A burden is a burden only if one consents to carry it. When you attempt to burden someone else and they reject it, your only recourse is to have a negative opinion of them. You cannot force your load on them. — Vera Mont

We do not stand alone. We share the burdens of life or we do not. Which is most apt to get good results?

No Man Is An Island Poem by John Donne

Poem Hunter
https://www.poemhunter.com › Poems
Jan 3, 2003 — No man is an island, Entire of itself, Every man is a piece of the continent, A part of the main. If a clod be washed away by the sea, — John Donne

Because that has not happened should we claim Christianity does not exist? — Athena

Might as well. But, no: the concept exists; the institutions exist, the buildings, the organization and agencies, the books, the doctrine. However, Christianity is not in universal practice among nominal Christians, by a very long chalk. There may be some parishes where it dominates weekday life, but I doubt it.
Similarly, the idea of democracy exists; its documents and declarations, its electoral machinery exists; its proclamations and resolutions. It's just not practised with any consistency. In some countries, the process more closely approximaties the theory, but in the US, it was never - not for a single day - put into effect according to that definition you quoted.
I didn't question the existence of those concepts nor the willingness of people to believe in them.

Why democracy? Because it stands for rule by reason, and liberty, and justice for all. — Athena

Stands for, but does not deliver.
Even if democracy were operational in the US, it would not be the reason for entering all of those wars, since the American form of government has never been under any outside threat. Every administration had its own reasons for embarking on a war or undeclared armed intervention in foreign affairs. In no case did those reasons have any bearing on the defence of their own democracy. And in no case was the polity consulted before taking the decision that would take many of their sons and lately daughters, nor were the lower ranks of the armed forces asked for their consent.

If you are interested in viewing the legislation introduced on referendums on declarations of war in the 64th Congress, the pertinent bills and resolutions are: S.5796, S.J. Res. 10, H.J. Res. 128, H.R. 15385, H.R. 20998, H.R. 21002, H.R. 21032, H.J. Res 371, H. Res. 492, H. Res. 495, H. Res. 497, H. Res. 498, H. Res. 507.

None passed. Every legislature held that power to itself. Not very democratic in my book.

Considering the US has always had to deal with immigrants who do not understand our institutions and way of life, I think the US has done amazingly well — Athena

In doing what? Treating them all fairly and decently? Or have the immigrants done well in adapting to conditions and overcoming barriers?
So why admire non-adaptive Jews in Europe more than assimilated Italians in America? And why not admire non-adaptive Chinese in America for maintaining their identity?

Liberty and justice for all means there are no favorites. — Athena

The slogan means that. The law doesn't deliver; the dominant culture doesn't deliver. That's why all the people of colour are still having to fight for what they should have been guaranteed over two centuries ago.

But the biblical ones are! That's one of the main problems of religion, yes? Lies and fables and resulting edicts on how humans must behave based on the fantasy words of non-existents. — universeness

Oh yes, yes, yes! Good moral judgment depends on knowing the truth. Believing in a God who wants people to fight wars, is not going to bring us to peace and the God of Abraham is a war God. He is a very divisive God and I will be glad when we give up this God and understand..."The principle of sufficient reason states that everything must have a reason or a cause" and what that has to do with democracy.

The Europeans invaded the New Land and decimated the Native American tribes just as God told the Hebrews to take their promised land by killing everyone. We retarded our knowledge of reality and brought the world to global warming with false beliefs and rejected the Native American understanding of nature and the need to care for our planet. For all the good religion has done it has done just as much evil because people remained ignorant and violent and totally unaware of what truth and morals have to do with democracy.

For all the good religion has done it has done just as much evil — Athena

I agree, it's a net negative. Religion is pernicious.

Stands for, but does not deliver.
Even if democracy were operational in the US, it would not be the reason for entering all of those wars, since the American form of government has never been under any outside threat. Every administration had its own reasons for embarking on a war or undeclared armed intervention in foreign affairs. In no case did those reasons have any bearing on the defence of their own democracy. And in no case was the polity consulted before taking the decision that would take many of their sons and lately daughters, nor were the lower ranks of the armed forces asked for their consent. — Vera Mont

You missed an important way our democracy is manifested. Democracy was a new social order. Monarchies were organized very differently. However, our Democracy was and is polluted by the order of a kingdom. It made perfect sense for the owner of a business to have control of the business, but when we shifted from farmers and craftspeople owning their businesses to industries, that was a good time to apply the democratic order to our economy. Obviously, that did not happen. The path we have followed is divisive, separating the halves from the have-nots, with landlords and employers exploiting humans and this could be even worse than slavery. Wow, this really makes a mess of democracy because that reality does not support liberty and justice nor the conditions for healthy families.

The Persian war left Athens flush with money and this money was spent on Athena's temple which was a tourist site teaching the world about new relationships and democracy. Money was spent on a university to also attract people from around the world as teachers and students. Government jobs were created so the people without land could earn enough to have a decent standard of living and time to indulge in government. But here we are in a New Land and with no experience with democracy. While things can be different, the consciousness is still the consciousness of kingdoms. Each man's home was his castle. The Bible the only book most people know about, explains kingdoms and slavery. Extremely few people were literate in Greek and Roman classics.

Education in the North advanced democracy and when the South realized Northern books were spreading a different culture than the one they wanted, they began printing their own books. As we spread across a frontier there were many challenges along with opportunities. It was a long time before those communities had schools and they did not come with all the books and supplies a good education requires. We seriously need to have a better appreciation of our lives being very primitive as late as 1950. WWII changed everything in huge ways! We are losing those pioneers who came west with the promise of homesteading. Now not only do we have a railroad that goes from one coast to another but we also have private cars and highways. Before all this, our primitive lives made the federal government almost non-existent. There is no way it had the organization to affect our lives as it does today. Our freedom and liberty was based on living miles away from anyone else and a social life that may have been limited to going to church. I know their stories because I visited some of them once a week until they died. Also because of my collection of books.

Just as we got to a point where every child could go to school and those schools had all the books and supplies and technology required for a good education today, we stopped preparing our young for democracy. I say too much and I may have completely failed to make my point.

What Tocqueville had to say about democracy in 1830 is very interesting. I wish we could all share this book. https://files.libertyfund.org/files/2288/Tocqueville_1532.04_LFeBk.pdf

For all the good religion has done it has done just as much evil
— Athena

I agree, it's a net negative. Religion is pernicious. — universeness

I want to focus on what you said about knowing the cause of things and what that has to do with democracy. Especially when so many people were dying of COVID-19 in New York that they had to put their bodies in freezer trucks, the debate over wearing masks and vaccines was insane. What is the truth and how do we know it?

Never have I heard so much paranoid fear of our government controlling us. It is true our federal government is controlling more and more of our lives. A Military Industrial Complex controls every aspect of our lives and attempts to control the economy more than the government did in the past. Yet people are in denial of the US becoming a Military Industrial Complex in 1958 and people do not want to talk about that. So here is something lurking in the back of our consciousness and it emerges when, for purely scientific reasons our government tells us to wear masks. This paranoia is very damaging to how we react to events. It obviously leads to believing lies.

This is a cultural problem I am hoping to resolve. Trust is essential to everything and we need to restore that.

In doing what? Treating them all fairly and decently? Or have the immigrants done well in adapting to conditions and overcoming barriers?
So why admire non-adaptive Jews in Europe more than assimilated Italians in America? And why not admire non-adaptive Chinese in America for maintaining their identity? — Vera Mont

Ah, there is a very important question. I was thinking if we all shared a good understanding of democracy the power of the people would be so strong we would not fear an enemy invasion. Perhaps we can explore what makes people more or less willing to adopt the ways of other people?

Charles Sarolee wrote in his book "The Anglo-German Problem" that the Prussians do not have a culture. I am looking at the US today and I don't think we have a culture anymore. If something happened that destroyed our lives as they are today, I don't think democracy would survive. I think the rulers would become the few most powerful people and all the rest would become subject to their rule as is so in other countries. The cause of this is replacing education for good citizenship and democracy with education for technology.

But this breakdown is essential to change and hopefully, the changes will eventually be good changes. I really would like to replace the autocratic model of industry with a democratic one. An autocratic model of industry along with education for democracy could mean a quantum shift in our consciousness that would be very pleasant.

However, our Democracy was and is polluted by the order of a kingdom. — Athena

Indeed! I didn't actually miss that. The legacy of royal land-grants, aristocratic families and fortunes founded on preferential trade with other British colonies.
Monarchy and moneyarchy.

Ah, there is a very important question. I was thinking if we all shared a good understanding of democracy the power of the people would be so strong we would not fear an enemy invasion. — Athena

Weeelll - that rather depends on how many of the nations you've helped arm will constitute the "enemy". And whether the ensuing war gives people time to decide how they feel about it.

Perhaps we can explore what makes people more or less willing to adopt the ways of other people? — Athena

Also what makes dominant cultures more or less resistant to assimilating minor differences in speech, religion, art and domestic arrangements. We seem pretty quick to accommodate new foods.

I am looking at the US today and I don't think we have a culture anymore. — Athena

Like ourselves, you never did have one culture. You had many, with people in each region or social circumstance being aware of only their own. Over time, people in the dominant ethnic group adopted some aspects of African, French and Hispanic cultures; the middle class affected some working class customs and vice versa; rural and folk moved to cities; the North and South imitated some of each other's behaviour; in cities with large immigrant populations, Italian, Irish, Nordic, Russian and Yiddish symbology and folklore crept into Anglo-American art, homes and social life. Motion pictures and television tend to homogenize these accidental overlaps and exchanges into American popular culture.
It seems to enjoy considerable success abroad, as well.

If something happened that destroyed our lives as they are today, I don't think democracy would survive. — Athena

It'll always have Sweden! In fact, atm, it's healthier in Germany than in the USA. Anyway, the concept isn't going anywhere.

I want to focus on what you said about knowing the cause of things and what that has to do with democracy. Especially when so many people were dying of COVID-19 in New York that they had to put their bodies in freezer trucks, the debate over wearing masks and vaccines was insane. What is the truth and how do we know it? — Athena

I think there has been some misunderstanding / crossed lines here. My posted sentence of:

The principle of sufficient reason states that everything must have a reason or a cause. — universeness

was just a quote from the link provided by 180proof with:

on what basis then, universeness, would you refute its proof that this 'same – one – mind' is God (the PSR)? — 180 Proof

His PSR link was about The principle of sufficient reason. My response was to a point he was making regarding theists, the claim that god exists, and the resulting burden of proof, it did not relate to my exchange with you.

Do you really expect me to reply to you when you have not explained what democracy is? — Athena

I guess you didn't bother to read – or you selectively forget – this post (and an older post linked therein) in reply to you, Athena, sketching out my conception of "democracy" compared to and contrasted with the American political status quo ...
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/846290

And yes, I've repeated this question ...

The USA defended its democracy ...
—Athena

When since 1789 has the USA been a "democracy" and not an oft-illiberal (minoritarian electoral college-rigged,
gerrymandered-vote suppressed, nativist, imperialist) constitutional republic? — 180 Proof

because I "really do expect" you "to reply" to this request for clarification of what you mean by "democracy", Athena, in the factual context of American history. :chin:

That was too much 'supposition' for my tastes. — universeness

Only three what-ifs are "too much" for you? :sweat:

If you wish to debate this issue in a more rigorous way, my friend, let's take this over to PMs. I promise I won't inject any more (apparently unappreciated) 'speculative fiction' into a discussion about "god". As a non-standard (heterodox) atheist, I can think of one pro-god argument (or three) which most atheists I've encountered cannot refute and that I've only hinted at here. At any rate, not an idle exercise I'm sure you'll agree ...

Do you think an advanced AI would make a faith statement? If it does then it is not an advanced AI, imo.

Why? You have a 'theory of mind' that you apply to every human being you encounter, that none of them are "zombies" – is that theory merely "a faith statement"? :roll: Also, I don't see why you've characterized a (supposed) "proof"

... that every electron is the same electron (J. Wheeler) and therefore that, fundamentally, every (physically instantiated) mind is the same mind (E. Schrödinger) — 180 Proof

as "a faith statement" which, as you know, denotes an unwarranted (unproven) assertion or assent – not a proof.

Well, nevermind my "AGI fiction". I'll make the logical, non faith-based, case elsewhere if you'd like. Refute me at your leisure; that's what a devil's advocate lives for, sir. Sláinte! :yum:

Only three what-ifs are "too much" for you? — 180 Proof

No, they are too much for you! Adding on too many suppositions reduces the impact of any claim.

If you wish to debate this issue in a more rigorous way, my friend, let's take this over to PMs. — 180 Proof

I don't mind whether you prefer private or more public on this exchange between us. It is you who wishes to dispute the burden of proof that theists who claim god exists have, so I am happy to trace the path you wish to lay out.

I promise I won't inject any more (apparently unappreciated) 'speculative fiction' into a discussion about "god". — 180 Proof

I believe you.

As a non-standard (heterodox) atheist, I can think of one pro-god argument (or three) which most atheists I've encountered cannot refute and that I've only hinted at here. At any rate, not an idle exercise I'm sure you'll agree ... — 180 Proof

I had to look up 'heterodox' but sure, that sounds very interesting.

Do you think an advanced AI would make a faith statement? If it does then it is not an advanced AI, imo.
Why? You have a 'theory of mind' that you apply to every human being you encounter, that none of them are "zombies" – is that theory merely "a faith statement"? — 180 Proof

No, because there is valid observational evidence behind it, which is not true when it comes to a 'god exists,' faith statement, proposed as a fact that then establishes burden of proof., regardless of whether or not that burden is accepted by those who dare to declare a theistic claim as a fact.
An advanced AI would need to demonstrate an intellectual ability beyond that of humans. All rational humans are able to arrive at the conclusion, that all faith statements are speculative conjecture at best.
Do you think advanced AI would make a claim such as 'god exists' without having achieved a demonstrable ability to prove that god exists?

You then offer me a human theory of mind, which is completely irrelevant. Whether or not no humans are zombies, :roll: has nothing to do with a god existing. :roll: ( I gave you two as It seems you like this emoticon. I like this one more :grin: )

Also, I don't see why you've characterized a (supposed) "proof" — 180 Proof

Where did I suggest the single electron theory was a faith statement? We are discussing the notion of faith, as it relates to god posits not credible scientific theories, such as the single electron theory :roll: (we can agree, anytime you like to drop this 'eye roll' emoticon, passing between us.)

I'll make the logical, non faith-based, case elsewhere if you'd like. Refute me at your leisure; that's what a devil's advocate lives for, sir. Sláinte! — 180 Proof

Slàinte Mhath! Advocate for a non-existent ( which I accept that I cannot currently 100% prove, does not exist. :grin: )

Thank you. The USA defended its democracy against a nation that was also a republic but became very authoritarian and became a mechanical society that crushed individual liberty and power as it prepared to rule the world, or at least all of Western civilization. Following the Second World War, the US adopted the bureaucratic order we stood against, and adopted the German model of education for technology for Industrial and Military purposes. As centralized government gains more and more power of authority over everything, we too are becoming a mechanical society, with businesses and institutions operating in fear of that central power.

I don't think we understand what technology has done to power and our liberty. In the past, everyone was prepared for self-government, and to be civic and Industrial leaders. That made our system of elections and representatives workable. That is no longer true. The real power of government today is policies that take care of our every need as Tocqueville warned in 1830. Policies are made by government committees and all we have to do is obey. No longer do we need to be prepared for good judgment and independent action. That is a bureaucratic technology change. We left moral training to the church in 1958. — Athena

Thanks! Well said! :100: :smile:

The mechanization of not just our world, but our minds and souls continues with acceleration.

I wrote in another thread:

One example of this is the way men are programmed to be unaware, dismissive, or repressive of their feelings.
This makes them better tools for the army, industry, or other roles that require a machine or semi-robot, until actual robots or computers can replace them.

We have to ask ourselves ‘what are the rules of identity?’
Who made and enforces them? And who benefits from this situation?
It may be impossible to determine where and when this game started since it’s been going on for millennia.
Odds are that it is not the ordinary average human, their families and communities that are priority.

One may say that machines and technology have given us so much goodness.
I’ll agree to that, but what have we given up to have so much, so quickly?
I might be the millionth person to suggest that we have made a Faustian bargain.

We are fearful of our survival so we go along with the civilization program.
We are dazzled by the shiny carrot dangling in front of us, so we run onwards.

And leaving the moral training to the Churches (as you say) brought its own problems.
Catholicism has imploded from scandal, and mainstream Protestantism arguably wants to take over the government in the USA (among other dubious qualities).

Odds are that it is not the ordinary average human, their families and communities that are priority. — 0 thru 9

Oh but come look at my old school books. In my grandmother's day of teaching, teachers thought it was their purpose to defend democracy in the classroom and this meant helping each child discover his/her interests and talents so they could make their best contribution to our civilization. We thought our greatness was all the individuals cooperating to get things done.

Our education was modeled after Athens's education for well-rounded individual growth and the American experience was self-actualization. When the 1958 education change was pushed through the system and my grandmother's way of disciplining children was not accepted so she quit her job and found another school. I am horrified today whenever a professional is treated like someone working on an assembly line. I am offended by the message that the phone call may be recorded to ensure things are being done correctly. If an employer does not trust the employee then the employer should drop that person and move on to an employee who is trusted.

Please, you are so perceptive, can you see how not trusting people to do a good job destroys morale and harms the employee, which goes on to harm the family and then the nation? If we can not self-actualize through our jobs, is there enough money to make us want to do our jobs?

When I was trained to be a supervisor using the democratic model, we were taught to be like coaches helping the employee to be the best s/he can be and preparing the individual for advancement. If something went wrong, the supervisor took responsibility for that, by checking to be sure all necessary information was communicated and understood. Again helping the person be the best s/he can be, which leads to positive feelings and those positive feelings come back to the family and flood the community. We can do this. When turned to civic action, it means resolving community problems or just doing fun things that build community relationships.

DO YOU UNDERSTAND WITHOUT YOUR POST I COULD NOT THINK OR SAY THE REALLY IMPORTANT THINGS? This is democracy working. Your ability to communicate what really matters moves our thinking in a positive direction. This is totally different from what some posters do. Posters who intentionally put us on the defensive make a valuable discussion impossible. When we are defending what we already said the thinking can not move on to the bigger picture. We can not get to rule by reason when we stubbornly disagree and find fault. However, when are in agreement we tend to move forward, and have positive feelings, and believe we can accomplish something. That high morale is the Spirit of America and the military mindset that has gripped our nation and taken over education, is killing the Spirit of America. The military-industrial complex is the enemy we defended our democracy against.

I guess you didn't bother to read – — 180 Proof

You are correct. I have limited time and need to be selective about how I use it.

I think there has been some misunderstanding / crossed lines here. My posted sentence of:
The principle of sufficient reason states that everything must have a reason or a cause.
— universeness
was just a quote from the link provided by 180proof with:

on what basis then, universeness, would you refute its proof that this 'same – one – mind' is God (the PSR)?
— 180 Proof

His PSR link was about The principle of sufficient reason. My response was to a point he was making regarding theists, the claim that god exists, and the resulting burden of proof, it did not relate to my exchange with you. — universeness

Interesting clarification. I could be wrong but I see the Greek philosophers standing behind the need for proofs. I see these philosophers standing behind the notion that things do not just appear out of nowhere but there is a cause for that appearance. That pits democracy against Christianity and a God that is not ruled by the laws of nature but makes things appear on a whim. Today I will create Satan, whoops that didn't go so well. I think I will try creating a man and woman from mud. Whoops that didn't go so well. Those Bible stories do not go so well with believing there is a cause for everything. An explanation of evolution gives us causes.

If that does not belong with what you are talking about, I am sorry and will withdraw from the subject of gods and causes.

:roll: Understood. You cannot substantiate your statements on "democracy" as I've suspected. My apologies for giving your (assumed) intellectual integrity the benefit of the doubt. My mistake, mam.

:roll:

"God exists" is not a claim of fact about how the world is ..., ergo no burden of proof.

"God exists" is not a claim of fact about how the world is ..., ergo no burden of proof. — 180 Proof

:roll: :roll:

Repeating a poorly defined sentence over and over seems rather desperate, and does nothing to strengthen your claim. :grin:

I think I will try creating a man and woman from mud. Whoops that didn't go so well. Those Bible stories do not go so well with believing there is a cause for everything. An explanation of evolution gives us causes. — Athena

Yeah, especially when that story produced Adam's first wife, Lilith. That relationship didn't work out, so the fantasy goes, so the incompetent god tried again using a rib from Adam. :lol: I think anyone who claims that such nonsense is true, certainly has a burden of proof.

If that does not belong with what you are talking about, I am sorry and will withdraw from the subject of gods and causes. — Athena

Ok, I see what you mean. I certainly have much more time for the Greek atomists than I do for their 'silly' theists.

Fully representative democracy is essential to a better humanity. I label myself a democratic socialist. We need everyone to be offered a free high-quality education, from cradle to grave about real past and current events. All fake news must be combatted. I don't mind using fiction to exemplify human moral dilemmas but all attempts to pass fables as truth, must be prevented. So no more religious lies. I think we are mostly on the same page, with that, and with the importance of 'true' democracy.

Indeed! I didn't actually miss that. The legacy of royal land-grants, aristocratic families and fortunes founded on preferential trade with other British colonies.
Monarchy and moneyarchy. — Vera Mont

Whoo, that is very convoluted and worthy of contemplation. Would you happen to know how Calvinism is tangled up with all of this? If you do, I suggest we buy a bottle of fine wine and spend at least one evening unraveling why the American economy did so well compared to the Spanish colonies.

As I understand it, the immigrants who went to the kings domain in the Southern part of the New Land were out to find riches and those who went North wanted to manifest saints and perfect communities. Calvinism made the accumulation of wealth essential to this pursuit of heaven on earth and that might be a blessing to us. If it were not for our economic development we could be like a third nation where extremely few people have any power.

Ah, there is a very important question. I was thinking if we all shared a good understanding of democracy the power of the people would be so strong we would not fear an enemy invasion.
— Athena
Weeelll - that rather depends on how many of the nations you've helped arm will constitute the "enemy". And whether the ensuing war gives people time to decide how they feel about it.

@0 thru 9 helped me clarify my sense of purpose. I think once our military-industrial complex was established it was misused resulting in the problem of which you speak and that the creation of the military-industrial complex means we fought every war for nothing because we are what we defended our democracy against. This has always been clear to me, but O thru 9 helped me clarify my purpose is to revive the American Spirit that I believe came with being a democracy. That is, the thinking began in Athenians and was revived during the Reannance. We need another Reannance because we sure as blazes did not begin with the desire to be a military-industrial complex! Only when democracy is defended in the classroom is it defended and if our military-industrial complex is destroyed in a war, that would be unfortunate but we might consider we are what we defended our democracy against, so how much does matter if our military-industrial complex is brought to an end?

Also what makes dominant cultures more or less resistant to assimilating minor differences in speech, religion, art and domestic arrangements. We seem pretty quick to accommodate new foods.

I am looking at the US today and I don't think we have a culture anymore.
— Athena
Like ourselves, you never did have one culture. You had many, with people in each region or social circumstance being aware of only their own. Over time, people in the dominant ethnic group adopted some aspects of African, French and Hispanic cultures; the middle class affected some working class customs and vice versa; rural and folk moved to cities; the North and South imitated some of each other's behaviour; in cities with large immigrant populations, Italian, Irish, Nordic, Russian and Yiddish symbology and folklore crept into Anglo-American art, homes and social life. Motion pictures and television tend to homogenize these accidental overlaps and exchanges into American popular culture.
It seems to enjoy considerable success abroad, as well.

I am sharing a lot of agreements with people my age and we do not recognize the values of younger people today as the values we shared in the past. Walter Cronkite's generation of reporters was not as reporters are today. When our local paper the Register-Guard printed its earliest papers the journalists actually thought they were defending our democracy. It may be futile for me write on and on about the changes but I will stand by the belief that education did make us a strong and united nation as Jefferson thought education should do. This changed in 1958 and I do not think today's social media is transmitting a culture that is healthy for a civilization.

If something happened that destroyed our lives as they are today, I don't think democracy would survive.
— Athena

It'll always have Sweden! In fact, atm, it's healthier in Germany than in the USA. Anyway, the concept isn't going anywhere.

The concept is dying in the US. Perhaps I shouldn't let that trouble me because the concept has a good chance of surviving in other countries. However, that will not do squat for my grandchildren and their children.

Ok, I see what you mean. I certainly have much more time for the Greek atomists than I do for their 'silly' theists. — universeness

:heart: Why does it all have to be so difficult? The argument for all things having a cause is self-evident. Except when we get into quantum physics things get a little crazy.

I don't think a fully representative democracy is possible and I question if it is even desirable. Now I feel cornered and need to confess I am aristocratic. An aristocrat is defined like this....

1. a member of the aristocracy; a noble
2. a person who has the manners or qualities of a member of a privileged or superior class
3. a person who advocates aristocracy as a form of government

I was not born into nobility but my understanding of democracy is that we can all achieve the manners and qualities of an aristocrat. Arguing in favor of an aristocratic form of government is, to me, the equivalent of the merit system. I am not a competitive person and I have no problem volunteering to support representatives to hold the positions that give them power and authority so I don't have to. All of those representatives are to serve us. We can vote them out of office if they don't.

I think you and I share agreements but we have different points of view and this is excellent for democracy because it is the area of disagreement that opens the opportunity for greater understanding. It is "yes but-" and the picture becomes bigger.

One area that can seem to be an argument is how much authority should those in the seats of authority have. On a small scale direct democracy may be the best, but on a national level that is insane! When too many people have the decision-making power, nothing gets done. But if we break this power up with many democratic industries, and democratic institutions such as schools, hospitals, and municipal government, then the people have control where the industry and institution affect their lives. It is not the federal government making blanket decisions for everyone.

I think we need to give the distribution of power and authority more thought. Decisions that are based on science might be best coming from the federal level. Decisions that affect only a small group of people need to be made by those affected. Parents should hold the power of authority over their children's education, but there also needs to be a way to inform the parents of why one decision may be better than another. Decisions should not be based on ignorance and feelings.

Apparently, you cannot refute (my) theological claim so instead, sir, you merely parrot a pedestrian folk belief (i.e. idolatry) like a typical "New Atheist" as a crutch with which to deny that the statement "god exists" is not a claim of fact about how the world is (i.e. one fact among all other facts). Is "god exists" a claim of fact at all? No more than a tautology, a name, a mantra, or a prayer is a claim of fact. Perhaps you can't understand the difference, universeness, ... or you're just so fixated on addressing a strawman and thereby misapplying an empirical standard (i.e. burden of proof) in order to prop-up your appeal to incredulity. Quarrel with idolatry if you must; let me know, however, when you're ready for a substantive, theological debate. :smirk:

Whoo, that is very convoluted and worthy of contemplation — Athena

What's convoluted about it? The English upper class owned all the land in England and thus much of the wealth. Traders and ship-builders owned the rest. When England colonized North America, the aristocracy exported its younger sons and the king gave them land belonging to the natives. Ditto retired army officers. The king also granted lands to mining and shipping operations. All under the protection of British troops. The moneyed classes were in charge from the very beginning. When they got tired of paying taxes to England, they took charge of the nascent republic. They organized its governance and law for their own benefit - which they considered no more than their due, just as they considered themselves the natural governors.
Why would Calvinism have any effect on that arrangement? The elite are never constrained by the limits and demands of religion: strict adherence is for the hoi polloi. As is the infamous "work ethic".

As I understand it, the immigrants who went to the kings domain in the Southern part of the New Land were out to find riches and those who went North wanted to manifest saints and perfect communities. — Athena

The religious communities were sent over when a European nation wanted rid of some irksome sect. The Puritans settled in New England and became farmers, whalers, fishers, ship-builders and tradesmen. And slavers, of course. The cities filled up with steerage passengers looking for work - including lots of Catholics - in the new industries.
The Anglican upper class grabbed enormous tracts of land in the southern region, bought lots of slaves and cultivated cotton, tobacco and rice.
They mostly got on rich on trading the low-cost bounty of exploited land, exploited people for manufactured goods from Europe, and shipping Caribbean products at a markup - all duty free.

I think once our military-industrial complex was established — Athena

Concord, 1775? https://www.history.com/news/what-was-the-shot-heard-round-the-world

we fought every war for nothing because we are what we defended our democracy against. — Athena

You fought every war for something - territorial expansion, resources, political advantage, economic advantage - just not defending democracy.

we sure as blazes did not begin with the desire to be a military-industrial complex! — Athena

No, but it became necessary to co-ordinate them in order to insure the American Century. You really can't have world supremacy without a strong military and a strong industrial base. This is why you're losing out to China - only the military half is worth a damn now; American industrial power has been outsourced for more profit.

However, that will not do squat for my grandchildren and their children. — Athena

It won't matter what their politics are. It won't matter what anyone's politics or religion are when the planet becomes uninhabitable.

The argument for all things having a cause is self-evident. Except when we get into quantum physics things get a little crazy. — Athena

Another very important exception is when we get into any origin of the universe proposal. It is not currently known whether or not the origin of the universe was causal.

I don't think a fully representative democracy is possible — Athena

I think it is and even if our approach to such proves to be forever asymptotic, then so be it, that remains the goal.

Now I feel cornered — Athena

Why? You are an honest person Athena, are you not?

2. a person who has the manners or qualities of a member of a privileged or superior class — Athena

I find any notion of personal superiority between human beings, vile and disgusting and I will fight against such notions in every way I can, until I no longer exist.

my understanding of democracy is that we can all achieve the manners and qualities of an aristocrat. — Athena

Many 'real' aristos, rather than via your notional and fabled 'noble' imagery of aristocracy, were serious scumbags. The French response to their tyranny was completely understandable. Unfortunately, they took their response tooooooooo far (Israel is repeating that bad mistake now, imo) and ended up with a butcher like Napoleon in charge. Generations of French were slaughtered as a result. But at least they destroyed the aristos. Now they have the more hidden, but as nefarious, French super-rich to deal with, but they are a global phenomenon that are a global scale problem, rather than merely a French one.

Arguing in favor of an aristocratic form of government is, to me, the equivalent of the merit system. — Athena

No its not. Aristos inherited, none of them ever merited.

I think you and I share agreements but we have different points of view and this is excellent for democracy because it is the area of disagreement that opens the opportunity for greater understanding. — Athena

I think what is more important is that such alternative views, offer those who choose, to have choices to choose from. I hope they will all choose more wisely in the future, compared to the present and even more so, in comparison with the past.

When too many people have the decision-making power, nothing gets done. — Athena

So how come, coalitions tend to introduce more balanced and more beneficial policies/laws compared to single-party ruled governance? That has certainly been my experience in Scotland, where we tend to be able to offset the most nasty policies, spewed up by Westminster.

I think we need to give the distribution of power and authority more thought. — Athena

I agree. I have already offered some of mine.

Apparently, you cannot refute (my) theological claim so instead, sir, you merely parrot a pedestrian folk belief (i.e. idolatry) like a typical "New Atheist" as a crutch with which to deny that the statement "god exists" is not a claim of fact about how the world is (i.e. one fact among all other facts). — 180 Proof

All I can offer you is an equal retort, to your diva-style insistence that your logic here is sound and strong when it is clearly neither. Your logic is flawed and poor on this issue, and the burden of proof firmly sits with those who make factual claims about supernatural existents.

There is no such notion as 'new atheists.' You complain about 'folk belief' and then you exemplify one that you seem to hold yourself. Atheists are not new, neither are their arguments.

Is "god exists" a claim of fact at all? No more than a tautology, a name, a mantra, or a prayer is a claim of fact. — 180 Proof

I don't know why you want to invoke panto-style responses. When you hear a theist state that their god is real and exists, do you think they really mean 'my god might exist?' If you are suggesting that, then perhaps your impressive knowledge of philosophers and what they write, does not prevent you from sooooooo misunderstanding what real people say, claim and act upon, based on what they promote as FACT!

Perhaps you can't understand the difference, universeness, ... or you're just so fixated on addressing a strawman and thereby misapplying an empirical standard (i.e. burden of proof) in order to prop-up your appeal to incredulity. — 180 Proof

The only strawman being offered in our current exchange exists in your own poor thinking here.

Quarrel with idolatry if you must; let me know, however, when you're ready for a substantive, theological debate. — 180 Proof

My quarrel is with your 'silly' and continued insistence that real every day theists, are not making claims about the existence of supernatural phenomena that they 'know to be facts' about our universe.
You keep thinking that 'silly' way if you wish. I will keep asking the theists to provide proof of their claims.
I think they will therefore find me much more of a challenge to their nonsense than you.
If all you have to offer me is 'rinse and repeat' of your flawed thinking on this issue and panto-style responses then we should end our exchange, on this issue, as it has no wriggle room. :grin:

So many ad hoc assertions, and not a single valid argument or refutation. :yawn:

Nonsense. :roll: (sorry, I almost forgot your 'de rigueur' emoticon :joke: )

The military-industrial complex is the enemy we defended our democracy against. — Athena

Unfortunately, it is a wolf in sheep’s clothing. No… a wolf posing as a loyal guard dog.
And I imagine many investment advisors are recommending weapons manufacturers as a sure thing.

DO YOU UNDERSTAND WITHOUT YOUR POST I COULD NOT THINK OR SAY THE REALLY IMPORTANT THINGS? This is democracy working. Your ability to communicate what really matters moves our thinking in a positive direction. — Athena

Thanks! :smile:

Why would Calvinism have any effect on that arrangement? The elite are never constrained by the limits and demands of religion: strict adherence is for the hoi polloi. As is the infamous "work ethic". — Vera Mont

Indentured servitude is a form of labor where an individual is under contract to work without a salary to repay an indenture or loan within a certain timeframe. Indentured servitude was popular in the United States in the 1600s as many European immigrants worked in exchange for the price of passage to America.

Indentured Servitude: Definition, History, and Controversy. The Catholic church did not encourage the development of capitalism. Spain and Portugal were established in South America and it remains mostly Catholic and poor. While today the division of Catholics and Protestants is not obviously an economic one, in the past the economic divide was defining. While all of Protestantism advanced a more democratic economic system that was especially true for Calvinism which became Puritanism. According to Calvin, only a select few will go to heaven and they do so because God chose them. This odd belief system led to Puritans trying to prove to themselves and everyone else that they were chosen, by accumulating wealth. You know, as God blessed kings with wealth and slaves.

Weber wrote that capitalism in Northern Europe evolved when the Protestant (particularly Calvinist) ethic influenced large numbers of people to engage in work in the secular world, developing their own enterprises and engaging in trade and the accumulation of wealth for investment. In other words, the Protestant work ethic was an important force behind the unplanned and uncoordinated emergence of modern capitalism. — Wikipedia

The Puritans sure as blazes were not inclusive folks. Unless a person strictly met their standards, that proved they were not "chosen" but oddly if they were chosen they could do whatever they wanted like Nietzsche's Superman. And I am sure most of their slaves were indentured servants.

Indentured servitude is a form of labor where an individual is under contract to work without a salary to repay an indenture or loan within a certain timeframe. Indentured servitude was popular in the United States in the 1600s as many European immigrants worked in exchange for the price of passage to America.

Indentured Servitude: Definition, History, and Controversy — By CARLA TARDI Updated September 19, 2022 Reviewed by MICHAEL J BOYLE

Back in the day, Martin Luther believed it was necessary to have witch hunts identifying those possessed by Satan and demons, and he also believed God determines who would be maters and who would be slaves. The social order was much closer to the Old Testament- Hebrew or Jewish social ordering dependent on who the parents are. As a person inherited the father's land, he also inherited his father's slaves, and his fathers position. The Greeks used the merit system when assigning people jobs and the Jews and Greeks had a little war because of this.

The rebellion started as a guerrilla movement in the Judean countryside, raiding towns and terrorizing Greek officials far from direct Seleucid control, but it eventually developed a proper army capable of attacking the fortified Seleucid cities.

Maccabean Revolt - Wikipedia

Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Maccabean_Revolt — wikipedia

Yipes too many words again. There could be a whole thread just to explore the relationship between religion and economics. This relationship includes who is a master and who is a servant and what our relationships are all about. If we want to understand democracy, then perhaps we should know more about the New Social order and the reasoning for it. I really appreciate your explanation of economic matters because it gives me an understanding of the government giving railroads land on both sides of the track. The whole notion of a king distributing land as he sees fit has always mystified me. I can understand how the people who benefit from this distribution of land go along with it, but there are many more people who did not benefit from this and why would they buy into it?

:cry: Too much to think about- like the Native American women and some in China who assumed they owned their homes and they ruled. Oh man, I like to think we are in the Resurrection and it is geologists, anthropologists, and related sciences resurrecting our history and our job is to rethink everything!

As our Declaration of Independence says "That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. " Our understanding of Justice today is totally different from any past understanding of it and it is time for a "Quantum Shift in the Global Brain".