Elon Musk is an inspiring character, but his erstwhile business partner, Peter Theil, seems a lot less so. — Wayfarer

I think it's quite the other way around. Elon Musk is the dummy - he's good with science, and not even that really - he's good with putting others to work. Peter Thiel is actually a philosopher (he graduated as one), and I've read all his writings, they're some of the best writings on business there exist. His book Zero to One is especially good, one of my favorite business books of all time.

Peter Thiel clearly knows and understands the world in a deep way, whereas Musk is just your cool wannabe teenager who wants to impress others. I still remember a story about him crashing a very expensive car while trying to show off. I read that he once read Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, etc. and them dismissed all of them as nonsense.

What a mass of contradictions you are, Agostino. The one politician who most egregiously exploits all the flaws you see in democracy, is the one you express admiration for. — Wayfarer

Exactly, getting rid of democracy would be a great gift that Trump could give the world.

now you're showing your true colors.

now you're showing your true colors. — Wayfarer

:s So I wasn't showing my true colors here:

I'm not willing to do anything to ensure the survival of democracy. — Agustino

so long as everyone here realizes we have a fascist in our midst then at least all our exchanges won't have been the complete waste of time they otherwise would have been.

so long as everyone here realizes we have a fascist in our midst then at least all our exchanges won't have been the complete waste of time they otherwise would have been. — Wayfarer

Is J.R.R. Tolkien a fascist too? :s

He said he is not a democrat, and he favored monarchy as well. I guess he's a fascist too.

I am not a 'democrat' only because 'humility' and equality are spiritual principles corrupted by the attempt to mechanize and formalize them, with the result that we get not universal smallness and humility, but universal greatness and pride, till some Orc gets hold of a ring of power--and then we get and are getting slavery — Tolkien

Our system obliges us to elevate to office precisely those persons who have the ego-besotted effrontery to ask us to do so; it is rather like being compelled to cede the steering wheel to the drunkard in the back seat loudly proclaiming that he knows how to get us there in half the time ... One can at least sympathize, then, with Tolkien's view of monarchy. ... A king--a king without any real power, that is--is such an ennoblingly arbitrary, such a tender and organically human institution. It is easy to give our loyalty to someone whose only claim on it is an accident of heredity, because then it is a free gesture of spontaneous affection that requires no element of self-deception, and that does not involve the humiliation of having to ask to be ruled. — David B. Hart

You should really know that you're only putting yourself to shame by seeking to enforce the false dichotomy of democracy or fascism. There have been many non-democratic regimes - for thousands of years - which weren't fascist. Fascism is a particular outgrowth of 20th century politics in Europe, that's all.

But of course Wayfarer - keep peddling your 1960s pink pony hippie stuff ;)

I'm waiting till you start citing these very people soon in your answers, as you often do.

There have been many non-democratic regimes - for thousands of years - which weren't fascis — Agustino

Such as?

Hart says 'one can at least sympathise' - hardly a ringing endorsement.

Such as? — Wayfarer

Such as the Roman Empire.

Is J.R.R. Tolkien a fascist too? — Agustino

No, I perfectly sympathise with Tolkein's aversion to modernity. I read The Fellowship: The Literary Lives of the Inklings, last year, and most enjoyed it (Barfield's my favorite). The point is, which you refuse to see, is that if there is no democracy, then it's not actually even possible to have 'a forum'. Why? Because there is no scope for disagreement, for differing views or opinions. There is only The Truth, and those, presumably yourself, who represent it, and the others, who are wrong.

Many things about modern 'culture', so-called, are clearly wrong, corrupt, and so on. Western culture, overall, is loosing its collective mind. If you were going to say that, then I might even agree. But the reason I say you're advocating fascism, is because your attitude doesn't allow for principled opposition or dissent, which is essential to democracy.

And the fact that when, asked for alternatives, you can only offer either The Roman Empire, which famously collapsed around 2,000 years ago (and which incidentally used to throw slaves and Christians to the lions), or a vague gesture towards 'constitutional monarchy' - and, now you mention it, I myself happen to live in one of them - really shows that you're not actually talking about political philosophy at all.

No, I perfectly sympathise with Tolkein's aversion to modernity. — Wayfarer

But you don't sympathise with Tolkien's view of democracy? We were talking about his view of democracy, not modernity mind you.

The point is, which you patently, obviously, repeatedly, obstinately, never see, is that if there is no democracy, then it's not actually even possible to have 'a forum'. Why? — Wayfarer

That's not true. The voice of the people existed and was taken into account in most non-democratic regimes through history.

Because there is no scope for disagreement, for differing views or opinions. — Wayfarer

:s nope. Democracy doesn't have a monopoly on enabling the presence of disagreement.

But the reason I say you're advocating fascism, is because your attitude doesn't allow for principled opposition or dissent, which is essential to democracy. — Wayfarer

You have yet to show why you take it that my attitude doesn't allow for principled opposition... here you are opposing me! Eppur si muove as Galilei said!

Take that away, and you start getting the knock at the door, at midnight. Although, maybe in your world, that is OK? — Wayfarer

Most non-democratic regimes in history didn't involve the knock at the door at midnight. In fact, in Chinese history, the knock at the door at midnight was usually the sign that some dynasty was about to come to an end :P

And the fact that when, asked for alternatives, you can only offer either The Roman Empire, which famously collapsed around 2,000 years ago, or a vague gesture towards 'constitutional monarchy' - and, now you mention it, I myself happen to live in one of them - really shows that you're not actually talking about political philosophy at all. — Wayfarer

The reason why I'm being vague is because your question is silly. Most of the regimes that have ever existed on earth have been monarchies probably. All the Chinese dynasties, the Roman Empire, the french and british monarchies, and so on so forth :s - that's why when you ask for examples it sounds very strange.

You have yet to show why you take it that my attitude doesn't allow for principled opposition... here you are opposing me! Eppur si muove as Galilei said! — Agustino

Put this another way - if I owned this forum, you think I'd ban you for opposing me or something? :s In fact, this forum as it is isn't a democracy at all.

But you don't sympathise with Tolkien's view of democracy? We were talking about his view of democracy, not modernity mind you. — Agustino

Well, no, I don't.

Democracy doesn't have a monopoly on enabling the presence of disagreement. — Agustino

It has a means of enabling it.

You have yet to show why you take it that my attitude doesn't allow for principled opposition. — Agustino

Because that is what democracy is.

Most of the regimes that have ever existed on earth have been monarchies probably — Agustino

Many people used to die of curable diseases before middle age.

You have no alternative system or proposal. All you're doing is expressing your feelings. And again, the country I live in is still technically a constitutional monarchy, and also a democracy.

Well, no, I don't. — Wayfarer

Ahhh okay! :D So he's a fascist? :P

It has a means of enabling it. — Wayfarer

But it doesn't have a monopoly on the means?

Because that is what democracy is. — Wayfarer

Democracy =/ principled opposition. Really - that's not the definition of democracy.

Many people used to die of curable diseases before middle age. — Wayfarer

Okay - what's this got to do with monarchies?

Democracy =/ principled opposition. — Agustino

The point is that democratic systems allow for principled opposition. The electorate gets a say in who will govern, but those who don't agree get a say in opposing the government. Under an authoritarian system, the opposition don't get any say. Sometimes they appear to have a say but in most cases they will only act as a rubber-stamp opposition. That is what I mean by 'principled opposition' - it's a system which allows for a diversity of viewpoints instead of imposing what some autocratic ruler or party says is right. Whatever its flaws, democracy has to be better than that; again, look at China.

Maybe you're not advocating fascism, but you are advocating some form of authoritarianism. But to say that you hope Trump succeeds in destroying democracy is a really creepy thing to say. I know governments and politicians are often dreadful, but the alternative you're suggesting don't represent any kind of real alternative; the world is not going to return to a monarchy. You said the other day you're the 'black sheep', what I think you're longing for, is a shephard. ;-)

I'm not seeing anyone suggesting that AI ought to govern, I think that idea is science fiction... — Wayfarer

"In particular, it is supposed, a hundred million dollars from Peter Thiel put toward the project of making a benevolent super-AI will do far more to improve the world than any political movement, since the first super-AI will, in Yudkowsky’s view, be the last form of government humans will ever know. AI is either the solution to all of humanity’s problems, or its final solution..." -- Problems of Transhumanism: Liberal Democracy vs. Technocratic Absolutism

It's still sci fi.

[Delete] @Baden

[Delete] @Baden

No. The ideal government is a collection of different governments of equal power that hate each other, if you are looking for advancement of humanity. If your argument is freedom, anarchy, if it is religion, monarchy.

The reason for the first one is because of the Cold War and its participation in space travel.

Representative Democracy

Representative Democracy — Maw

But this elects misogynists and racists and other foul creatures, :’(

I recognize this partly as an empirical question, you can't possibly say what the best possible outcome would be for sure if you haven't tried them and observed what the effects are. My guess is that if we progress into designing better and better institutions, it'll look somewhat different from what we are currently imagining.

But you can make educated guesses based on history and nuanced judgment. Ultimately I think we have to get rid of Corporations and State Governments as they exist today and set up some sort of deliberative democratic system, and it has to be a form of global cooperation (I mentioned corporations because I don't see the economic system as completely separate from governments if we're going to talk about who decides the rules in how society is structured)

Does this count as possible?
http://www.kurzweilai.net/ai-algorithm-teaches-humans-how-to-collaborate

[Delete] @Baden

The ideal government would be one freely chosen by its people through open and non-coercive means (e.g. rational discussion/debate).

[Delete] @Baden

Although there is no such thing as a perfect system of government, I would quite like to know what form of government is the closest to being perfect? — Sigmund Freud

Government without a state. A decentralized network of independent, collaborative and consensual collections of democratically-elected individuals with term limits and limited powers.

a trusted democracy is most important and i do believe that the countries military options should be put to public vote also, in most cases people will decide against war and most of the time the governments military actions do not reflect that of the public opinion. destroy of any weapon of mass destruction. a helping hand to developing countries. and a major peace advocate, these are all things that a good government would do. complete freedom for same sex marriage as well as equal pay for both genders. a government that is not racist and helps to give refuge to immigrants in need. you see where im going with this...

"Although there is no such thing as a perfect system of government, I would quite like to know what form of government is the closest to being perfect?"

- Like nothing before...