Best form of government?

[OldTrees]

Now that we have cleared up punishing improvement, what is wrong with propaganda? You know, propaganda has a loaded meaning (immoral advertising-hitler saying to blame the jews) so let's use the term: advertisement or influential media, but not propaganda. You still let the people choose. Not brainwashing.

As I said earlier,
I consider it wrong to try to influence people via rhetoric and similar means rather than logic. To do so is to treat the person as a machine and not as a moral agent. See Kant's second formulation of the categorical imperative.

[northcity4]

Correct, Kant would call this immoral based on the second imperative.

I will be able to reply with a more meaningful post after some research (still looking into something to carry on the conversation).

[northcity4]

Ok, here is my response to your last post.

There will always be some sort of brainwashing. We are not manipulating people in the sense of telling them that this religion is true or giving them false information.
Example: If you grow up in a capitalist society, you are 'brainwashed' into thinking that I need money to be someone, the world is like a competition that I need to win at...and so on.

If you are raised in Trotsky's government: you are 'brainwashed' to think that the good of everyone else should be your priority. There is no more competition. You never gain an incentive to be the best for own self, but rather be the best for everyone.

If the majority, and I emphasize majority is within Trotsky's view, then you will grow up to follow his principles...in the same way if you are born in America, you will grow up to follow the 'rich' principles or money principles.

In other words: I don't see it as a manipulation, but I agree there will be some sort of brainwashing if we are to call the majority rule brainwashing. Regardless, how would this fit into you conclusion: Trotsky's government is not the best form of government? (arguing immorality really won't get us anywhere if we take that route=I need other critques if you still don't agree).

[OldTrees]

Ok, here is my response to your last post.

There will always be some sort of brainwashing. We are not manipulating people in the sense of telling them that this religion is true or giving them false information.
Example: If you grow up in a capitalist society, you are 'brainwashed' into thinking that I need money to be someone, the world is like a competition that I need to win at...and so on.

When? I do not have those views nor do I remember pressure to adopt those views.

However I do not see where we can continue to discuss on this topic.
You refused to talk about selfishness and you don't think talking about morality is productive.

[northcity4]

Trees...seriously now, no one cares.

2+2=4 is a true statement.

'my understanding is it is 5, not 4'

No one cares...truth is it is 4.

In the same way, your upbringing will make you tend to be a certain way and different if brought up in another area. This is a true statement.

Now, of course, you don't have to adopt those views, but your upbringing will cause you to be a certain way. Example: If I grow up in america today, I will be heavily influenced to consider money/fame/power as goals in life. This is a true statement.

--->there is no need to talk about selfishness as rational/irrational or the loaded meanings. They mean nothing for this topic (i read your comments/sources and they have no bearing). I have given definitions and what selfish and selfless mean.
Lastly, when I mentioned morality: if you want to call Trotsky's brainwashing 'immoral,' no one cares again. Has no meaning, even if we justified it. You fail to understand the whole concept and are so caught up in this one issue of selfishness/inclusive fitness. Do some research...please. May other critiques because I guarentee you have only been more hurtful to this thread right now than helpful.

I will stop talking about Trotsky now and let others make other critiques as they seem fit.

@Kim:
How would we tax? On income? Total wealth (Bill gates may have an income of...lets say 5 billion dollars a year, but hit total wealth is like 41 billion)? Could Bill gates just hide tons of  his wealth so he really is only getting taxed  on some? What if there is co-ownership?

[OldTrees]

@North
Thank you for the very dismissive and condescending post when I said we probably should agree to disagree. Now maybe this is just another case of you misunderstanding one of my posts (yeah it is) so I will leave it at that. As I said we don't have another topic to discuss on this topic so I will leave.

[Chromatophore]

direct democracy is the best imo, sorry if this is a necro i got some 60 day warning this was the first topic in this seciton that caught my eye

[nerd1]

Societies were formed to maximize the reproductive fitness of their inhabitants, therefore the best possible society is the society is the society with its members having the highest reproductive fitness.

The purpose of a government is to perpetuate a society.

By this logic, the best possible government would be a authoritarian dictatorship with mandatory sex.

Being serious, representative democracies are the best form of society we currently have available. There may be better forms of society, but as we cannot achieve them with current technology, they are irrelevant.

direct democracy is the best imo, sorry if this is a necro i got some 60 day warning this was the first topic in this seciton that caught my eye

The problem with direct democracies is that you then have to figure out a way to get every person to vote on every subject, and since there will be people who don't care, as well as people who don't have the time to vote. Because of this, power will fall into the hands of the people who have the time to vote, and pretty soon you've become a plutocratic gerontocracy.

Plus, barely anything would ever get done. Who organizes the laws, carries out the laws, and makes sure the democracy isn't hijacked? There's a reason direct democracies don't work except in small communities.

[Chromatophore]

The problem with direct democracies is that you then have to figure out a way to get every person to vote on every subject ...
 There's a reason direct democracies don't work except in small communities.

You've hit the nail on the head.  The way to make direct democracy work is to localize.  Not everyone has to vote on every issue.  They only vote on the issues that matter, the ones that affect their own community.  With each community having different laws, i think it becomes more practical (not that there aren't obstacles to be overcome along the way).