All of our current economic theories are based on the notion that free markets generate more wealth and consquently more innovation than central planning statist economies. This has been shown time after time thourghout history. You are free to disagree with this, but it does not change history.
""The state was viewed as a burden to individual accomplishment
who view the state this way? you? its news to me."
This was the view of John Locke, Voltaire, Hobbes, Rousseau, Diderot and others. This is why representive republicanism came about.
"nietzsche has one principle which is his overarching concern: that of achieving as accurate and truthful portrayal of nature as possible."
Nietzsche did not have an accurate understanding of darwin's thoeries. Try reading the selfish gene by Richard Dawkins. Dawkins argued that systems that work as a group and that work as indivduals have no advantage over each other as long as the members are free to choose thier own course.
Materialsim: "materialism, in philosophy, a widely held system of thought that explains the nature of the world as entirely dependent on matter, the fundamental and final reality beyond which nothing need be sought. Certain periods in history, usually those associated with scientific advance, are marked by strong materialistic tendencies. The doctrine was formulated as early as the 4th cent. B.C. by Democritus, in whose system of atomism all phenomena are explained by atoms and their motions in space. Other early Greek teaching, such as that of Epicurus and Stoicism, also conceived of reality as material in its nature. The theory was later renewed in the 17th cent. by Pierre Gassendi and Thomas Hobbes, who believed that the sphere of consciousness essentially belongs to the corporeal world, or the senses. The investigations of John Locke were adapted to materialist positions by David Hartley and Joseph Priestley. They were a part of the materialist development of the 18th cent., strongly manifested in France, where the most extreme thought was that of Julien de La Mettrie. The culminating expression of materialist thought in this period was the Système de la nature (1770), for which Baron d'Holbach is considered chiefly responsible. A reaction against materialism was felt in the later years of the 18th cent., but the middle of the 19th cent. brought a new movement, largely psychological in interpretation. Two of the modern developments of materialism are dialectical materialism and physicalism, a position formulated by some members of the Logical Positivist movement. Closely related to materialism in origin are naturalism and sensualism."
Marx with his dialectical materialism, argued that capitalism was a rush for resources with the strongest guy getting it all in the end. He then argued that the big guy would form a tyranny to protect his loot.
I challenge marx on his simple assumptions that wealth=resources or labor. Oil isn't worth shit unless someone invents a use for it. I argue that ideas and thus innovation dictate wealth. Thus it follows that societies that are more "free" have more favorable conditions for innovation and thus become wealthier.
pedro ....who said there is A (one) nature of man....is it not possible for a species which has existed such a wide spectrum of people from attila/hitler to mother teresa/stephen hawking that there be a multiple "nature of man"
optimk, thanks for the definition of materialism. but i more or less already know what that is. i would like your take on what it was about hegel's idea of history impacted the concept of materialism.
but more fundamentally, again i ask what is the value of wealth? what is the use of innovation? what is it about these two things that make you think they are the preconditions to 'happiness' or 'the good life'?
You have a creative side right? How are survival and progress the same? How are liviing and innovation the same?
Like darwin explained we are in a race similiar to the race Alice has with the queen in alice and wonderland. We are running a race to stay in the same place. We are innovating ways to conquer disease, poverty, racial prejudice. etc. WE ARE BUILDERS AND PROBLEM SOLVERS. This is the way to happiness...
u have a 5$ bar of steel (resource), u can create 500 spoons @ 0.5 cents a peice. or u can create 100,000 needles @ .01. the ultimate resource is the human mind and what the individual creates w/ the resource. in todays "information age" rescources in the traditional scence are not even requird to create wealth. Expertise in information or a corner on that information is just a valuable a resource.
op, i don't think survival and progress are the same. in the darwinian sense i see the link, but as notions which guide man's understanding of himself on earth, the desire for survival (which i assume you mean different from our understanding of our mortality) is irrelevant. i'd question progress (or the desire for it) as a doctrine that is anything but historicist.
since you like to cite nature as a binding analogy to the human condition, here's mine: there's cruelty and death and disease everywhere in nature. the hare aint happy when his life is ended by becoming the cheetah's dinner. the dutch elm didn't take too kindly to the bacteria which caused almost its whole species' eradication.
my point is not to argue science with science, my point is that prolonged life and physical comfort are NOT the entirety of defintion the definition of the good life. not even close actually.
caleb, re: needles and steel...um ok. yes our mind is a fine instruemnt for maximizing control of our environment and measuring the world in order to control it. we kick ass as a species at this.
we do this well. and as a result we gain what? comfort. safety. extension of existence. neat things yes, no doubt. and not to be dismissed easily.
but what is the purpose of greater comfort. or more control? (i'd like to try this question yet again.)
caleb i would ask you that same powerful question you posed to me: is there one version of truth? is there, instead, a universe of truths equal in their claims to veracity?
"my point is not to argue science with science, my point is that prolonged life and physical comfort are NOT the entirety of defintion the definition of the good life. not even close actually."
This is your view of yourself. As and individual you have the right to see whatever merit you wish.
Mankinds purpose, the thing that binds us together, the reason for culture, the reason for political upheaval, war, religion, is our biological driven desire to make the world a better place. This in our genes. you may choose to argue that you don't think this is valid. That is fine. On an individual level it isn't because we justify things at the individual level. From the big picture, this is indeniable.
if people are willing to part with resources (money) to obtain things such as steel needles and spoons. I do this to make sewing easier or eating easier then it was before i obtained them...i assume others do the same. people create things to fill the needs of others...whom others are willing to purchase. does the purchase lead to nirvana? no but it beats sewing w/ thorns...the satisfaction of the creater is knowing that his actions had purpose and filled a need
the purpose is to live my life as i choose and to alow others to live as they choose... what make a persons life "good" is up to the person to define and are as differant as the people.
can't argue with that caleb. in that same way one can describe the ascension of cities as a way that man concurred was a great way to achieve a laundry list of functions: protection, commerce, aseembly...among many other FUNCTIONS.
but my interest is not function, but what else obtains from communing inthe manner that man does when clustered together in a truly Urban manner. i'd say this is called dwelling. and this is an ethical act, not a functional, empirically measurable one, and derives from our consciousness of our PURPOSE, not the satisfaction of biological necessity for sustenance, survival, and procreation.
if this 'other' didn't exist we are surely we are clearly impoverished.
i hate to make this point so current because i fear we're suddenly going to go on a tangent about highways, buses, weather or whatnot but here goes: a city like houston is a machine built for the satisfaction of function. divoreced from any ethical construct of Urban purpose.
on the other hand a city like london heeds both the functional empirical exigencies of a free market metropolis, but also the fulfills the public requirement of dwelling well. the individual private life, in otherwords is sustained and upheld but within an urban understanding of the purpose of a city.
a merely instrumental definition of a city, in otherwords, fails to reflect the human condition fully. like it or not humans are not the sum of measurable instincts and quantifiable impulses. there's something else there too.
"the purpose is to live my life as i choose and to alow others to live as they choose... what make a persons life "good" is up to the person to define and are as differant as the people."
i'm afraid this is an impossible stance to defend, caleb.
how can you defend tolerance as a trait worth posessing if you claim no traits are universally valid. i say to you, 'i believe in intolerance. and i belive in imposing my beliefs onto others around me.' what then?
"dwelling well" is only emperical to a individual not to the collective as you are framing this question. If i'm good at selling used cars and enjoy doing it, then houston would fulfill my needs of "dwelling well" due to its abundance of the used car markets and strip clubs, the same skills would not translate to london obviosly. what u are neglecting to recognize is that we have a choice (now more then ever) to move were our skills, lifestyle etc fit more appropriately...so it is up to that individual to choose were he fits best be it an igloo or mansion, calucutta or london. happiness is for that person to decide and acheive..not some universal garantee
"the key is that u can persue happiness/value any way u choose as long as those values don't RESTRICT/IMPEDE THE PERSUIT OF VALUES BY OTHERS"
that is a belief you are publically levying. you are not allowing me to express my personal belief that intolerance is good and that i should impose this idea on everyone.
you have your belief in otherwords. and i have mine. yet yours is legislated to be the better belief.
so i ask how do you, caleb, claim that inidvidual verisons of the good life are all equally valid?
u have no right to impede anything on any one that is totalitarianism...u do have the right to debate and convince people via logic and conversation that following u is beter...but never by the force of the gun or force
in economic means it would be very beneficail for all to be tolerant...more tolerant the more buisness u get.... so there fore it only hurts the bigot to be intolerant...unless of course he uses force to express this intolerance...in which case that is why we have laws, courts and jails
caleb, i hope you're seeing my point. we can go all day:
you claim the individual's right to his or her own beliefs is paramount because each person can derive his or her own beliefs as ones which are as valid as anyone elses.
this is your intellectual, philosophical justification for valuing the rights of the indivual over that of the state or the public.
what if 60% of a nation believes, deplorably, that icelandics are evil and dirty. in a consition which favors intolerance as a matter of consensus wouldn't i, as a rational businessman, choose to value intolerance of icelandics in order to gain more business? afterall you say rational, profitdriven reactions to market conditions are a paramount belief within your system.
people buy things not b/c you think like me but becasue I made the best product for the least amount of money, my personal politics or socail beleifs have nothing to do with it
Really? Your personal politics or social beliefs have nothing to do with it? What stops you from stealing from someone's house when it would be free to you?
a ha. so the marketplace behaves rationally? you are quite the optimist caleb.
there are still hasidic jews in crown heights who refuse to enter a latin or black owned deli. they will go further away to buy their food. rational? hardly.
lets not list all the bestselling products which make corporations rich which are poorly made and priced for profit.
b/c that empedes on the individual rights of that person, and just as i don't want others impeding me (steal my house) I don't do to others (GOLDEN RULE) but for people who don't hold those beleifs this is why we have laws, police, courts, jails etc. unforntunaly for those of us who can't respect others rights there is a default...
caleb: i just want you to admit that you do hold a belief which you believe can be universally enforced as essential. and this is the belief that the rights of the individual is paramount.
no u are right it is irrational to not buy from a black deli and go further, but what to you want? is the fact that they took longer etc and out of their way to get a 3.00 sandwich not punishment enough. it would save them time to just get it down the road...because they chose not to is irrelavent. u can't punish someone for not cashing in a winning lotto ticket, if they think the lotto is imoral
u are not taking every consumers motives into account...they are not uniform (we have been over this)...if my motive is to loose weight ....then no i would not eat big macs...but if it was to eat a tasty burger then i might.... and no one can deny that for the money a big mac is the best bang for the buck...is it healthy no....rationally if we took into consideration the heart attack we might get as a result 20 years from consumption no it might seem irrational but for the most part people live in the moment.
i'm glad u used a hesedic jew as an example, it shows the irrationality that religion and beleifs have cast on human action
thats just a coincidence caleb. the race battles were between blacks and jews because jews were the socioeconomically advantaged ethnic group that happened to live shoulder to shoulder with blacks in crown heights. if it were italian instead, or irish, or swedish, the details would not have changed.
i only want to show that this reification of the individual, just like, say, orthodox judaism, is a tenet. as such it is not a transparent depiction of nature. it is an articulated stance.
likewise rationalism and scientism have some nasty side effects.
i actually embrace a condition of self doubt. sounds odd but it feels right to my gut and my brain that the human condition, heedless of history, might be one of uncertainty conditioned by the call to strong belief. in otherwords my ideal polis (and state) is one with a strong, undelusional, empirically backed communal consensus on what is good and beutiful and just. which is at the same time suspicious of the universality of those very fervently held beliefs.
details?
for the sating of my geometric mind i'd say an attractive feature might be the ability to maintain individual liberty that is ordered under the rubric of public purpose and public good with as few laws and with as little regulation as possible.
not to ideologically fear regulation, but to minimize it.
a messy messy democracy, mindful of the humanism which results from the embracement of multiple perspectives but at the same time tells a complex, rich, and detailed mythological story about itself. sort of on the order of the greeks. but different. one might call it necessary ornament: an oxymoron perhaps but one which expresses the undeniable utility of emprirical rationalism, but heeds, through and through, from laws down to customs, the tragic component of the human condition. in otherwords embraces the irrational exhuberance of art.
one would be able to vote via internet. and statutory age would be lowered to 14.
One American City...
Pedro: "It has been proven? how? by whom?"
All of our current economic theories are based on the notion that free markets generate more wealth and consquently more innovation than central planning statist economies. This has been shown time after time thourghout history. You are free to disagree with this, but it does not change history.
""The state was viewed as a burden to individual accomplishment
who view the state this way? you? its news to me."
This was the view of John Locke, Voltaire, Hobbes, Rousseau, Diderot and others. This is why representive republicanism came about.
"nietzsche has one principle which is his overarching concern: that of achieving as accurate and truthful portrayal of nature as possible."
Nietzsche did not have an accurate understanding of darwin's thoeries. Try reading the selfish gene by Richard Dawkins. Dawkins argued that systems that work as a group and that work as indivduals have no advantage over each other as long as the members are free to choose thier own course.
Materialsim: "materialism, in philosophy, a widely held system of thought that explains the nature of the world as entirely dependent on matter, the fundamental and final reality beyond which nothing need be sought. Certain periods in history, usually those associated with scientific advance, are marked by strong materialistic tendencies. The doctrine was formulated as early as the 4th cent. B.C. by Democritus, in whose system of atomism all phenomena are explained by atoms and their motions in space. Other early Greek teaching, such as that of Epicurus and Stoicism, also conceived of reality as material in its nature. The theory was later renewed in the 17th cent. by Pierre Gassendi and Thomas Hobbes, who believed that the sphere of consciousness essentially belongs to the corporeal world, or the senses. The investigations of John Locke were adapted to materialist positions by David Hartley and Joseph Priestley. They were a part of the materialist development of the 18th cent., strongly manifested in France, where the most extreme thought was that of Julien de La Mettrie. The culminating expression of materialist thought in this period was the Système de la nature (1770), for which Baron d'Holbach is considered chiefly responsible. A reaction against materialism was felt in the later years of the 18th cent., but the middle of the 19th cent. brought a new movement, largely psychological in interpretation. Two of the modern developments of materialism are dialectical materialism and physicalism, a position formulated by some members of the Logical Positivist movement. Closely related to materialism in origin are naturalism and sensualism."
Marx with his dialectical materialism, argued that capitalism was a rush for resources with the strongest guy getting it all in the end. He then argued that the big guy would form a tyranny to protect his loot.
I challenge marx on his simple assumptions that wealth=resources or labor. Oil isn't worth shit unless someone invents a use for it. I argue that ideas and thus innovation dictate wealth. Thus it follows that societies that are more "free" have more favorable conditions for innovation and thus become wealthier.
pedro ....who said there is A (one) nature of man....is it not possible for a species which has existed such a wide spectrum of people from attila/hitler to mother teresa/stephen hawking that there be a multiple "nature of man"
optimk, thanks for the definition of materialism. but i more or less already know what that is. i would like your take on what it was about hegel's idea of history impacted the concept of materialism.
but more fundamentally, again i ask what is the value of wealth? what is the use of innovation? what is it about these two things that make you think they are the preconditions to 'happiness' or 'the good life'?
caleb, ah. now that is a tremendous question....
Pedro baby:
You have a creative side right? How are survival and progress the same? How are liviing and innovation the same?
Like darwin explained we are in a race similiar to the race Alice has with the queen in alice and wonderland. We are running a race to stay in the same place. We are innovating ways to conquer disease, poverty, racial prejudice. etc. WE ARE BUILDERS AND PROBLEM SOLVERS. This is the way to happiness...
u have a 5$ bar of steel (resource), u can create 500 spoons @ 0.5 cents a peice. or u can create 100,000 needles @ .01. the ultimate resource is the human mind and what the individual creates w/ the resource. in todays "information age" rescources in the traditional scence are not even requird to create wealth. Expertise in information or a corner on that information is just a valuable a resource.
CalebRichers: Nice.
op, i don't think survival and progress are the same. in the darwinian sense i see the link, but as notions which guide man's understanding of himself on earth, the desire for survival (which i assume you mean different from our understanding of our mortality) is irrelevant. i'd question progress (or the desire for it) as a doctrine that is anything but historicist.
since you like to cite nature as a binding analogy to the human condition, here's mine: there's cruelty and death and disease everywhere in nature. the hare aint happy when his life is ended by becoming the cheetah's dinner. the dutch elm didn't take too kindly to the bacteria which caused almost its whole species' eradication.
my point is not to argue science with science, my point is that prolonged life and physical comfort are NOT the entirety of defintion the definition of the good life. not even close actually.
caleb, re: needles and steel...um ok. yes our mind is a fine instruemnt for maximizing control of our environment and measuring the world in order to control it. we kick ass as a species at this.
we do this well. and as a result we gain what? comfort. safety. extension of existence. neat things yes, no doubt. and not to be dismissed easily.
but what is the purpose of greater comfort. or more control? (i'd like to try this question yet again.)
caleb i would ask you that same powerful question you posed to me: is there one version of truth? is there, instead, a universe of truths equal in their claims to veracity?
"my point is not to argue science with science, my point is that prolonged life and physical comfort are NOT the entirety of defintion the definition of the good life. not even close actually."
This is your view of yourself. As and individual you have the right to see whatever merit you wish.
Mankinds purpose, the thing that binds us together, the reason for culture, the reason for political upheaval, war, religion, is our biological driven desire to make the world a better place. This in our genes. you may choose to argue that you don't think this is valid. That is fine. On an individual level it isn't because we justify things at the individual level. From the big picture, this is indeniable.
if people are willing to part with resources (money) to obtain things such as steel needles and spoons. I do this to make sewing easier or eating easier then it was before i obtained them...i assume others do the same. people create things to fill the needs of others...whom others are willing to purchase. does the purchase lead to nirvana? no but it beats sewing w/ thorns...the satisfaction of the creater is knowing that his actions had purpose and filled a need
are u advocating nihilism?
if your values don't inmpede our harm the rights of others I have no problem with what ever values u have.
the purpose is to live my life as i choose and to alow others to live as they choose... what make a persons life "good" is up to the person to define and are as differant as the people.
can't argue with that caleb. in that same way one can describe the ascension of cities as a way that man concurred was a great way to achieve a laundry list of functions: protection, commerce, aseembly...among many other FUNCTIONS.
but my interest is not function, but what else obtains from communing inthe manner that man does when clustered together in a truly Urban manner. i'd say this is called dwelling. and this is an ethical act, not a functional, empirically measurable one, and derives from our consciousness of our PURPOSE, not the satisfaction of biological necessity for sustenance, survival, and procreation.
if this 'other' didn't exist we are surely we are clearly impoverished.
i hate to make this point so current because i fear we're suddenly going to go on a tangent about highways, buses, weather or whatnot but here goes: a city like houston is a machine built for the satisfaction of function. divoreced from any ethical construct of Urban purpose.
on the other hand a city like london heeds both the functional empirical exigencies of a free market metropolis, but also the fulfills the public requirement of dwelling well. the individual private life, in otherwords is sustained and upheld but within an urban understanding of the purpose of a city.
a merely instrumental definition of a city, in otherwords, fails to reflect the human condition fully. like it or not humans are not the sum of measurable instincts and quantifiable impulses. there's something else there too.
"the purpose is to live my life as i choose and to alow others to live as they choose... what make a persons life "good" is up to the person to define and are as differant as the people."
i'm afraid this is an impossible stance to defend, caleb.
how can you defend tolerance as a trait worth posessing if you claim no traits are universally valid. i say to you, 'i believe in intolerance. and i belive in imposing my beliefs onto others around me.' what then?
"dwelling well" is only emperical to a individual not to the collective as you are framing this question. If i'm good at selling used cars and enjoy doing it, then houston would fulfill my needs of "dwelling well" due to its abundance of the used car markets and strip clubs, the same skills would not translate to london obviosly. what u are neglecting to recognize is that we have a choice (now more then ever) to move were our skills, lifestyle etc fit more appropriately...so it is up to that individual to choose were he fits best be it an igloo or mansion, calucutta or london. happiness is for that person to decide and acheive..not some universal garantee
u can't claimn to be tolerant if u choose to impose your thoughts on others
the key is that u can persue happiness/value any way u choose as long as those values don't RESTRICT/IMPEDE THE PERSUIT OF VALUES BY OTHERS
if as you say dwelling well is a private formulation, caleb, why should any public sphere exist?
or, by god, are you claiming that the public sphere need not exist?
THE PUBLIC SPHERE ALWAYS EXISTS AMOUNG LIKE MINDED INDIVIDUALS
"the key is that u can persue happiness/value any way u choose as long as those values don't RESTRICT/IMPEDE THE PERSUIT OF VALUES BY OTHERS"
that is a belief you are publically levying. you are not allowing me to express my personal belief that intolerance is good and that i should impose this idea on everyone.
you have your belief in otherwords. and i have mine. yet yours is legislated to be the better belief.
so i ask how do you, caleb, claim that inidvidual verisons of the good life are all equally valid?
public sphere has to exist for the exhange of goods, idea, and good times, what ever makes u tick
u have no right to impede anything on any one that is totalitarianism...u do have the right to debate and convince people via logic and conversation that following u is beter...but never by the force of the gun or force
in economic means it would be very beneficail for all to be tolerant...more tolerant the more buisness u get.... so there fore it only hurts the bigot to be intolerant...unless of course he uses force to express this intolerance...in which case that is why we have laws, courts and jails
"THE PUBLIC SPHERE ALWAYS EXISTS AMOUNG LIKE MINDED INDIVIDUALS"
what doe these likeminded inviduals believe? what is it that they value in common? anything?
that is for the group to decide it could be anything from a love of seseme street or architecture (such as here) or of laws (a govt)
caleb, i hope you're seeing my point. we can go all day:
you claim the individual's right to his or her own beliefs is paramount because each person can derive his or her own beliefs as ones which are as valid as anyone elses.
this is your intellectual, philosophical justification for valuing the rights of the indivual over that of the state or the public.
what if 60% of a nation believes, deplorably, that icelandics are evil and dirty. in a consition which favors intolerance as a matter of consensus wouldn't i, as a rational businessman, choose to value intolerance of icelandics in order to gain more business? afterall you say rational, profitdriven reactions to market conditions are a paramount belief within your system.
how would conforming to a group help me sell more of anything?
people buy things not b/c you think like me but becasue I made the best product for the least amount of money, my personal politics or socail beleifs have nothing to do with it
Really? Your personal politics or social beliefs have nothing to do with it? What stops you from stealing from someone's house when it would be free to you?
a ha. so the marketplace behaves rationally? you are quite the optimist caleb.
there are still hasidic jews in crown heights who refuse to enter a latin or black owned deli. they will go further away to buy their food. rational? hardly.
lets not list all the bestselling products which make corporations rich which are poorly made and priced for profit.
b/c that empedes on the individual rights of that person, and just as i don't want others impeding me (steal my house) I don't do to others (GOLDEN RULE) but for people who don't hold those beleifs this is why we have laws, police, courts, jails etc. unforntunaly for those of us who can't respect others rights there is a default...
caleb: i just want you to admit that you do hold a belief which you believe can be universally enforced as essential. and this is the belief that the rights of the individual is paramount.
yes or no?
no u are right it is irrational to not buy from a black deli and go further, but what to you want? is the fact that they took longer etc and out of their way to get a 3.00 sandwich not punishment enough. it would save them time to just get it down the road...because they chose not to is irrelavent. u can't punish someone for not cashing in a winning lotto ticket, if they think the lotto is imoral
whats your point there caleb? i said nothing about punishment. i merely made a claim aginst your assertion that consumers behave rationally.
you realize big macs sell like crazy.
u are not taking every consumers motives into account...they are not uniform (we have been over this)...if my motive is to loose weight ....then no i would not eat big macs...but if it was to eat a tasty burger then i might.... and no one can deny that for the money a big mac is the best bang for the buck...is it healthy no....rationally if we took into consideration the heart attack we might get as a result 20 years from consumption no it might seem irrational but for the most part people live in the moment.
i'm glad u used a hesedic jew as an example, it shows the irrationality that religion and beleifs have cast on human action
thats just a coincidence caleb. the race battles were between blacks and jews because jews were the socioeconomically advantaged ethnic group that happened to live shoulder to shoulder with blacks in crown heights. if it were italian instead, or irish, or swedish, the details would not have changed.
in which case it illustrates the collective tendancies of groups to act irrationally- I advocate individaul action
i only want to show that this reification of the individual, just like, say, orthodox judaism, is a tenet. as such it is not a transparent depiction of nature. it is an articulated stance.
likewise rationalism and scientism have some nasty side effects.
i disagree completely but I'm curiose to know if u have a good alternative.
i'd call my alternative 'the best that we can do given what we know about ourselves-ism'.
looking forward to the manifesto...i'll bet there will be alot of revisions though given the title
i imagine this will be revised and contradicted by myslef for the rest of my life actually.
in the meantime read a few rand books
AND CAMUS' THE REBEL
F. Fukuyama THE END OF HISTORY
i actually embrace a condition of self doubt. sounds odd but it feels right to my gut and my brain that the human condition, heedless of history, might be one of uncertainty conditioned by the call to strong belief. in otherwords my ideal polis (and state) is one with a strong, undelusional, empirically backed communal consensus on what is good and beutiful and just. which is at the same time suspicious of the universality of those very fervently held beliefs.
details?
for the sating of my geometric mind i'd say an attractive feature might be the ability to maintain individual liberty that is ordered under the rubric of public purpose and public good with as few laws and with as little regulation as possible.
not to ideologically fear regulation, but to minimize it.
a messy messy democracy, mindful of the humanism which results from the embracement of multiple perspectives but at the same time tells a complex, rich, and detailed mythological story about itself. sort of on the order of the greeks. but different. one might call it necessary ornament: an oxymoron perhaps but one which expresses the undeniable utility of emprirical rationalism, but heeds, through and through, from laws down to customs, the tragic component of the human condition. in otherwords embraces the irrational exhuberance of art.
one would be able to vote via internet. and statutory age would be lowered to 14.
and what happened to the original point of this thread?
I was really looking forward to finding out about a bunch of new cities. Phooey.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.