Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Log in or create an account to join the discussions on the Atheist Republic forums.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
FREE E-BOOKS
Get the book "Why There Is No God" and one more book for FREE!
Sign up below for the Atheist Republic Newsletter to get the books.
Record Your Message!
Record your voice here for it to be aired on the Atheist Republic Voicemails Podcast.
Send us your views and opinions, your personal stories, messages of support, comments on recent news, or any comments you would like to share about your part of the world.
Note : By clicking record you are allowing us to broadcast your message on any of our platforms.
Affiliate Disclaimer
Links to atheist related books, shirts and movies and other atheism related products are affiliate links.
All proceeds will go to keeping the Atheist Republic website up and running; providing resources, advocacy, community tools and encouragement to atheists all over the world.
The idea of "originalism" Is a propaganda campaign put forth by the Heritage Foundation (conservative propaganda group). It emerged in the Reagan era to justify certain aspects of the 2nd Amendment backed by the NRA.
Given the fact that the 2nd is completely misconstrued and mischaracterized by the conservatives, "originalism" is nothing more propaganda.
Madison, Hamilton, Jay, and Franklin, explained in the 'Federalist Papers' that the Constitution of the United States of America is a "living document."
Please read this article:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/byron-williams/same-sex-marriage-constitut...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/byron-williams/same-sex-marriage-constitut...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/byron-williams/same-sex-marriage-constitut...
http://www.gradesaver.com/the-federalist-papers
I am a libertarian. The argument about originalism is alive and well within the party too. The major difference between the Republican/Democratic parties and the Libertarian party is that Libertarianism is an international movement.
http://www.lp.org/libertarians-worldwide
I have a question to you, Chimp, since you're stating that you're libertarian. What does libertarianism say about the idea of social contract?
I will not try to be a spokesman for libertarianism. The debates,essays, you tube videos are out there. As for myself , I do not look to religious authority for guidance nor do I look to political authority for the same. I enjoy sharing political ideas on forums such as this . Social contract ? I think people are capable of creating society without oversight and restriction from other fallible humans. We do need protection from assholes who seek to kill , rape , steal , assault , and commit fraud. I am optimistic that the creative process libs call spontaneous order will generate a society more interesting than something imposed on us by others who decide to call their limited vision a "contract". I do not believe in God and yet I do not go running around killing and raping - I am a morally intelligent individual. If I do not have a social contract with a political authority that demands I care for the sick and weak in society I still can generate that moral precept without them and create institutions which will carry out that function.
At one point I thought I might be interested in libertarianism, but after investigation I found it to be conservative lite and not at all what I expected. I don't like the idea of no fed, and no government oversight. I don't trust corporations. I don't think unrestricted companies will do the right thing the honest thing, the fair thing. I believe in a free and fair government with government oversight. Not a nanny state but a responsible state. If you adhere to a strict libertarian ideal, all aspects of life would be privatized without any oversight. That makes no sense. The poor weak and those with no opportunity would be left to fend for themselves. The rich and powerful would be able to be even more corrupt and skew everything in their favor. Some government is necessary to insure a fair and level playing field. Therefore I reject libertarianism wholeheartedly.
I was actively involved in the Libertarian party for a while, and after working at a corporation for a while (I still work there) I came to essentially the same conclusions as you (although I think if I was to state them they would be much more cynical). What officially drove me to change my voter registration (from Libertarian to independent) was the party's (at least the local one) endorsement of the 9/11 inside job conspiracy. After that I didn't want to be associated with them, even if it was just on paper (I had become disenchanted long before that).
On a side note: your description of 'conservative lite' resonated with me. Immediately after registering Libertarian, I started receiving vicious attacks ads in the mail from the Republican party, which magically stopped the instant I changed my registration to independent. Perhaps I should start a conspiracy theory of my own!
I respect your concerns criticisms and mykob4's. I myself are more of old hippy not a corporate type. I am not focused on money as much as I am civil liberties. David Boaz of the Cato Institute makes a valid argument describing how collectivism can exist within a libertarian state. It is not all about unrestrained capitalism.
But chimp3 it is. The libertarian movement may have been a good idea once, but it has slid into a wide open unregulated corporate movement. I don't trust the Cato Institute. Just like the Heritage Foundation, it was created to counter the Brookings Institute. It's purpose is to publish pseuo-science and revisionist history to combat scientific facts that expose global warming and to revise facts about the civil rights movement.
For example this statement from: http://www.cato.org/research/global-warming
Global warming is indeed real, and human activity has been a contributor since 1975. But global warming is also a very complicated and difficult issue that can provoke very unwise policy in response to political pressure. Although there are many different legislative proposals for substantial reductions in carbon dioxide emissions, there is no operational or tested suite of technologies that can accomplish the goals of such legislation.
Fortunately, and contrary to much of the rhetoric surrounding climate change, there is ample time to develop such technologies, which will require substantial capital investment by individuals.
The whole idea here is to mislead. Man's cause of climate change started at the beginning of the industrial age, not 1975 as the Cato Institute would have you believe. Then they go on to say that legislation will not solve the problem, claiming instead that a private investment must be made(very disturbing). Then they go on to say that there is plenty of time for a solution (also incorrect). The actual aim here by the CATO Institute is to get people to do nothing which is the aim of corrupt corporate polluters.
That is just one issue. There are many many more. I recall how the Cato Institute tried to say that smoking didn't cause cancer. For ten plus years they worked on behalf of the big tobacco companies.
Also if you read the platform of the Libertarian Party you will see that they just want to end all government. That is the main goal. They say that they are for individual rights. However those rights apparently don't include fair opportunity. What they actually want is no government regulation-pay as you go anarchy.
https://www.lp.org/platform
Human caused global warming actually started during the early agricultural age - or at least 5000 years ago - according to geologist E. Kirsten Peters. There is a sharp spike in that warming trend noted about 1975. I do not get my scientific education from politicians of any kind. I am a left leaning libertarian and am willing to compromise in the area of environmental protection and providing a safety net for the weakest members of our society . If the government would stay out of our bedrooms , bodies , and bodegas I probably would not be having this conversation with you.
I agree on the government staying out of most of our lives. That is what Liberal is all about. Fair opportunity for all. REAL competition in business. Individual rights secured and paramount.
Yes Global Warming caused by man started in the agricultural age, but the real spike didn't occur as late as 1975. It really began in the industrial revolution. http://www.ecology.com/2011/09/18/ecological-impact-industrial-revolution/
Wide spread global pollution began in the agricultural age. fecal runoff, pesticides, fertilizers, slaughter house waste etc...! The Industrial age ushered in an exponential amount of fossil fuel burning released into the air.
I thought you guys might find this very short story funny: http://www.newyorker.com/humor/daily-shouts/l-p-d-libertarian-police-dep...
What a farce. Nobody can read "The Fountainhead" and stay awake , let alone someone on heroin. There are some salvageable ideas in this tale. Keep the cops hooked on heroin and afraid of cracks in the sidewalk. Then maybe they won't be out looking for unarmed street vendors selling loose cigarettes and end up strangling them to death. Bitcoin would have no recourse through a local P.D.. To capture the internet pirate who stole the bitcoins Congress would have to issue a Letter of Marque and Reprisal. Could be a profitable venture for a young hacker.
Please tell me that's not an accurate representation. BTW, bookmarked the link.
Here is a social irony I would find highly amusing if it were not so seriously damaging to the earth my grandchildren will inherit. Those who would vote for liberal Democrats , Progressives , and Social Democrats display a trusting belief that large government will take care of a wide array of our societal ills. Yet when it comes to something as simple as drinking water many of those same people will not dare to drink straight from the tap , believing instead that their government is lying to them about the purity and safety of the water. So , they go out and buy bottled water from capitalists who they trust and create more plastic waste for our oceans to process.
1) you mischaracterize what Liberals believe...
and
2) Most people worry about tap water since conservatives have compromised health standards ergo Flint Michigan. A conservative created problem.
Most liberals don't live in Flint . I do agree that their distrust in government is healthy but I myself drink straight from the tap.
As do I.
chimp3 - "Those who would vote for liberal Democrats , Progressives , and Social Democrats display a trusting belief that large government will take care of a wide array of our societal ills."
Only the idealogues don't want essential services like the police, fire department, and military to be socialized by big government. We all know these things are way too important to be left to the horrors of market forces. The real divide is just what sectors (like say heath, education, consumer protection, etc) should be covered by the government and what should be left to the market. Only the lunatic fringe want to turn it all over to the market (or the opposite). At the end of the day we are all socialists of a kind; we just don't agree on the details.
The discussion here is very interesting. Nevertheless it seems to me that all the issues raised miss the crucial point of the main source of our problems (as almost all political discussions do), from the lack of true democracy and transparency in the organization of current elections, to social questions and global warming.
What did start with agriculture about 5000 years ago? With agriculture, human population began to grow steadily, i.e. according to an exponential function, and that growth exploded in the 18th century with industrialization. Of course democracy is not sustainable at a 7.2-billion population.
I don't know if I must weep or laugh my head off when I hear people complaining about the world they are going to pass on to their children. No fresh air, no clean water, no trees, no jobs, no equal opportunities... that's all just beginning. Why did they make children in the first place if they're able to consider things so clearly? Our generation is about to face a major Malthusian catastrophe (do you remember Rwanda? racial questions are nothing but a convenient pretext) and given globalization, every human on earth will have to cope with its consequences. Everyone selfishly needs more children, no matter these children's lives are: industry needs consumers, newspapers need readers, states need soldiers and workers, religions need worshipers... and politicians need voters. Everyone selfishly wants more children, building inadvertently our common fate.
"Nasty industrials damage my children's earth!" I'm sorry but, to my mind, that's nothing but hypocrisy. There is no moral right to make children in such a world and in such times.
I feel I start to be offending. That's not my intention but I can't help to get angry in front of contradictions as huge as that. I don't think it has been noticed, so I allow myself to cite again Al Bartlett's conference "Arithmetic, Population and Energy":
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sI1C9DyIi_8
Further reading on Rwanda:
http://feb.kuleuven.be/drc/licos/publications/dp/dp291.pdf
RomainD - "Of course democracy is not sustainable at a 7.2-billion population."
I have no idea if 20 billion is too low, or 1 million is too high. So I'm curious why you say 7.2 billion is too large, and also what is the right number to make democracy sustainable?
I'm 58 and I don't have any kids. I chose not to have kids. Is that selfish? Well yes, just as selfish as if I had to chose to have children. The really selfish thing here is the lack of opportunity that is kept from the majority of the populace. In nations that have been somewhat democratic, populations have gone down. Only in nations where the general population is uneducated and freedom and opportunities have been suppressed have populations exploded. So the "selfish ones" are the corrupt corporations that exploit the weak, the poor, the uneducated. I guess we are all guilty because of our consumerism. We want to pay as little as possible for things. Mostly we buy things that we need, but we also buy things that we really don't need nor actually want in the long run. I am not advocating a Spartan lifestyle for the greater good. I am advocating ending exploitation of people, consumers, animals, and the environment. Products would have a realistic value. This would cause consumers to only buy what they could afford, and to place value on what they did buy. This age of disposable purchases, made because of disposable income, has caused severe problems throughout the world.
Nyarlathotep — Representative democracy faces a serious problem with population growth since population grows faster than assemblies supposed to represent it. A quick look at Wikipedia is instructive on the matter:
"Since the Constitution allows for one representative for as few as 30,000 citizens, Congress passed new, higher limits for the House, which grew in size until a law passed in 1911, based on the National Census of 1910, established the present upper limit of 435 members of the House. Since the House's size was fixed but the population kept growing, instead of a congressperson representing only 30,000 citizens (as the Constitution had previously established), a congressperson represents 600,000 and more persons."
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_United_States_Congress consultation: 06/08/2016)
In other words, individuals' value becomes thinner as the population grows larger. Democracy might be possible in small societies, where people know each other and can easily work together to reach a common goal. But there are no such things like small societies that wouldn't be involved in interdependent relationships with all others in a globalized world. So, in best cases, democracy is the dictatorship of majority. Do you think majority actually governs? Why not, after all. I'd rather think most decisions are taken by oligarchs, plutocrats or bureaucrats (they're sometimes the same). And, frankly, why would they be wrong? People are too busy working, worshipping and enjoying the small pleasures they can get to waste the time they don't have in examining boring matters like taking day-to-day decisions for the common good or changing their habits to impede global warming. So, what are current American elections? Entertainment, panem et circenses.
Mykcob, don't misunderstand, I'm not criticizing selfishness in itself, but inconsistency and incoherence. You don't have children? Then I couldn't praise too much the selfishness that led you to that choice: it means you're not in debt to an incalculable line of people who would otherwise owe you the misfortune to be born in a world where fairness is an accident, happiness a rare exception, and disease, hunger, pollution, dirt, stupidity, frustration, old age (if you're lucky, and with more disease), decrepitude and death are the universal rule. In terms of pain and joy, your "selfishness" certainly will have more happy consequences than the so "altruistic" large family model. Masses can't achieve the state of intellectual majority, they wouldn't be masses otherwise.
The English word "coffin" has the same origin than the French "couffin" ("cradle", "bassinet"). It's so simple that no one notices: there are as many coffins as there are cradles. An excellent book on the morality of having children is David Benatar's Better Never to Have Been: The Harm of Coming into Existence, Oxford University Press, 2006.
I understand your frustration and cynical outlook, but I think even though diluted that a representative democracy is achievable. This nation has for a long time now been a large populated nation. It has made strides that Canada envies. It's not the size of the population that is a problem in this nation. It's where the population is. Small communities are over represented. Places like Wyoming wields as much power as Texas in many cases, given the fact that the Senate is equal shared among the states. Suburbia is the problem in this nation. Suburban sprawl has been the bane of this nation. Suburbs are over represented in the state legislatures and in the Senate. Thus the true will of the people is not realized. Pollution, corporate corruption, consumerism all hail from suburban America and it's mentality of I don't care about the rest of the nation as long as I get mine. The cost of any government to provide just the basic essentials with a wide spread suburbia is inefficient and overwhelming.
While I agree with what you are saying, I follow the saying "Within every cyinical person is a disappointed idealist." I feel that our friend here is simply disappointed that things are not the way he thinks they ought to be, and has therfor taken up a clinical and negative attitude towards the situation. Wether or not you or RomainD agree with this is not of my concern.
You told us that "democracy is not sustainable at a 7.2-billion population."
I would like to know:
1) What is the maximum population where democracy is "sustainable".
2) What method was used to obtain this number (show the math, or perhaps cite someone who can)?
3) Perhaps tell us exactly what sustainable democracy is.
Mykcob, United States are just an example. Representativeness issues are the same in France where I live, and I suspect the problem is more or less the same everywhere. You say: "This nation has for a long time now been a large populated nation." I'm not sure you're right, especially if we talk about population density. Europe does have a high population density (115.8 inhabitants/km² in EU against 35/km² in US); that has been the case for centuries (not surprising two World Wars began there), and the Americas were an amazing opportunity to relax demographic tension (particularly that of UK). I don't deny, though, that the repartition of population is clearly not the same in US and EU.
Nyarlathotep, you're right to make precise questions: by doing so, you raise some difficult problems, problems I'm certainly not able to solve on my own. I can only give you my opinion on the matter, and it'll be disappointing.
Sustainability is the key problem. Whether we're talking about democracy or everything else, things come and go, and among other political systems, democracy is perhaps more fragile, precisely because of its high ideals. In any way, there is no democracy where there are no humans. A Malthusian catastrophe is characterized by its brutality: population grows steadily and everything seems all right until resources are finally overwhelmed for good. Personally, I doubt democracy can even be actual. Representativeness means that people give up their voices for someone else's profit, someone, they think, who has more expertise than themselves to take care of their own problems. Perhaps they're right; however by doing so, they accept to stay in a state of nonage, and how can one be both a minor and a part of the sovereign power?
To answer straightforwardly (and with a tint of bad faith?) to your questions 1 and 3, the maximum population size where democracy is sustainable is: one; above this, there is no more democracy. And I can't believe in sustainability.
About math, have you watched Bartlett's conference? What do you think about it?
Keeper of World: I am rather disappointed by the way things are claimed to be, and by the gap between claims and reality.
[Sorry for posting this message twice, I did some wrong manipulation. I wanted to delete one of them, but apparently that's not possible.]
RomainD - "About math, have you watched Bartlett's conference? What do you think about it?"
They say a picture is worth a 1000 words, I'll offer 2:
https://xkcd.com/605/
https://xkcd.com/1007/
(Wipes laughter tear from eye) Nyar, please, don't ever stop posting.
Well, you're right guys, that's so unthinkable! We'd better be sure to make as many babies as we can, just in case the world would become depopulated. It would be so sad, can you imagine? No water cleaning problems, no soils pollution due to intensive agriculture, etc.
You've made me realize I'm inconsistent myself: a misanthrope should rejoice at the idea of a Malthusian catastrophe. I'd better support Jewish, Catholic and Muslim natalism instead of complaining about consequences.
Thank you, you've opened my eyes!
And this is your ultimate inconsistency. You were saying there aren't enough people.
Pages