But I think we can agree on a standard of public discourse - so long as everyone has an equal share in decisions-making. — Vera Mont

Yes, this is foundational to establishing good governance.

And my questions are:
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

1) By plebiscite would be my choice.
2) Amendment to the constitution; at least 2/3 majority.
3) I doubt regions and genders will become obsolete anytime soon. I don't know who the other 'stakeholder' groups are; if they were listed earlier, I've forgotten.
How would any one or two representatives have more or less say in a democratic decision? Why would any particular stakeholder group be more or less important than another? It's nothing like the aristocracy you seem so concerned about. — Vera Mont

Vera has already offered you answers to your questions. I would add, for detail:

The majority of stakeholder groups would be obvious, under the two broad categories of worker group and social group. The initial stakeholder groups would be proposed by academics and a maximum number established, so that the second chamber is not so big that a stakeholder group rep size of two, remains significant and is not overwhelmed. The population would then vote by order of priority of which of the list of proposed stakeholder groups should become established.

Let's take the construction field as an example. So, plumbers, bricklayers, plasterers, painters, electricians, architects, labourers, steel erectors, scaffolders, joiners etc, etc. These folks would elect one male and one female rep from the candidates standing for election to the second chamber for a 4 year period, for that group.
Some folks in the construction field, will also be between 16 and 21 and some will be LGBTQ+, so they will be able to personally vote, 3 times for 6 reps overall.

The construction field is becoming more and more automated, so I think that a 'minimum membership' would be established for a proposed stakeholder group. So, yes, established stakeholder groups can change. This 'cut off' number would probably be established by consideration of the size of the average size of the most obvious stakeholder groups that would be established initially. We would then be left with 'minority' groupings. I would suggest that these could be joined, until their joining passes the minimum requirements for two reps in the second chamber.

The biggest concern I have with the abandonment of the current party political systems, is the structure, function and power wielded by a still essential civil service. I still think a lot about how to establish the vital checks and balances, that would be vital to establish, for any permanent worker in the civil service.
These people would be soooooooo important to the daily work of the first and second chambers and they would have a lot of influence. My main thought at the moment is that I would automate as much of their role as possible. What do you think about this area @Vera Mont?

What I think would clear up a lot would be that the duopoly of the two parties would be finally broken. But Americans simply believe in the impossibility of the "third party" and that I think is the biggest problem. Easiest way would be if both the Dems and GOP would separate into different parties themselves. — ssu

I agree with the very real problem you cite but your solution would exacerbate the problem, not solve it.
In the UK, you even have such ridiculous waste of everyone's time, such as 'the monster raving looney party' standing for election. Americans wont vote for a 3rd party because they hate the other tribe so much that they, quite understandably, want all their warriors to face down the main enemy directly, when they are needed most and not go off to support some other 'little tribe,' who have no ability to win the fight alone, but can give victory to the enemy, as they took too many of your warriors away from the main fight.
This BS must end. The way to end it, is to offer the voters independent reps to vote for, based on their personal political stances and not based on a party manifesto, with a well established, tradition and ossified hierarchy. Vote for a person, not a party!!!!
No more national political campaigns, full of political soundbites, cults of personality, damn lies and fake news. All campaigning would be restricted to the local constituency you are standing in. All televised debates would be local. No central party HQ's and no massive party political fundraising events allowed.

And in the end, you have things like this: — ssu

You know, what comes to mind are the Soviet Politbyro members of the Brezhnev time, waiving from the Kremlin (or above Lenin's tomb) during some parade: — ssu

You keep offering evidence of how broken party political systems are but also, you keep rejecting new proposals. Why do you insist in trying to defibrillate an already dead but still deadly system?

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

As far as I can see, the inter-regional legal body should be represented in the second house, to make sure any new legislation doesn't conflict with standing agreements. The individual troops and police personnel would, of course, still have their votes, one to each rookie, one to each general. — Vera Mont

Unions exist to protect workers rights against the nefarious actions of capitalist profiteers. They would hopefully no longer be needed in a resource based economy. As long as they do exist, they would not be able to dictate who their members should vote for as reps for the second chamber but a standing candidate could be an ex-union official.

The military and the police contain workers. The military and the police are made up of humans, so they must be represented in the second chamber, or else your notion of democratic representation is farcical imo.

You seem utterly hung up on "important", as you were earlier on famines as the sole indicator of poverty.
Nobody "rules"!!! No group is more important or less important or has more say or less say. Is that really so hard to understand? — Vera Mont

:clap: :clap:

Is there an executive branch?
— Vera Mont
Usually there is. Or was the question if in universeness idea there would be. I'm not sure about that, ask him. — ssu

No, I do not advocate the separation of state into these often competing insular branches, who are supposed to cooperate but rarely do. I would advocate for bringing these sub-systems much closer together so that they work in tandem and compliment and reinforce each other. At the moment they are open to individual isolation and corruption. It is unacceptable that some sitting f***wit president can affect the balance of the supreme court in the USA. Checks and balances should never allow such. It is also unacceptable that a criminal such as Trump should ever have been able to achieve election as president of America, via the collusion of the powerful elites controlling the now completely toxic GOP.
Never forget two important lessons from history that we should all know well by now, but yet the Americans who voted for Trump still fell for both of them or/and some knew fine well what they were voting for:
1. You can fool some of the people all of the time. (mostly attributed to Lincoln)
2. “If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.” - Joseph Goebbels.

We must do a lot better at combatting these very serious threats to human governance via the democratic consent of the people. How will you protect us from 1 and 2 above ssu? More party based, tribal rooted competitive politics? The very recipe that encourages and facilitates 1 and 2 above and eventually allows such to be realised?

Because now you are putting the enforcers also work as legislators.
When the military has a bigger role in politics, just look at the consequences in Egypt, or Sudan, or Myanmar.
There is a true reason just why separation of powers is important for democracies to work and it's surprising that you seem to think that this is irrelevant or unimportant. Civilian control of the military is important. But now, when you constitutionally give the military the power legislative power, it does matter. It's one matter for the military to ask for those tax dollars to invest, it's another thing when the are taking part of deciding just who or what gets tax dollars in general. — ssu

No, No, No, No, No! I am not suggesting we give such power to the military, they would have representation in the second chamber but two reps for the military and two reps for the police does not give them a majority in the second chamber! Stop exaggerating my suggestions ssu!

no other country could fight a war like in Afghanistan without having it's border next to it. — ssu

Really???
From wiki:
Afghanistan is a mountainous landlocked country at the crossroads of Central and South (Southern) Asia. Some of the invaders in the history of Afghanistan include the Maurya Empire, the ancient Macedonian Empire of Alexander the Great of Macedon, the Rashidun Caliphate, the Mongol Empire led by Genghis Khan, the Timurid Empire of Timur, the Mughal Empire, various Persian Empires, the British Empire, the Soviet Union, and most recently the United States.

Grand Order of ....... Democracy (I am sure I could come up with a better 'D.'
— universeness

I'm happy with that one. Maybe for solving some problem related to climate change or mitigating its effects - a big service to all the world, that a half-decent god would have performed but failed to. — Vera Mont

Oh, I really like that comparison!

Because now you are putting the enforcers also work as legislators. — ssu

Yeah. They do the killing and dying. They ought to have a say in what for. Helps if they actually know the purpose of their actions, too, rather than just carrying out political assholity directed by old farts in safe bunkers. You're allergic to the notion of soldiers and cops not being automata? OK; make and entirely robot army of enforcers.

And if you are referring to the US, then the reason is that as the sole Superpower, it simply has the capability to go off in idiotic wars where other countries are simply uncapable of doing: — ssu

Oh, I don't know... Putin's is quite idiotic enough. Great Britain has been known to indulge in some spectacular wastage of human life. Japan was no slouch at having at the Chinese population, and China's gearing up to the next idiotic superpower. It's really past time they were all abolished.

There is a true reason just why separation of powers is important for democracies to work and it's surprising that you seem to think that this is irrelevant or unimportant. — ssu

You haven't heard a word univerness and I said, have you?

Americans wont vote for a 3rd party because they hate the other tribe so much that they, quite understandably, want all their warriors to face down the main enemy directly, — universeness

You do understand that this is the way that the two parties hold on to power: the other side is so bad, so evil, that you have to vote for us, because otherwise they will win. And Americans do take play along: they back their side whatever it takes. Never they will be critical about the party that they vote, because then they seem to be giving their finger to devil, or just more ammo to the assholes on the other side. The present political polarization is a way to uphold the present system.

The biggest concern I have with the abandonment of the current party political systems, is the structure, function and power wielded by a still essential civil service. I still think a lot about how to establish the vital checks and balances, that would be vital to establish, for any permanent worker in the civil service.
These people would be soooooooo important to the daily work of the first and second chambers and they would have a lot of influence. My main thought at the moment is that I would automate as much of their role as possible. What do you think about this area Vera Mont? — universeness

I'm not worried about the civil service. It's largely free of party politics already, except at the very top, where political patronage helicopters in incompetent (in some case, inimical) ministers and directors who then disrupt the function of an agency. Simply make the civil service politics-proof by giving each agency autonomy to run itself. Then make it democratic: have department heads elected by the workers in that department and the chief executive elected by the entire agency. They know who the best leaders are.

Remember, too, that without money - no patronage or kickbacks - you only attract people who actually want to perform that service.

Back after doing some chores.
Of course

Simply make the civil service politics-proof by giving each agency autonomy to run itself. — Vera Mont

Have you watched shows such as 'yes minister/yes prime minister,' 'the West Wing,' and 'the thick of it?'
I realise that 'yes minister/yes prime minister,' and 'the thick of it,' are UK comedies, but their satirical approach and the parody they depicted was considered by many, to quite accurately and horrifically depict the power wielded by those in the civil service. I think such was also clear in the West wing series. I do think the potentially powerful levers, open to abuse by experienced permanently employed individuals within the civil service, would have to be countered. I accept your important comment about the removal of money, as a driver for bad behaviour would help a lot, but as you yourself stated earlier, power addiction and/or individual aberrations in mental pathology/psychopathology, can also be drivers of bad behaviour.

Americans wont vote for a 3rd party because they hate the other tribe so much that they, quite understandably, want all their warriors to face down the main enemy directly, when they are needed most and not go off to support some other 'little tribe,' who have no ability to win the fight alone, but can give victory to the enemy, as they took too many of your warriors away from the main fight. — universeness

Not quite so. Last I heard, there were 54 registered political parties in the disUnited States. What happens in presidential elections is that the minority parties drop out early, since they're regional and/or not rich enough to compete, so they throw their support to one of the giants. What choice do the voters have, but to go along with what they perceive as the lesser of two available evils. Of late, hate propaganda - predominantly and sometimes unilaterally from the right (What some fairandbalanced commentators tell you about "both sides" is not what I've witnessed.) has played a disproportionate role in American politics. There has always been some vulgar sloganeering, flag-flapping and hoopla, but hasn't traditionally been rife with death-threats.

Have you watched shows such as 'yes minister/yes prime minister,' 'the West Wing,' and 'the thick of it?' — universeness

The first two yes; the last, I've not heard of, but will look for

but their satirical approach and the parody they depicted was considered by many, to quite accurately and horrifically depict the power wielded by those in the civil service. — universeness

Not really. They are quite good illustrations that, in the present system of rewards, those at the very top of an agency can fulfill their ambition by undermining an elected party hack's policy decision - and in some cases, pulling said hack's chestnuts out of the fire. A good deal of the machinations, too, are about funding and expansion, which are moot points in a resource-based economy. None of them depict the body of the civil service; all the people beavering away in cubicles, behind counters listening to complaints and stamping forms, driving snowploughs at 5am, or trying to wean welfare moms off crack.
Those programs, and I can also recommend Madame Secretary along with both versions of House of Cards, are very good illustrations of why the old system has to go.

You haven't heard a word univerness and I said, have you? — Vera Mont

I think this sums up our exchange with ssu pretty well!

You do understand that this is the way that the two parties hold on to power: the other side is so bad, so evil, that you have to vote for us, because otherwise they will win. And Americans do take play along: they back their side whatever it takes. Never they will be critical about the party that they vote, because then they seem to be giving their finger to devil, or just more ammo to the assholes on the other side. The present political polarization is a way to uphold the present system. — ssu

It's you that does not seem to fully grasp the total failure of party politics, in every country that employs it.
Your suggested solution so far, is to have more political parties, smaller ones. We could arrive at the same solution here. All you have to do is keep reducing the size of your notion of what constitutes a political party, to a political party with a maximum membership of 1. 650 of them could then form the next UK government. Then we would have a common cause ssu!!!! :grin:

In the background on my tv at the moment is a horrific BBC News story titled:
BBC news: 'Rise in children forced into sexual exploitation'
It is a very harrowing report about people in Mombasa, Kenya asking/compelling their own children to sell themselves sexually so that the family can buy food. Some kids depicted are 14 or younger.
There are not enough expletives in English to express how angry this makes me.
All this utter crap is because of the money trick and the intrigue caused by party politics means that governments just utterly fail to sort such unacceptable circumstances quicky and permanently. You did not answer this question ssu:

How will you protect us from 1 and 2 above ssu? — universeness

How will you stop such situations such as the one currently being reported from Mombasa Kenya?
Is that another question you will just ignore, because the children of Finland are not experiencing such .......... at least for now!

BBC news: 'Rise in children forced into sexual exploitation'
It is a very harrowing report about people in Mombasa, Kenya asking/compelling their own children to sell themselves sexually so that the family can buy food. Some kids depicted are 14 or younger. — universeness

According to the 2023 Global Slavery Index, India is home to over 11 million slaves, the highest number in any country. Slavery in India manifests in various forms, including forced labor, human trafficking, and child exploitation.

Haiti's poverty is difficult to understand, especially for those living in a country as rich as the United States. There are some obvious conditions: the long history of political oppression, soil erosion, lack of knowledge and literacy, a large populace in a small country.

Brazil saw a new record number of people living in poverty and extreme poverty in 2021. In all, almost one in three people in the country—29.4 percent of the population—lived in poverty until at least last year, and almost one in ten people—8.4 percent—struggled under extreme poverty.

In Nepal’s ‘Kidney Valley,’ poverty drives an illegal market for human organs

Every day, in every way, capitalism makes everything better and better.

The first two yes; the last, I've not heard of, but will look for — Vera Mont

I think you would enjoy 'the thick of it,' its much more raw and harder hitting than Yes Minister, very funny to, in the same cringy way that 'the office,' in the UK, with Ricky Gervais was funny. They made an American version of 'the office' with Steve Carell. I assume you have watched some of that:


I remain 'uncomfortable,' with the current checks and balances placed on top civil servants in particular and on all civil servants in general, but I also accept than no political system will be anywhere near perfect. We can however, certainly do far far better than the current party political system.

Yeah I have saw some advertisements for 'madam secretary,' it looks good. I watched some episodes of house of cards, the original UK series, many years ago, with Ian Richardson, playing Francis Urquhart. Ian's sinister delivery of the great lines he was given were excellent enough for me to still be able to recall some of them. Two examples below:


I have not watched any of the American remake with Kevin Spacey.

Not quite so. Last I heard, there were 54 registered political parties in the disUnited States. What happens in presidential elections is that the minority parties drop out early, since they're regional and/or not rich enough to compete, so they throw their support to one of the giants. What choice do the voters have, but to go along with what they perceive as the lesser of two available evils. Of late, hate propaganda - predominantly and sometimes unilaterally from the right (What some fairandbalanced commentators tell you about "both sides" is not what I've witnessed.) has played a disproportionate role in American politics. There has always been some vulgar sloganeering, flag-flapping and hoopla, but hasn't traditionally been rife with death-threats. — Vera Mont

Yeah I have heard commentators comment on many of the early stage votes in America, being assigned to other parties, based on their stances on individual issues, but it all comes to nothing as the stages move on as you describe. Sounds like a broken system to me. If the early stages of vote distribution, demonstrates clearly, how issue by issue politics is soon subsumed and overwhelmed by party political tribalism, then the glaring problems with such party based systems, cannot be more clearly demonstrated, imo.

That's a longish stride from moral and immoral speech. I was there when it was considered highly immoral to mention homosexuality and perfectly acceptable to feature blackface in a performance. Morality is as suspect in my book as brotherly love. But I think we can agree on a standard of public discourse - so long as everyone has an equal share in decisions-making. — Vera Mont

I love your argument.:heart: What is going on here? In other forums arguments are terrible but here the arguments are so mentally stimulating and fun! I guess maybe that is because the people who are here understand the limits of a point of view and enjoy questioning what they think as much as I do.

I totally get the change in morality and that is why we must make these arguments without attacking each other. The progressive mind expects change, whereas the conservative mind may resist change and can not explore why yesterday this __________ was okay and today it is not.

Okay about homosexuality, sex was taboo. I don't care what a person's preferences were, sex was for studs who could be manly and force themselves on women, and a good woman was a pure woman, untouched by a man. Bad girls did it but not good girls. Oh my, we had so many sexual problems back in the day and in some countries, the sexual issues are still terrible!

So how is talking about our sexuality okay today? Power. Does anyone want to talk about what power has to do with our sexuality? We could create a thread for that and a thread for our changing morality about blackface entertainment. Moral, is a matter of cause and effect. When the consequences are good it is moral. If the consequences are bad it is immoral. What does this have to do with democracy?

They made an American version of 'the office' with Steve Carell. I assume you have watched some of that: — universeness

Yes... um.. OK, some of it was funny, but I didn't stick around for long. I also saw a bit of the UK version, back when Ricky Gervaise was funny, before success in the States swelled his head to the size of a dirigible.

I remain 'uncomfortable,' with the current checks and balances placed on top civil servants in particular and on all civil servants in general, — universeness

Remember that in your new world order, without having to administer, allocate and fight over money, the entire civil service will be pared down to fewer departments, each with far fewer offices and white collar workers. Train people well who are willing to take on the challenges of environment cleanup, education, healthcare and disease prevention, food and shelter allocation, disaster relief, infrastructure maintenance, etc. and let them vote for their own leaders. I promise they'll the choose the most knowledgeable and competent; the ones who are least likely to get them killed or make them repeat tedious tasks unnecessarily.

I have the series Madame Secretary on DVD and plan to watch it from the beginning when I'm up to it. There is a lot of international awfulness in that one, as well as the usual political infighting.
The UK version of House of Cards is a little dated now, but for quality of dramatic production, hard to beat. The US version, with Kevin Spacey (whatever else he may be, the guy could act rings around most stars) and the magnificent Robin Wright, was protracted to ever more Byzantine episodes - good show, all the same.

Sounds like a broken system to me. — universeness

No guff! Rapidly sinking into Civil War Part II, even more ignominious than the first one.

Under a world government, the US would probably become 8 or 9 regional jurisdictions, with free movement of people across the borders, until everyone finds the neighbourhood that most nearly suits them, and that they can influence in its further development. Canada might be 5 or 6 regions, each with stakeholder representation for the first nations within its boundaries.

When the consequences are good it is moral. If the consequences are bad it is immoral. What does this have to do with democracy? — Athena

The fact that good for one group is very often bad for another. If the majority is happy in the power of a patriarchy, they'll censor anything that threatens or appears to threaten that power-structure. Patriarchy is naturally dictatorial and monolithic; any lifestyle or view that fails to support that is targeted for elimination. On a large scale of the father slapping the child who asks a pertinent question.
Whatever demeans and disenfranchises Black people reinforces the power and superiority of white people, which White people perceive as being good for themselves and therefore moral.
When there is a wider distribution of ethnicities in a reasonably secure economic condition and they all have the same democratic voice, the majority begins to see that inclusion, tolerance and equal opportunity is actually good for all of them, and that affording respect to people who are unlike themselves reduces friction and conflict in their communities, which is good for their children.

A relatively uncorrupted democracy tends to move in the direction of socialist ideas. That's why government by the megarich and their lackeys resort to the most backward systems of oppressive thought, belief and morality.

You keep offering evidence of how broken party political systems are but also, you keep rejecting new proposals. Why do you insist in trying to defibrillate an already dead but still deadly system? — universeness

Because not all party political systems are braindead or not working. But I guess you will not hear anything about it in your hate of political parties.

a) If political parties do give the respect to others that in a democracy you should have. This is possible when the parties have to create coalition administrations. When they need to form coalition administrations, the relations towards other parties have to be civil or somehow cordial. This makes the discourse rather boring, but it doesn't lead to polarization.

b) Political movements need to come and go. Once they lose their reason, they just being in power isn't enough.

c) And finally, I'm not so sure if your insistence of banning political parties will do the trick. Still politicians will group, form coalitions and groups.

Really???
From wiki:
Afghanistan is a mountainous landlocked country at the crossroads of Central and South (Southern) Asia. Some of the invaders in the history of Afghanistan include the Maurya Empire, the ancient Macedonian Empire of Alexander the Great of Macedon, the Rashidun Caliphate, the Mongol Empire led by Genghis Khan, the Timurid Empire of Timur, the Mughal Empire, various Persian Empires, the British Empire, the Soviet Union, and most recently the United States. — universeness

Yes, really.

In earlier times you simply gathered a large force that then by pillaging the countryside for food roamed forward and this way Alexander the Great or the Mongol Empire came to Afghanistan.

Modern warfare is a bit different.

What I think would clear up a lot would be that the duopoly of the two parties would be finally broken. But Americans simply believe in the impossibility of the "third party" and that I think is the biggest problem. Easiest way would be if both the Dems and GOP would separate into different parties themselves. — ssu

I disagree that is impossible to put an end to the two party system. Simple adopt the Australian voting system.

The Australian electoral system comprises the laws and processes used for the election of members of the Australian Parliament and is governed primarily by the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918. The system presently has a number of distinctive features including compulsory enrolment; compulsory voting; majority-preferential instant-runoff voting in single-member seats to elect the lower house, the House of Representatives; and the use of the single transferable vote proportional representation system to elect the upper house, the Senate.[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single-member_district — Wikipedia

I especially like being able to vote for several candidates by numbering your preferences, so if the first person you vote for does not win, your vote goes to the next one. For years I would have voted for people who are neither democrat nor republican if that didn't mean risking the worst person winning the election. I think most of us in the US are voting against the other guy, not for someone. I hate our system. My state is testing the Ranked-choice voting.

Ranked-choice voting in the United States

Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Ranked-choice_votin...
Ranked-choice voting (RCV) can refer to one of several ranked voting methods used in some cities and states in the United States. The term is not strictly ...
‎Use at state and federal levels · ‎Use at local levels · ‎California · ‎Massachusetts — wikipedia

I disagree that is impossible to put an end to the two party system. — Athena

So do I. But Americans simply have to understand that the present system can totally change, and actually quite quickly. The naive thing is to think that it's the Presidential election where you could have someone not being either a Democrat or a Republican that can change things. Nope, change starts from the communities and the states and also the federal level. And it's possible.

Still politicians will group, form coalitions and groups. — ssu

Whatever for? In a moneyless, wealth-free society, what does anyone have to gain by being 'a politician' in the first place? It's just a service to perform: no kickbacks, no corporation boards to retire into, no well-paid speech circuits, no secret service bodyguard and nobody gives a damn how many cardboard boxes of old correspondence you keep in your bathroom, because nobody's going to set up a library for them.

I think humans need to utterly reject that stupid term from theism. Sin does not exist!!!!!!!
If a person does not accept the existence of god(s) then it is not possible to go against it morally.
If humans break any aspect of secular moral code or human law then they have broken our laws or went against our moral codes, not non-existent gods. Godless humans cannot sin!
In my exchange with Vera Mont regarding the love label, it becomes clear that it's an over-burdened label. I think you have acted often, in support of the well-being of strangers and that shows that you have a great capacity for compassion towards your fellow human beings. You should be awarded the NCA (if it existed,) in my opinion. — universeness

Thank you for your argument. I see things differently. :lol: Sometimes I think I was an alien who got stuck on Earth because my UFO had mechanical problems.

I have zero problem with thinking sin is a matter of ignorance. I am out of time. Mostly my thinking on this matter is Cicero and when I get time I will find Cicero quotes that I believe are essential to understanding morals and democracy.

Ignorant people can and do sin. Their ignorance is a lack of consciousness because when they know they are doing wrong, their conscience bugs them. We are programmed to do the right thing and to feel bad when we don't but most of the time we are ignorant of why we should do this and not that. We really do not understand the importance of truth!

We are destroying our planet and sooner or later we will have to deal with the truth. I think most of the world is having to deal with the truth, but they are in denial, while they flee floods, hurricanes, and fires.

Logos, reason, the controlling force of the universe. A better understanding of God than what mythology gives us. Mother Nature will do things her way and we better figure out how she does things and learn to live with her. Truth is very important and so is living in harmony with nature very important.

In a moneyless, wealth-free society, what does anyone have to gain by being 'a politician' in the first place? — Vera Mont

Great way to say that: I agree, a moneyless society is genuinely and literally wealth free. Poverty is abundant and people can often experience a famine. :up:

And you really don't have anything to gain in being a politician in that kind of situation.

(The Soviets tried that first, the moneyless society, and they failed and then Lenin had to resort to NEP for the Marxist-Leninist experiment to survive.)

We are destroying our planet and sooner or later we will have to deal with the truth. I think most of the world is having to deal with the truth, but they are in denial, while they flee floods, hurricanes, and fires. — Athena

Much of the world, including the US, has its head so far up its own ass in denial, you have to wonder whether the species is viable at all.

Meteorologists face hostility and threats from viewers as they tie climate change to extreme temperatures and weather

A new law in North Carolina will ban the state from basing coastal policies on the latest scientific predictions of how much the sea level will rise,

Great way to say that: I agree, a moneyless society is typically genuinely and literally wealth free. Poverty is abundant and people can often experience a famine. — ssu

Do you have the slightest notion what resource-based economy means?

“We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them.”
~ Albert Einstein

I see things differently. — Athena

Yes, I agree that we see some things quite differently. I think you assign some value to that which may be labelled mysticism, the transcendent, the numinous, the esoteric, the 'spiritual' or perhaps even the the theosophistic. I assign zero value to such notions. If I used a word like 'spiritual,' I would use it to mean, human functional movement which results in breathing and therefore living, the 'animated/dynamic/moving human.' Nothing more woo woo than that, but that description is exciting enough, so no woo woo notions are needed, for a human to enjoy and celebrate the fact that they are alive and are animated. I don't see why any woo woo notion would make a person more excited about being alive than I am, imo.

Ignorant people can and do sin. — Athena

I am sorry Athena but I could not disagree with you more, on this important point.
Ignorant people, defined as 'people who have learned very little in their life,' are people who are manipulated and abused by vile notions such as 'sin.' This word is commonly defined as:
"an immoral act considered to be a transgression against divine law"

For all atheists, there is no divine law. It's existence is an utter lie and the best evidence for that, is divine hiddenness. In comparison with the crimes of god, as described in the bible or the crimes of characters like Mohammed as described in the Quran, I am totally sinless. I am convinced I am sinless anyway, as it is not possible to perform an immoral act considered to be a transgression against non-existent divine law.

Logos, reason, the controlling force of the universe. A better understanding of God than what mythology gives us. Mother Nature will do things her way and we better figure out how she does things and learn to live with her. Truth is very important and so is living in harmony with nature very important. — Athena

I try not to anthropomorphise nature in such ways, although I do fall into these old traps often.
Nature has no gender or sex. It is very important to understand the workings of our planet, for the sake of the survival of our species. We both agree on that I think. You just choose to invoke more 'esoteric,' anthropomorphised images to do so, compared to me.

What is going on here? In other forums arguments are terrible but here the arguments are so mentally stimulating and fun! — Athena

totally get the change in morality and that is why we must make these arguments without attacking each other. The progressive mind expects change, whereas the conservative mind may resist change and can not explore why yesterday this __________ was okay and today it is not. — Athena

Your first quote above imo, should be used by @Jamal to promote TPF.
Your second quote is is very well put, and makes me feel a little regretful that I just posted an attack on you personally :yikes: for your willingness to accept the use of the word 'sin ,' as an accusation against humans, ignorant or otherwise. :grimace:

Remember that in your new world order, without having to administer, allocate and fight over money, the entire civil service will be pared down to fewer departments, each with far fewer offices and white collar workers. — Vera Mont

That's the direction of travel I would prefer, but as I suggested earlier, I think automation could help greatly reduce the opportunity for personal abuse of the civil service system by long term, experienced participants.

That's the direction of travel I would prefer, but as I suggested earlier, I think automation could help greatly reduce the opportunity for personal abuse of the civil service system by long term, experienced participants. — universeness

Sure: they'll be directing and overseeing machines to do much of the work. But humans still have to be at the fire or flood or evacuation to direct the equipment and instruct the people and comfort the victims. I honestly don't see what, in the absence of money, they would be tempted to abuse.