Collapse of Civilization

[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]

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.

[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]

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...

[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]

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...!!!

[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

[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.

[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????????????????????

[Bob Armstrong]

Hi Pargat:

78 years of being helped by people, many times strangers, when it cost them "something".

You sound like you have never been helped?

I'm being a bit facetious......I understand that you are questioning why my two 75% figures........to you they seem excessively high I take it, given your own life experience?.........much less help from family, friends and strangers than you had expected, and certainly not 75% altruism?

Do other CT'ers also find my 75% figures too high?

Bob A

[Bob Armstrong]

One View on Altruism

[Dilip Panjwani]

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

A rose by any other name is still a rose....

[Dilip Panjwani]

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".

Do you really need to explained: Like any other law, and because they are reps?
Don't ever ask such stupid questions in a debate... the audience would altruistically recommend you to seek mental help...

[Pargat Perrer]

Hi Pargat:

78 years of being helped by people, many times strangers, when it cost them "something".

You sound like you have never been helped?

I'm being a bit facetious......I understand that you are questioning why my two 75% figures........to you they seem excessively high I take it, given your own life experience?.........much less help from family, friends and strangers than you had expected, and certainly not 75% altruism?

Do other CT'ers also find my 75% figures too high?

Bob A

I am not basing anything on my own life experience, that is an ignorant and insulting conclusion you are drawing.

I am basing it on the state of the world, which this thread is all about. If there is so much altruism, why is the human species near to self-extinction?

Even IF we assume your numbers are correct, I would draw 2 conclusions:

(1) the 75% who are so altruistic 75% of the time are the BOTTOM 75% of society in economic terms. Their altruism may come about because of shared suffering / experience. If you know what it's like to be walked all over like you don't exist, you will be more likely to help others in your situation.

(2) the other 25%, the top 25% economically, are acting out of greed close to 100% of the time in their daily economic decisions.

And as we all know, the top 1% of the population hoards the vast vast majority of the world's wealth, so they are the greediest of all. They are the ones buying all the survival bunkers and hurrying the world along to mass dieoff of the population.

So you can end your simplistic idea that altruism is guiding the world along more than greed. You didn't quite say that, but it appears to be what you are suggesting.

[Pargat Perrer]

Do you really need to explained: Like any other law, and because they are reps?
Don't ever ask such stupid questions in a debate... the audience would altruistically recommend you to seek mental help...

Yes, like any other law: by force. Therefore no one will have any means of appeal if they are convicted of a violation of Natural Law. Voila, dictatorship.

If circle reps advance to the next circle simply by being reps, then the second question gets transformed to "How do reps get chosen?" And we all know the answer to that... based on how well that rep will ensure benefits will trickle down to that circle.

Glad you spelled it out for us. Dictatorship and greed, the guiding principles of Libertarianism.

Now here's a third question, the most important of all which you refuse to answer and which I'm sure you will also characterize as a "stupid question"...

What scenarios will be considered "fair competition" which allows exclusion from following Natural Law? Since literally everyone on the planet would many times during their life be accused of violating Natural Law by the police state of Libertarianism, everyone needs to know the exact definition of "fair competition".

Here comes the technobabble, meant to confuse.... if he even deigns to answer the "stupid question".