Best form of government?

[OldTrees]

Is selfishness genetic (like your buoyant example) or is it culturally developed?

Inclusive Fitness is genetic and not merely as a genetic trait. It is the Individual's point of view of Natural Selection*. However it is unfair to use the loaded term of selfishness. Prairie dogs take turns keeping watch for predators. If they see a predator they are willing to distract it so that their sister's young can make it inside. Is this selfishness? Yes, however not the way the term is loaded.

*Individuals with the highest Inclusive Fitness have passed on the most heritable traits. Heritable traits that increase Inclusive Fitness of the Individual are more likely to be passed on to the next generation.

I personally think the best government is the one that neither does not discourage people from improving the lives of others. However the individual is the only competent judge of the quality of their life for that quality is based on what that self is interested in. Trade has been the most successful model of improving the lives of others because it is based on self interest of all individuals involved. So the best government would not try to discourage, pervert, or eliminate self interest. However you will hear this as "the best government is the one that promotes selfishness" because that is technically true for selfishness is not as narrowly defined as the loaded meaning is. Selfishness is also what causes people to protect their brothers or to send charity to impoverished areas. (Please do me the courtesy of reading this view until you see the consistent view beneath rather than attack a fictional view. This particular view is abnormally vulnerable to being misunderstood.)

[northcity4]

No trees, not a fictional view I was talking about. Inclusive fitness is a trait passed down, but traits need culture to really bring them alive.

Example:
All human have a trait for height, but depending on your upbringing will determine how much that trait is expressed. In the same way, how much culture supresses the trait of inclusive fitness and in what ways can play a big role on how it is expressed.

Conclusion:
We want you to be the best you can be, but just kill the selfish aspect of it.

Next:
Listen to what you said: 'However the individual is the only competent judge of the quality of their life for that quality is based on what that self is interested in. Trade has been the most successful model of improving the lives of others because it is based on self interest of all individuals involved.'

My view:
I disagree with the first sentence. Quality is not based on the self-interested always.

Example:
If someone is brought up to think about the whole, they will judge according to the whole. It's like when someone is thinking about moving their family to a new city for a better job. They don't think about themselves, but rather how this will affect the family as a whole.

Conclusion:
Trotsky=express traits...good thing, but do it for the good of everyone. The cultural part is the selfish part which is where I think you misunderstood me.

Because of this: best government is one where people are the best they can be for the good of everyone and the leaders promote and enforce these qualities. (like a foraging community as we discussed earlier, but I also argued there cannot be wealth if this is to happen).

[Hazardus10]

We don't need Christianity to be selfless.

I don't think there is any absolute truth on whether people are inherently good or bad. There are going to be cases on both sides. So we're going to need a government that can handle those who will take advantage of a poor system while maximizing the usefulness of the ones that do not.

As to a best form of government:

Capitalism, but with a much larger focus on helping the lower classes (basically a left-wing government but not so left-wing as communism).

Trotsky is saying that if we are going to continue selflessness, Christianity is going to be needed.

It seems the government are only limiting our countries potential, maybe have a self-governed society, where all look after each other and themselves may be the most effective.  One where there are no superior political roles rather an equality between all politically.

True communism as I put it is very similar to this. To be honest, other societies, like foraging societies are very much like this...the reason: no wealth. I earnestly believe wealth is the biggest cause of inequality...which @ Kim, capitalism will never 'bend or twist' to help those in need.

I think both of you (hazard and kim) are saying we need to cap/eliminate wealth in a society for true equality to come and function much better. Is this true or not? I am curious to know.

Well there was once a time in history where all thing we valued essentially equal, and all trade would have correct proportion.  A fish for a slice of meat and such.  Not so much the need for wealth but maybe the need for currency.  The need for a value to define a human being, rather be defined by the skill set you have.

[OldTrees]

@north
1) I warned you and pleaded with you to read that post carefully. You immediately started attacking something I did not say (aka attacking a fiction). This type of miscommunication is common in our discussions. I expected a warning would be enough to allow us to not repeat the same mistake. What can I do to prevent this mistake?
(Sidenote: I have been taught to follow Hanlon's razor, however it is hard not to take the repeated misinterpreting as intentional)
2) Inclusive Fitness is not a trait that is passed down, it is an evolutionary force.
3) I did not say quality of life was based on self interest. I said quality of life was based on the interests of the self.

[kimham8a]

We don't need Christianity to be selfless.

I don't think there is any absolute truth on whether people are inherently good or bad. There are going to be cases on both sides. So we're going to need a government that can handle those who will take advantage of a poor system while maximizing the usefulness of the ones that do not.

As to a best form of government:

Capitalism, but with a much larger focus on helping the lower classes (basically a left-wing government but not so left-wing as communism).

Trotsky is saying that if we are going to continue selflessness, Christianity is going to be needed.

It seems the government are only limiting our countries potential, maybe have a self-governed society, where all look after each other and themselves may be the most effective.  One where there are no superior political roles rather an equality between all politically.

True communism as I put it is very similar to this. To be honest, other societies, like foraging societies are very much like this...the reason: no wealth. I earnestly believe wealth is the biggest cause of inequality...which @ Kim, capitalism will never 'bend or twist' to help those in need.

I think both of you (hazard and kim) are saying we need to cap/eliminate wealth in a society for true equality to come and function much better. Is this true or not? I am curious to know.

If Trotsky said that Christianity is needed to promote a peaceful society in a communist society, I whole heartedly disagree. For example, the Dark Ages was a very bad time period for 99% of the population to live in.

To answer your 2nd question: I think a more forceful progressive taxation system would work. After, say, reaching an income of $10 million/year, you would be taxed at 99%, and even more for higher incomes.

[northcity4]

Yeah, I actually was hearing that on Fox news last night Kim. It seems all people really want is: higher taxes to those who make more. What was even more interesting is the rich people on the show even kept on saying it was fair. Seems rich people are on obliged to it. Warren Buffet implies this is fair as well.

@Trees:Quit trying to say I am arguing fiction. The only support for your claim that it is genetic is your word. If we take Wiki to be correct, then evolution will not support your claim. It must be a trait. Biology cannot show that evolutionary psychology or the evolutionary physicality is passed down other than by showing all humans possess the same trait expressed differently. Not an evolutionary force.

I think our disagreement right now is purely with inclusive fitness being a trait that is changed and passed down, like mice skin color, versus a trait that all humans possess and is expressed differently, like height. Inclusive fitness in my view is something we all have, but cannot be evolutionarily changed by genetics. Only culture can express it differently.

3) Please explain that difference because that sounds exactly the same.

Also trees, will you please explain why your ONE argument of inclusive fitness means to 'best form of government?' Also, instead of calling what I argue fiction, try understanding your posts leave out a lot of unnecessary information that must be included.

Example: when I talked about selfishness being culturally developed, you thought I misinterpreted your quote. The reality was, inclusive fitness is not an evolutionary force in my argument.

BTW, you called inclusive fitness 'genetic' and 'an evolutionary force.'

[northcity4]

Christianity would only be used to justify the self-less motive. Not necessarily make the country a theocracy.

Now Kim, let's say we had your form of taxation, that wouldn't solve enough problems to make me believe Trotsky's true communism is not better than capitalism.

All that would do is make things more fair. Not a lot of changes to other the other issues in capitalism. The rich still own everything.

[kimham8a]

Christianity would only be used to justify the self-less motive. Not necessarily make the country a theocracy.

Now Kim, let's say we had your form of taxation, that wouldn't solve enough problems to make me believe Trotsky's true communism is not better than capitalism.

All that would do is make things more fair. Not a lot of changes to other the other issues in capitalism. The rich still own everything.

If you earn $21,000/year, you are among the top 10% richest people in the world. These top 10% people have 70% of the world's wealth. With this progressive taxation system the motivation to earn would still be there, and yet these numbers wouldn't be so skewed. "More fair" sounds like the best option to me.

My approach would distribute the wealth very well. Even EXTREMELY successful businessmen would have their wealth distributed by the government with social programs and work. For example, Bill Gates's $41 billion. There, he would have something like a 99.999999% tax rate. That's $40 billion dollars that is distributed right there.

Christianity has the potential to make everyone self-less, yes. But we have to take an average scenario here. There are many problems with trying to make everyone self-less using the "God is watching" approach. One, as science progresses more and more people turn atheist. Two, this religion has to constantly be enforced. Three, who says that Christianity makes people self-less anyway? There are countless examples of priests and monks and crusaders, who should be among the most devout believers in God, that have done terrible things.

[northcity4]

Good point, but then again those possiblities seem unreasonable considering all the other use of forms for selflessness. I will touch on this another time.

So, you are saying to evenly distribute wealth, we need an exponential curve of taxation?
Also, are you sure 21000/yr is top 10%? I am pretty sure it is much higher, but sounds right if we include a 7 billion pop. (20% being 1.4billion people). In America, I am pretty sure 21000/yr is much more in the 35-40% range, but I could be wrong.

Now, regardless, considering your taxation, I don't feel like you answered my question completely. I don't feel like this would really make capitalism seem the best government, although it seems plausible since such distribution=less corruption

[kimham8a]

Good point, but then again those possiblities seem unreasonable considering all the other use of forms for selflessness. I will touch on this another time.

So, you are saying to evenly distribute wealth, we need an exponential curve of taxation?
Also, are you sure 21000/yr is top 10%? I am pretty sure it is much higher, but sounds right if we include a 7 billion pop. (20% being 1.4billion people). In America, I am pretty sure 21000/yr is much more in the 35-40% range, but I could be wrong.

Now, regardless, considering your taxation, I don't feel like you answered my question completely. I don't feel like this would really make capitalism seem the best government, although it seems plausible since such distribution=less corruption

Yes, $21000/year is correct. I checked it with multiple sources. Scary isn't it? I assume most people here either earn more than that or have parents that earn more than that.

I don't think any of us really think about how rich we are, simply because we were born lucky.
ex. Africans and Asians that work very hard with much more stress and pain, but earn nothing compared to the government handouts of most developed countries.

It has to be the case where if you work harder, you get more. If you work to organize people in their work (a businessman) and do it very effectively, you should be rewarded with money as well. It doesn't work otherwise, unless there is another powerful motivation (which I don't see right now).

[northcity4]

Which is why luck isn't fair. To be fair, trotsky said we reward according to need an ability. So, all those hard working africans and asians get what they need.

[kimham8a]

Which is why luck isn't fair. To be fair, trotsky said we reward according to need an ability. So, all those hard working africans and asians get what they need.

Agreed. I also just found that my dad who earns $70,000 is in the top 1%.

So, would you agree that a progressive taxation with highly adjusted numbers would be a good system?