. You think sex matters are important in this case? Because you will have people representing LGBTQ+ (and wouldn't some of them be offended by the man and women division?) deciding on the British assistance on Ukraine. And then people representing the fuel industry deciding on it. And so on.? Are you really asking me if I think the Russian invasion of Ukraine affects Ukrainians of different ages and different sexual orientations in different ways as well as in the same ways? — universeness
What I get is this frustation on politics and political parties. Well, it's naive to think that politics will become better if we just ban politicians and political parties. As if then somehow by magic how people do politics would change. I say it wouldn't: you would simply have political groups that act like political parties but say they aren't political parties. It would just make things murkier because the factions deny themselves being factions...or political parties.I assume that you understand that your opinion is just that. So you are a vote against my proposals. If the complete removal of party politics is ever voted on, then you can vote no and I will vote yes. I hope for the sake of our species that you and those who agree with you, lose the vote. — universeness
Yes, it's a proposal.. It is a proposal outline, not a rigid system. — Vera Mont
Especially in a Philosophy Forum where the people are anonymous, I think it is good to get answers even to stupid questions. And also get feedback to own ideas.I have found that carping at them doesn't improve ideas. — Vera Mont
I think it is good to get answers even to stupid questions. And also get feedback to own ideas. — ssu
I don't understand why you try to labour this, when you and I and the vast majority of folks with an average political education, know well enough, the truth of such. Any historical revolution of a mass of stakeholders at a the level of 'nation' has began with 'true socialism,' as it's main driver. Animal Farm by Orwell, and a vast collection of other literature and documentation, explains in a crystal clear fashion, what often goes very wrong after that and why. The fact that the pigs who have in the past formed a dictatorship, out of what started as socialist revolutions against the actions of monarchistic/aristocratic rule in such nations as China, Russia, France etc, does not mean that continuing to describe them as socialist and democratic, is in any way valid. It is utter nonsense to suggest that it is valid, and you know that. So your reasons for doing so, will hopefully be plain for any intelligent reader to see, and only serve to demonstrate your obtuse intentions.Nations that have called themselves socialist and democratic have been typically dictatorships. — ssu
I hardly need to make much effort here at all, to combat your claims. Your example above is an insult to all those in the UK who are serious about their politics. If your best attempt at combatting my position is to invoke a monty python sketch then imo, you defeat yourself, as your example, in the context you try to employ it, is too stupid to be taken seriously, and will do no more, imo than cause mockery, but not against my proposals, but at you.If there's a very popular movement in the UK that wants to save the British cultural heritage of silly walking, wants silly walking be encouraged, advanced and assisted by the government and have the objective of a ministry of silly walks to be formed, then an elected administration will form a ministry of silly walks. If it doesn't, this movement will vote for the party that will do this. Or form their own party to do this. And because it is so popular among the electorate who feel silly walking is crucial for British culture, existential for Britishness to survive and far more important than any other issue, why wouldn't it happen?
This is something very crucial to British culture! — ssu
Again, you describe another example of a situation that I would be totally against. Where did I advocate that the second chamber I described to you would have permanent members? and that such permanent members would come from 'various ethnic and religious groups?'For example Lebanon had (I think has even now) a very convoluted system where representatives of the various ethnic and religious groups have permanent positions on the government. It was intended for the benefit of the multicultural country, but it's made Lebanese politics even worse. — ssu
Again, who defines what stakeholders are significant? And once you have decided that, how are you going to change it? — ssu
How many times do I have to restate to you, that the people will decide such, via democratic discussion/debate and voting for representatives that best represent their personal conclusions.Where do you define the young and old? Who is young and old? And how do these differ from others? — ssu
No, I'm asking about the second house of the Parliament in the UK you are describing. You think sex matters are important in this case? Because you will have people representing LGBTQ+ (and wouldn't some of them be offended by the man and women division?) deciding on the British assistance on Ukraine. And then people representing the fuel industry deciding on it. And so on. — ssu
This paragraph is rambling and full of ridiculous projections and claims that either I have not suggested (emboldened) in any way, or are just your badly formed and somewhat ridiculous predictions (italicised)What I get is this frustation on politics and political parties. Well, it's naive to think that politics will become better if we just ban politicians and political parties. As if then somehow by magic how people do politics would change. I say it wouldn't: you would simply have political groups that act like political parties but say they aren't political parties. It would just make things murkier becausethe factions deny themselves being factions...or political parties. — ssu
It is a proposal outline, not a rigid system — Vera Mont
Oh, certainly... as long as the the questions are based on an accurate reading of the proposal and not on assumptions brought over form a different system of thought, a different economic organization, a different set of political criteria. — Vera Mont
So, you agree then that getting completely rid of the house of lords would be a good first step in starting to improve the way UK politics works?The actual upper house of the UK Parliament, the house of lords, is a perfect example of how rigid these systems are in reality. If in the 11th Century the system fitted the needs of the times, the role of the UK aristocracy has dramatically changed when we come to this Century. And even if the hereditary membership was abolished in 1999, there still are exceptions. So there's an example of how rigid these systems are. — ssu
I agree, as you are not my target ssu. You are helping me to put forward some of my opinions on how I think politics could be done in far better ways, compared to those methods that humans currently employ. My target is of course, any readers of our exchange, which will not be many here on TPF, but even 1, is still worth my effort.I think it is good to get answers even to stupid questions. And also get feedback to own ideas. — ssu
You hardly wan't to answer my questions, I guess. Well, I could have given the example of the whole Brexit thing...and not silly walks.I hardly need to make much effort here at all, to combat your claims. Your example above is an insult to all those in the UK who are serious about their politics. — universeness
That's the idea. It's far better to talk about one's own ideas, really, on this forum because people do think and do engage seriously in the matter.I agree, as you are not my target ssu. You are helping me to put forward some of my opinions on how I think politics could be done in far better ways, compared to those methods that humans currently employ. — universeness
My point is that WHEN you give any stakeholder status in the upper house, be it as now the remnants of the aristocracy and retired politicians, or in your proposal "important stakeholders", once decided, the elected stakeholders will fight for their right to have their position in the house. Even if they aren't important anymore. They will be against change as the aristocracy has been in reality. Hence you need elections on just who are stakeholders. And what are "important stakeholders". For starters.So, you agree then that getting completely rid of the house of lords would be a good first step in starting to improve the way UK politics works? — universeness
You hardly wan't to answer my questions, I guess. Well, I could have given the example of the whole Brexit thing...and not silly walks. — ssu
It's nice that you are a Monty python fan, but you need to end your confusion about the connection between UK people, political comedy and the realpolitik of life in the UK under it's current abominable party political system.But what's not to like about silly walks? Monty Python is really part of modern British culture. Well liked and even mimicked abroad. — ssu
If you are smart enough to understand that, then perhaps with a little more depth of thought, you will begin to see the benefits to the vast majority of the human species on this planet that the abandonment of party politics would have. No more presidents or prime ministers, they are just surplus to human requirements, imo.That's the idea. It's far better to talk about one's own ideas, really, on this forum because people do think and do engage seriously in the matter. — ssu
My point is that WHEN you give any stakeholder status in the upper house, be it as now the remnants of the aristocracy and retired politicians, or in your account important areas, once decided, the elected stakeholders will fight for their right to have their position in the house. They will be against change as the aristocracy has been in reality. Hence you need elections on just who are stakeholders. For starters.
You have to design a system for the existing people ...that you don't like. They'll participate, I guarantee you. — ssu
You have to design a system for the existing people ...those too that you don't like and oppose your political views. They'll participate, I guarantee you. One way or another. — ssu
I would also offer zero respect to any title such as lord, duke, duchess, dame, count, sir knight or any other such utter crap. — universeness
Why? What is left to fight for, once you've been recognized and represented?My point is that WHEN you give any stakeholder status in the upper house, be it as now the remnants of the aristocracy and retired politicians, or in your proposal "important stakeholders", once decided, the elected stakeholders will fight for their right to have their position in the house. — ssu
Why do you choose to disconnect, empathy, and altruism as facets of love. — universeness
I don't propose to answer for Athena, but for myself: because "love" is such a loaded, booby-trapped word. It evokes sentimentality, hypocrisy, Christian doctrine and a whole a passel of emotional stuff with which I don't want to be lumbered. I have compassion for people I find quite unpalatable and for animals I would never want to encounter in the wild. That empathy, or sense of rightness or whatever it is is quite distinct from my personal relationships in which affection plays a major part. Also, I consider some constraints on my freedom, some obligations of time an effort, as a civic duty: the price of living in a society that affords me protection and support. — Vera Mont
So, you agree then that getting completely rid of the house of lords would be a good first step in starting to improve the way UK politics works?
— universeness
My point is that WHEN you give any stakeholder status in the upper house, be it as now the remnants of the aristocracy and retired politicians, or in your proposal "important stakeholders", once decided, the elected stakeholders will fight for their right to have their position in the house. Even if they aren't important anymore. They will be against change as the aristocracy has been in reality. Hence you need elections on just who are stakeholders. And what are "important stakeholders". For starters. — ssu
In one of Kurt Vonnegot's novels, that I don't have time to look up right now, he says "What the world needs in not more love but more common decency." — Vera Mont
do not think our freedom of speech means the freedom to say anything we want because it would include immoral speech. A moral is a matter of cause and effect. If the effect is bad, it is immoral. A lack of morals leads to anarchy and that is not tolerable so it becomes a police state. — Athena
And my questions are:It is a check and a balance to the first chamber or the sitting government. That is its main mission. — universeness
I assume that like the aristocracy, some stakeholders become less important and don't have the earlier importance to have a constitutional say on legislation. But they themselves likely will see themselves as important and worthy of the "stakeholder" position.Why? What is left to fight for, once you've been recognized and represented? — Vera Mont
1) How are these stakeholder groups decided?
2) Once decided, can these stakeholder groups be changed? And when, in what time? When some stakeholders aren't anymore "important stakeholders", just like the aristocracy. — ssu
I assume that like the aristocracy, some stakeholders become less important and don't have the earlier importance to have a constitutional say on legislation. — ssu
In my view giving the military a "stakeholder" status wouldn't be a good decision, as obviously the military and the police are part of the executive branch, hence the proposal goes against the Montesquieu's separation of powers. From their role of being the armed forces of the country they have already enough say in government's actions, they don't need to have a direct say on legislation in the process of making laws.I don't know who the other 'stakeholder' groups are; if they were listed earlier, I've forgotten. — Vera Mont
The person that decides just who has "important stakeholder" position can decide who rules. If you leave it for the voters to decide, then there has to be a proposal on what the people vote. You simply cannot ask the voter to invent themselves a list of what are "important stakeholders". Hence if universeness gave to various industries (I assume here the workers) stakeholder properties, then obviously the trade unions would have a large say.Why would any particular stakeholder be more or less important than another? It's nothing like the aristocracy you seem so concerned about. — Vera Mont
In my view giving the military a "stakeholder" status wouldn't be a good decision, as obviously the military and the police are part of the executive branch, — ssu
We need global unity, not more 'nationhood' that uses outdated monarchistic words, such as 'sovereign.'
1. Get rid of money and build a resource based, global economic system, using automation as its backbone.
2. Abandon party politics and employ a system that allows an individual to vote for a person to represent them and not a political party.
3. Create very powerful checks and balances which would prevent any individual or group from becoming too rich, too powerful, autocratic, totalitarian, etc, etc. — universeness
You seem utterly hung up on "important", as you were earlier on famines as the sole indicator of poverty.The person that decides just who has "important stakeholder" position can decide who rules. — ssu
That's the definition of democracy, yes. In the very unlikely event that the representatives are deadlocked and the second house can't come up with a viable adjustment on a particular issue, then, yes, the next step would be direct democracy.If you leave it for the voters to decide, then there has to be a proposal on what the people vote. — ssu
Not necessarily just the workers - of whom there are not so many as to require a trade union; since most of the labour is carried out by robots, the human workforce consists of supervisors, engineers, designers, planners, programmers, troubleshooters. However, the communications industry, or energy production or healthcare may have particular needs and problems of which the average elected representative is unaware. If those sectors are represented in the second house, they can suggest changes to a proposed legislation which involves their area of expertise.Hence if universeness gave to various industries (I assume here the workers) stakeholder properties, then obviously the trade unions would have a large say. — ssu
Usually there is. Or was the question if in universeness idea there would be. I'm not sure about that, ask him.Is there an executive branch? — Vera Mont
The military and the various police departments don't a) pass the laws or b) act as judges in the courts themselves. But they are under control of usually the administration, the president or prime minister. That's the idea in separation of powers and the different branches.Who put the military and the police under a single jurisdiction, anyway? Last I heard, police served individual municipalities, townships or states/provinces/counties. — Vera Mont
Could you please rename, without rescinding, the honours bestowed on persons who contributed to culture and human welfare? — Vera Mont
Grand Order of ....... Democracy (I am sure I could come up with a better 'D.' — universeness
The military and the various police departments don't a) pass the laws or b) act as judges in the courts themselves. But they are under control of usually the administration, the president or prime minister. That's the idea in separation of powers and the different branches. — ssu
Why? They're the ones who have to enforce the laws. Do you want them just to follow idiotic orders from some politician with an axe to grind, the way they have been doing? One hopelessly bogged-down, costly, destructive war after another? AND AGAIN - WHY?As I said to universeness, putting an institution like the military also having a say in passing the laws isn't a good idea in my view. — ssu
Because now you are putting the enforcers also work as legislators.Why? They're the ones who have to enforce the laws. — Vera Mont
If the political leadership wants to start a truly idiotic war, then I guess they have to go through a lot of generals until they find the yes-man they want. Again typical what has happened in history.Do you want them just to follow idiotic orders from some politician with an axe to grind, the way they have been doing? One hopelessly bogged-down, costly, destructive war after another? AND AGAIN - WHY? — Vera Mont
The UN is such an important international step towards global unity but it needs a complete overhaul. The fact it exists at all, demonstrates the wish humans have to elevate the priority of cooperation, way way above the priority of competition, imo.it could do worse than take its lead from the UN Declaration of Human Rights. — Vera Mont
Like it isn't sinful if it is love, right? — Athena
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.