Mypoint is people tend to protect their own. You and your child have so many advantages over most of humanity which you don’t want to give up. However, giving up some of your advantage will help others. I think this is a good thing, you don’t. I don’t see how we can have a debate about some of the most personal issues that there are without getting personal. Those that have a lot in this world throw away enough food to save all the straving people (including babies). I want to save these people. You are happy with the status quo. I am not. We can keep our capitalist democracy in America, but people (including babies) will continue to die. And you will have to live with this fact. Keep in mind I am not saying you are abad person, I just don’t think you have thought this out fully. If you did you would see letting some people start out life with more food, money, cances of education is just wrong. Hopefully, one day the whole world will live under my system and we can all be equal.
The problem here isn’t one of status quo vs. change to the system. The problem here is the nature of the change that you wish to make. I agree – there are many things wrong with the system as it is. It is unfortunate that some are made to do without while others have in excess. But examine your position critically, without all of the political correctness and hyperbole. Sure, under the status quo people are going to die. If your system was spread over the whole world the number of people who would be killed are so numerous that the dead could conceivably outnumber the living. Even if you achieve your equal playing field from that moment on, which cannot happen realistically, could you in good conscience pay that price? I have never once argued to keep the system as we have it. I came into this thread to see what kind of things you had to say in the hopes that you had a good idea that I could jump behind. I was, and continue to be, disappointed. Your ability to reason an argument through from start to finish is suspect. Your ability to correctly identify potential problem areas in programs that you hope to implement is suspect. Finally, you seem to be wearing blinders. Human nature CANNOT be changed in the way that you want to change it, at least not in my lifetime or the lifetime of my great-great-great grandchildren.
Assume you were given the power to see that your entire plan was implemented. I could see one of three things happening. 1. You implement your plan and life continues to go on as before while your advisors wrap you in swaddling cloth and the rest of society ignores you. 2. Somebody (probably CIA or the Israelis) kills you dead and we continue on as we are now. 3. You get enough backing from others as deluded as you and precipitate a second civil war. Of these number 2 is by far the most likely.
I don’t like the fact that there are people in this world who suffer, no sane person does. BUT YOUR PLAN WILL NOT HELP THEM. You plan can only make things worse, and so I reject it.
It’s not at all “totally off-topic”. Insisting upon a “true freedom” that amounts to “you are free to serve the state/cause/ethnic group/etc.” IS what I saw plenty of when I was in college, all of it out of the mouths of those who dismissed me has utterly “right-wing” because I held that democracy and freedom of speech, whatever their flaws, were better than imposing a “revolutionary party” and erecting “speech codes” that muzzled anything that happened to be unpopular at the moment.
What would we all be working for, exactly?
The good of America.
What’s the good of America?
The happy people of America.
Why are they happy?
They’re happy becasue they get to serve the good of America.
:rolleyes:
Anyone else think this might just be a creative way to get answers to a philosophy essay?
Yup, sounds good to me. I look forward to being composted and fed to my comrades, for the good of the State. Where do I sign up?
Why all the opposition? After all, what is being described is the leftist pipe dream.
Abolish artificial burgeoisie “values” like “family” and “recreation”. They only are imposed by capitalists in order to retard the progress of the proletariat, after all.
Come come, Dogface, such sniping is unbecoming. It could just as easily be described as the ultimate right-wing ideology of hierarchy and “deserving one’s place on the ladder”.
Both descriptions misrepresent the opposite side’s position.
What Hydrocortizone is proposing is nothing like the “leftist pipe dream”, and the fact that no one has jumped in to defend him should tell you that.
Your continued attempts to equate the left’s intentions with Hydro’s bad rehash of Plato make me think that your representation of what you saw in college is just another smear job of those who disagree with you.
It’s like the bastard child of 1984, Fahrenheit 451, Equilibrium, Soylent Green, Logan’s Run, Demolition Man, Harrison Bergeron, The Handmaid’s Tale, and that Halloween segment of The Simpsons where Flanders rules the world. What do these movies all have in common? Oh, yes–none of them worked and all were ashes by the end of their respective runtimes.
Just make sure that all of your stormtroopers/societal enforcers wear helmets made of transparent plastic…
Objection – Flanderswurld was quite successful, although it was eliminated from space-time by Homer’s intervention.
What’s the one thing Hydro left out of his plans? He didn’t make any provision for eating the Irish! 
There are four possibilities here. Obviously they are not mutually exclusive.
1.This is a joke, parodying utopian ideology. Not a good joke, though, since jokes are supposed to be funny. In this case someone should send Hydro a set of Simpsons videos so he might grow a sense of humor.
2.This is a troll, a delibarately inflammatory post put up just to garner outraged replies. in this case he should be ignored.
-
Hydro is suffering from some unaddressed medical disorder and should seek help from a mental health proffessional immediately. In this case he deserves not scorn but pity.
-
this is, god help us, a serious proposal placed by a sane poster.
There’s little point trying to refute it since pointing out everything that is wrong with his horrible idea would take the entire message board.
Two things though. First of all Hydro seems to have no idea what the word “freedom” means. It means to be able to choose one’s own path, not to be subject to constraints. Free speech for example means I can say what I want, subject only to minimal common sense constraints (fire in a crowded theatre etc.).
How can people be free in this society where every single decision is made for them by some sort of governing counsel and if they disobey they will be transformed into Soup.
Secondly, how would this society ever come to pass. How do we go about “conditioning” (pardon me while I vomit) people to surrender all their hopes and dreams. How do we condition mothers (and fathers) to abandon their children. etc.etc.
Yes there are things that are wrong with America. But even the most wretched homeless person living out of a dumpster and wracked with AIDS is better off than anyone in your society. I cannot fathom how you can fail to see that. Have you no understanding of people? This is so absurd that the only thing I can think of is choice number 3, above.
From Larry Borgia
Personally I’m thinking 2. 1 was my first thought, but his subsequent posts are leaning me towards 2, with the possibility of 3 not to be dismissed.
The OPs views are just too far out there for either a serious or a sane person to put forth. EVen in Plato’s world, it was not this extreme. Setting aside the assinine assertions of socialism (i.e. all jobs are the same, all people mandated ‘equal’, testing to see what everyone should do, everyone paid the same or not paid at all, etc etc), you have some of the most radical horseshit I’ve ever seen: Eat the dead? Use them for ‘spare parts’? Take children away from their parents?
These things don’t even take into account basic human nature or social instinct for gods sake! Thats why I asked if the OPs poster was talking about HUMANS, or if this was a theoretical discussion about some kind of space alien. Maybe, on further reflection, I should have asked if the OP poster IS an alien…because its certain (baring that this is either a joke or a troll) that s/he hasn’t a clue about human nature.
The OP, in short, is ridiculous, without a single shred of worth…and I can’t believe that we’ve posted even this much to this thing.
-XT
I modestly propose we eat babies to end the problems of overcrowding and hooliganism.
What?
Sounds very Swift, ooc.
I, for one, welcome our new insect overlords…
And…
Babies? What babies?
Sounds like a short-lived government to me MensaCortizone…I give it one generation of operating before it all caves in…:smack:
P.S. - If you want our help in your little philo-essay, let us know first before you throw out something like this and see how it sticks on a wall…
Somebody is always at the top and thus, somebody at the bottom(or a lot of people at the bottom).If a government ever emerges that doesn’t have somebody at the top, they will have enough trouble dealing with the monkey problem*.
*Namely, the monkeys that flew out of my ass.
-
Because the goverment is all knowing and perfect.
-
So not only will everyone be brainwashed to the state’s mode of thinking, people will also be zombies who are easily burnt out and exhausted.
-
Who will of course be the new upper-class, who will help their buddies become members and jealously guard power for themselves. Nothing changes, just the names.
4 and 7. Mmmmm…state-sponsered genocide and canabalism.
I can draw one of three conclusions from this.
-
The author is joking.
-
The author has no morals or ethics, and little grasp of logic(though superhuman amounts of idealism).
-
The author is ****ing insane.
I think it’s #1.
I saw this coming.
So what “Freedoms” will be be gaining again?
All I see is the freedom to be a drone of the state.