Collapse of Civilization

[Pargat Perrer]

Our Own Perspective on "Humanity".



Pargat Perrer (Post # 50 - 23/11/15): "We humans are not "wired" for altruism, we are wired for greed."

Bob Armstrong (Post # 52 - 23/11/15):

75% of the world's population,
75% of the time,
When faced with a decision between altruism and unhealthy self-interest,
Will choose?

Altruism!

Your Executive Summary - here......

Bob A

Evidence????????????????????

[Pargat Perrer]

So, the nasty troll wants us to believe that only he has eyes to see and ears to hear... which gives him the right to incessantly bark at those who respect each other or choose to ignore his stupid questions... and argues that prohibiting anyone from harming others is a form of dictatorship...!!!

Nothing but lies and misrepresentation, the only things Dilip understands.

There are others with eyes to see and ears to hear, I am not the only one.

Enforcing a Natural Law for everyone is a form of dictatorship. There are other ways to prohibit anyone from harming others.

So according to Dilip, asking how the LIbertarian Natural Law will be enforced is a "stupid question". Asking how reps from one circle become elevated to members of the next circle is a "stupid question".

Don't ever waste your time running for political office, Dilip. I would debate you in an instant and blow you off the stage.

[Bob Armstrong]

Our Own Perspective on "Humanity".



Pargat Perrer (Post # 50 - 23/11/15): "We humans are not "wired" for altruism, we are wired for greed."

Bob Armstrong (Post # 52 - 23/11/15):

75% of the world's population,
75% of the time,
When faced with a decision between altruism and unhealthy self-interest,
Will choose?

Altruism!

Your Executive Summary - here......

Bob A

[Dilip Panjwani]

Ok, I see that Sid decides to continue the mutual pat-on-the-back relationship with Dilip despite the fact that Dilip does everything in the exact same manner as Sid has complained about against the current elites.

Which makes both Sid and Dilip agenda-pushers who are non-pertinent to solving the problems that could be leading to collapse of civilization. So I dismiss both of them and their ideas and postings as irrelevant, as I hope other readers will do, but as it is said, only "those with eyes to see and ears to hear" will know how to act wisely.

And I see that Bob. A. is participating in the hijacking of this thread to push comparisons of DM to Libertarianism, which must be annoying to Bob G. the originator of this thread. But I see that Bob G. himself does not respond to my questions about the ultra-wealthy's obsession with survival bunkers, so I think maybe Bob G. is not considering an important angle of this thread's topic and maybe deserves to have his thread hijacked?

It's all meaningless gibberish. No one here has anything serious to contribute, just hypothetical political structures which only perpetuate the current problems. Whether we have "circles within circles" under some undisclosed "Libertarian constitution" (dictatorship) or Local Political Units creating temporary committees (which have never solved any major world problem), the result is the same: greed and selfishness everywhere you look.

Altruism is the only solution to stop the collapse of civilization. We humans are not "wired" for altruism, we are wired for greed. Therefore there is no hope in humanity. Neither LIbertarianism nor DM will ever see the light of day. Hopefully some species will take over from us as the caretakers of Earth and the source of common decency.

So, the nasty troll wants us to believe that only he has eyes to see and ears to hear... which gives him the right to incessantly bark at those who respect each other or choose to ignore his stupid questions... and argues that prohibiting anyone from harming others is a form of dictatorship...!!!

[Pargat Perrer]

Important point, Sid. Justice and security are key elements of Libertarianism. And the taxation for this would perhaps be 'progressive' too, for obvious reasons...

Ok, I see that Sid decides to continue the mutual pat-on-the-back relationship with Dilip despite the fact that Dilip does everything in the exact same manner as Sid has complained about against the current elites.

Which makes both Sid and Dilip agenda-pushers who are non-pertinent to solving the problems that could be leading to collapse of civilization. So I dismiss both of them and their ideas and postings as irrelevant, as I hope other readers will do, but as it is said, only "those with eyes to see and ears to hear" will know how to act wisely.

And I see that Bob. A. is participating in the hijacking of this thread to push comparisons of DM to Libertarianism, which must be annoying to Bob G. the originator of this thread. But I see that Bob G. himself does not respond to my questions about the ultra-wealthy's obsession with survival bunkers, so I think maybe Bob G. is not considering an important angle of this thread's topic and maybe deserves to have his thread hijacked?

It's all meaningless gibberish. No one here has anything serious to contribute, just hypothetical political structures which only perpetuate the current problems. Whether we have "circles within circles" under some undisclosed "Libertarian constitution" (dictatorship) or Local Political Units creating temporary committees (which have never solved any major world problem), the result is the same: greed and selfishness everywhere you look.

Altruism is the only solution to stop the collapse of civilization. We humans are not "wired" for altruism, we are wired for greed. Therefore there is no hope in humanity. Neither LIbertarianism nor DM will ever see the light of day. Hopefully some species will take over from us as the caretakers of Earth and the source of common decency.

[Dilip Panjwani]

Dilip would everyone contribute and pay for a security force to protect them?

Important point, Sid. Justice and security are key elements of Libertarianism. And the taxation for this would perhaps be 'progressive' too, for obvious reasons...

[Sid Belzberg]

Bob, the same mechanism which you describe above, would play out in circles within circles also.

The most important point is that because the simple and efficient Libertarian constitution would govern all the circles, bureaucracy would be at a minimum.

Dilip would everyone contribute and pay for a security force to protect them?

[Dilip Panjwani]

When the LPU is not able to meet a need it has (E.g. too small), then it forms a temporary coalition committee to see if they can solve the problem. Each LPU participation sends one representative to be on the committee. Any solution is then voted on by each LPU, so that the solution has unanimous support. The project is then implemented, whatever bureaucracy is needed is created, and the committee then dissolves itself. The project bureaucracy is dissolved if and when no longer needed.


Bob A

Bob, the same mechanism which you describe above, would play out in circles within circles also.

The most important point is that because the simple and efficient Libertarian constitution would govern all the circles, bureaucracy would be at a minimum.

[Bob Armstrong]

Hi Dilip:

It may be that my "Collection of Villages" concept, and your "Circles within Circles" concept are somewhat different, and we've been mis-communicating a bit.

We both want a governing structure that is radically different than the "World of Nations".

Circles within Circles (Policy of Libertarianism)

Nations have been dissolved.

The smallest circles of about 10 individuals would consist of family and/or friends. One rep from each circle would would form the next level circle with about 9 to 10 other such reps, and so on and so forth, larger circles would get formed. In 10 steps, one could cover the entire population of the world!

I take it that the smallest circle takes care of as many of its own needs as it can (It is a "Local Political Unit (LPU)").

When the LPU is not able to meet a need it has (E.g. too small), then it takes the need to the 2nd tier circle (Slightly larger administration) to seek help in solving the local needsomehow. And so on.

Collection of Villages (Policy of Democratic Marxism)

Nations have been dissolved.

The smallest grouping for governing purposes is known as the "Local Political Unit (LPU)". All the globe is occupied by small LPU's (Akin to City-States).

The LPU takes care of as many of its won needs as it can.

When the LPU is not able to meet a need it has (E.g. too small), then it forms a temporary coalition committee to see if they can solve the problem. Each LPU participation sends one representative to be on the committee. Any solution is then voted on by each LPU, so that the solution has unanimous support. The project is then implemented, whatever bureaucracy is needed is created, and the committee then dissolves itself. The project bureaucracy is dissolved if and when no longer needed.

Difference

It strikes me that the Circles within Circles creates a permanent level of bureaucracy (The Greater Circles), with representatives, prepared to take issues from the closest inner circle that has the problem.

The Collection of Villages creates only temporary coalition project committees, which disband when no longer necessary.

Comments

What do you think of these radical proposals for realignment of world power?

What do you think about each of the two proposals?

Bob A

[Dilip Panjwani]

Again, putting things in simplistic terms that can be shredded so easily....

How does each family / friends circle decide on their rep?
How does each next level circle decide on THEIR rep?

What goes into these decisions?

You know what it will be! You know it will be GREED!

Each family / friends circle will elect the rep that BEST REPRESENTS THEIR INTERESTS. And so on and so on up the chain of circles ... exactly what we have now.

Your ignorance amazes me, and it amazes me that anyone can hold you and Libertarianism to be credible.

But you know what? Everything COULD work out, even in this "circles within circles" arrangement, IF AND ONLY IF altruism ruled the day.

I've mentioned this before I think ... I have heard that some native American tribes in the past had their chiefs, but whenever any decision came up about the future of the tribe, the chiefs would gather all the grandmothers of the tribe and ask for their opinions ... and the grandmothers would decide for the tribe. In other words, the chiefs would give up their authority for these big decisions, such as whether to leave the area of their encampment and find another area for themselves, to the only members of their tribe that had TRUE ALTRUISM .... the grandmothers.

Exactly how true that is I cannot say ... but if true for even a handful of tribes, I imagine those tribes did better than the rest. And we could too if we imprisoned our current politicians and stripped them of all their possessions and vast undeserved wealth and created a new politics consisting of only the most ALTRUISTIC members of society.

It's not gonna happen, which means all these threads are meaningless and we are doomed, as Brad Thomson has posted many times here (but not recently, he seems to have gone silent).

As I said earlier, while it may not be possible to make everyone altruistic, it is possible to have a Libertarian system which prevents greed from harming others!

[Dilip Panjwani]

This PERFECTLY outlines Dilip Panjwani's response to my posts against his Libertarianism. He simple calls me a "nasty troll" without any attempt to argue against my points.

So Sid I have to ask .... why aren't you taking Dilip Panjwani in the same vein as the "elitists" you rage against? Don't you see that he is an elitist too, albeit in sheep's clothing? He too says his Libertarianism only seeks to make everything better for the common man, for all our lives to be as you write "safer, more comfortable and more convenient".

But he won't (i.e. can't) argue against my points. First he says we have to eliminate all lawyers and judges because they are corrupt and lying ... then he comes back later and says lawyers and judges will interpret Natural Law. Like, hello, if you allow lawyers and judges to interpret Natural Law, they are only going to produce all the laws and amendments we already have, and grow their numbers exponentially such as we have now.

So basically Dilip is pissing in the wind. What he writes here comes back to cover him in shame.

When you can put Dilip Panjwani and Libertarians in the same category as these other elitists, THEN AND ONLY THEN will I respect these points you raise against the current elites.

Do your due diligence on Dilip Panjwani and Libertarianism. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

The nasty troll does not want to understand that while it may not be possible to make everyone altruistic, it is possible to have a Libertarian system which prevents greed from harming others!

[Pargat Perrer]

The smallest circles of about 10 individuals would consist of family and/or friends. One rep from each circle would would form the next level circle with about 9 to 10 other such reps, and so on and so forth, larger circles would get formed. In 10 steps, one could cover the entire population of the world!

Again, putting things in simplistic terms that can be shredded so easily....

How does each family / friends circle decide on their rep?
How does each next level circle decide on THEIR rep?

What goes into these decisions?

You know what it will be! You know it will be GREED!

Each family / friends circle will elect the rep that BEST REPRESENTS THEIR INTERESTS. And so on and so on up the chain of circles ... exactly what we have now.

Your ignorance amazes me, and it amazes me that anyone can hold you and Libertarianism to be credible.

But you know what? Everything COULD work out, even in this "circles within circles" arrangement, IF AND ONLY IF altruism ruled the day.

I've mentioned this before I think ... I have heard that some native American tribes in the past had their chiefs, but whenever any decision came up about the future of the tribe, the chiefs would gather all the grandmothers of the tribe and ask for their opinions ... and the grandmothers would decide for the tribe. In other words, the chiefs would give up their authority for these big decisions, such as whether to leave the area of their encampment and find another area for themselves, to the only members of their tribe that had TRUE ALTRUISM .... the grandmothers.

Exactly how true that is I cannot say ... but if true for even a handful of tribes, I imagine those tribes did better than the rest. And we could too if we imprisoned our current politicians and stripped them of all their possessions and vast undeserved wealth and created a new politics consisting of only the most ALTRUISTIC members of society.

It's not gonna happen, which means all these threads are meaningless and we are doomed, as Brad Thomson has posted many times here (but not recently, he seems to have gone silent).

[Pargat Perrer]

. . .
As a general rule I find that whenever the public scrutinizes any particular agenda being promoted by governments and globalists their first response is to act indignant, much like a narcissist would do when they are up to no good and they get caught. “How dare you” question their intentions and suggest they might be nefarious. How dare you suggest they are anything other than loving and benevolent. Our “leaders” have only ever wanted the best for us, right? They only want our lives to become safer, more comfortable and more convenient – This is what truly motivates your average elitist, right?

Obviously history tells us a far different story, and it boggles my mind when anyone tries to argue that things are different today compared to 100 years ago, 300 years ago, or 1000 years ago. There is nothing new under the sun. There will always be tyrants attempting to gain more and more power and those tyrants will always lie to the public, claiming they are good people with our best interests at heart.
. . .
I will admit there is some value to the “conspiracy theory” accusation because whenever the establishment uses it, it’s a sure sign that you are too close to the target and they are getting nervous. They could simply try to outline any evidence they might have to prove that your position is wrong, but they don’t really do that. Instead of debating your arguments and evidence, they try to undermine you as a valid critic and inoculate the public against your ideas before people ever get a chance to hear them. This is the behavior of villains, not benevolent and caring leaders.
. . .

This PERFECTLY outlines Dilip Panjwani's response to my posts against his Libertarianism. He simple calls me a "nasty troll" without any attempt to argue against my points.

So Sid I have to ask .... why aren't you taking Dilip Panjwani in the same vein as the "elitists" you rage against? Don't you see that he is an elitist too, albeit in sheep's clothing? He too says his Libertarianism only seeks to make everything better for the common man, for all our lives to be as you write "safer, more comfortable and more convenient".

But he won't (i.e. can't) argue against my points. First he says we have to eliminate all lawyers and judges because they are corrupt and lying ... then he comes back later and says lawyers and judges will interpret Natural Law. Like, hello, if you allow lawyers and judges to interpret Natural Law, they are only going to produce all the laws and amendments we already have, and grow their numbers exponentially such as we have now.

So basically Dilip is pissing in the wind. What he writes here comes back to cover him in shame.

When you can put Dilip Panjwani and Libertarians in the same category as these other elitists, THEN AND ONLY THEN will I respect these points you raise against the current elites.

Do your due diligence on Dilip Panjwani and Libertarianism. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

[Bob Armstrong]

ChessTalk

Collapse of Civilization

(Started: 23/10/30)

Weekly Overview

Notes:

1. The “Weekly Overview” of the topic is posted for the benefit of new members who may have come in between the “Weekly Overviews”.

2. The Stats of participation are important to allow all to determine the extent of continuing interest, and whether, at some point, the interest no longer warrants the labour.



A. Statistics

Week # 2 (23/11/6 – 11/12, 2023 [7 days])

(Sometimes Adjusted for no. of days)

Weekly Stats:
.....................................................2023 Average..........................................................2023 Average
Last Week's......Prior Week's........Views/Day..........Last Week's.....Prior Week's......Responses/Day
Views/Day........Views/Day.............(1 wk.)............Responses/Day....Resp./Day.......(1 wk.).

…39........................14.......................27.........................4........................1........................3

Analysis of Last Week's Stats

Last week's stats are running well ahead of those of the prior week, and the 2023 year to date.

Civilizations do not collapse overnight........there is a long, steady, continuous deterioration before hand. Then, all of a sudden, the tipping point has been reached, and we get metamorphosis (Like caterpillar to butterfly, only in reverse!). Either Dystopia, or a new empire rising like the Sphinx from the ashes, sometimes worse than the one it replaces.

Do we care who is going to be in control, as humans battle to survive in an environment more and more hostile to their continued existence (Negative Climate Change; Possible Nuclear War; Pandemics; etc.)?

B. Indicia of a Collapsing Civilization

Comment below on what the current evidence is that our world's civilization is beginning to collapse......we'll add your ideas here!

Additional Notes:

1. The goal of this thread is not to woodshed an opposing view into submission. Every position is entitled to post as it sees fit, regardless of the kind of, and amount of, postings by other positions. What is wanted is serious consideration of all posts........then you decide.

2. I personally, as the thread originator, am trying to post a new response at least twice per week, but admit my busy schedule means I am sometimes falling short on this. So it is going to be necessary that a number of other CT'ers are posting responses here somewhat regularly.

Bob A

[Dilip Panjwani]

Dilip, would you mind linking to the post(s) where you briefly described the 'circles within circles' concept? Thanks.

The smallest circles of about 10 individuals would consist of family and/or friends. One rep from each circle would would form the next level circle with about 9 to 10 other such reps, and so on and so forth, larger circles would get formed. In 10 steps, one could cover the entire population of the world!