The ideal government.

[Unified Communist Councils]

I believe their description of the above scenario is intended to serve as a rendition of the experience machine argument against utilitarianism and its objective of maximising happiness rather than being a genuine proposal for an ideal system of government/society.

It's certainly one take, but nevertheless an extreme one. It's taking the idea to its logical conclusion, but in practice, politics is never about ideological purity. Governments are only as effective as they are at balancing practicality with vision, decision making involves making compromises and this trade-off nature is inherent in all situations. The ideal government is opposed to radical and extreme ideas, as such ideas will lead to an imbalance of the five forces of civilization that will ultimately contradict the pre-estsblished axioms.

[Kaczynskisatva]

I believe their description of the above scenario is intended to serve as a rendition of the experience machine argument against utilitarianism and its objective of maximising happiness rather than being a genuine proposal for an ideal system of government/society.

It's certainly one take, but nevertheless an extreme one. It's taking the idea to its logical conclusion, but in practice, politics is never about ideological purity. Governments are only as effective as they are at balancing practicality with vision, decision making involves making compromises and this trade-off nature is inherent in all situations. The ideal government is opposed to radical and extreme ideas, as such ideas will lead to an imbalance of the five forces of civilization that will ultimately contradict the pre-estsblished axioms.

There's nothing in this text that makes it an argument against anything. You told me what you wanted, so I told you how to get it. If, once you see how to get it, you decide you don't want it, that's your own problem, and you should come back to me and ask me how to get the new thing you want. I'm only here to answer questions.

What makes an idea "radical" or "extreme"? Were not all new forms of government, Democracy and Socialism, radical and extreme in the context of the former modes of civilization from which they emerged?

Pragmatism is a means, not an end.

If you propose that it would take some time to assemble the entire universe into an "experience machine", as you call it, this should be no more troubling than the original, dogmatic Communist notion of "Socialism", a proposed end state of civilization, and "Communism", a transitional form of government meant to achieve it. If your objective is this "utility function" thing, your means of achieving it is to assemble everything into this "experience machine". If this is a proposed end state of civilization, you are correct that you may need to identify a transitional mode of government with the objective of reaching this end state.

I'm curious about these "five forces" of civilization you speak of - it sounds a little bit like alchemy. I am aware of only one force of civilization - it is Life. All other forces are tangents and dimensions of this thing. Too many objectives is as much confusion as too many causes - there can be only one.

So, I have told you, with more detail, how to get what you want.

With respect to this thing you want:

May I ask,

Why?

[Kaczynskisatva]

If people do not want to be involved in such an "ascension", then they can opt out of it, much like how there exist non-voters in every democratic society. You have the freedom to choose without fear or repercussion of oppression, this is one way of viewing the ideal manifestation of minimizing suffering while maximizing the happiness of all parties.

Since I asked you a difficult question, I'll help you out:

Read Brave New World again, reflect on the conflict between "minimize suffering" and "allow autonomy", and choose one, and only one.

Then, see if you can defend your choice against Why recursion.

After recursion, compare whatever you recur to against the alternative of survivalism as a proposed pre-moral or meta-moral imperative necessary to enabling the conditions for your choice. Moral imperatives, as far as I can tell, are randomly inserted axioms, or axioms having something to do with some real thing, like the human reward mechanism, which objectively exists to motivate survivalist behavior.

This round of talking to myself has been fruitful enough that I will be working out some things in writing in my own space, and not here.

Generally, this forum works better for me when it's people asking questions, instead of trying to give answers to questions that no one has asked. Thank you all for the stimulation, this is a high quality thread.

[HISPIDA]

a libertarian and democratic socialist government where the decisions of the government are decided by referenda.

but here's a question: how do you define ideal? utopia can't exist because everyone has a different opinion of utopia

[HISPIDA]

Communism
Next question

isnt the idea of communism to eventually dissolve the state? or is that what you're saying?

state =! government

[Kaczynskisatva]

utopia can't exist because everyone has a different opinion of utopia

combustion engine can't exist because everyone has a different opinion of combustion engine

who asked everyone? I didn't.

[HISPIDA]

utopia can't exist because everyone has a different opinion of utopia

combustion engine can't exist because everyone has a different opinion of combustion engine

who asked everyone? I didn't.

false equivalence. a combustion engine has a strict definition and can be made, shown off, and universally accepted as a combustion engine. you can't point to a glass of water and say "this is a combustion engine," because it's clearly not. it's a glass of water.

the idea of "utopia" between two people can vary wildly. for example, my utopia is a libertarian socialist state where the government answers to the people and capitalism is a dead and forgotten memory. the utopia of my next door neighbor could be an anarcho-capitalist paradise where the NAP is upheld and the guy across the street's utopia could be a neofascist dictatorship where only straight white cisgender men are allowed to be considered citizens and everyone else is enslaved property. none of these three things are alike and therefore the definition of utopia is subjective

[Old Tyrannia]

I don't believe in ideal earthly governments because all earthly governments are products of human beings, who are inherently flawed and limited and therefore incapable of constructing a society that is not flawed and limited. The only ideal government is the Kingdom of God. In practice different systems of government have been demonstrated to work well under different circumstances. I have said before that for my own country, the United Kingdom, the constitutional system in place prior to the start of the 20th century was more or less ideal for the purposes I would assign to it; the only major constitutional change since then that I approve of has been the extension of suffrage to women in 1918 and to those women not already eligible under the 1918 law in 1928. That having been said, I would prefer a more powerful executive role for the sovereign than was held by Queen Victoria. In very general terms, I believe in Christian monarchy as an ideal, but there is a need for each country to be governed in accordance with its specific situation.

[HISPIDA]

I don't believe in ideal earthly governments because all earthly governments are products of human beings, who are inherently flawed and limited and therefore incapable of constructing a society that is not flawed and limited. The only ideal government is the Kingdom of God. In practice different systems of government have been demonstrated to work well under different circumstances. I have said before that for my own country, the United Kingdom, the constitutional system in place prior to the start of the 20th century was more or less ideal for the purposes I would assign to it; the only major constitutional change since then that I approve of has been the extension of suffrage to women in 1918 and to those women not already eligible under the 1918 law in 1928. That having been said, I would prefer a more powerful executive role for the sovereign than was held by Queen Victoria. In very general terms, I believe in Christian monarchy as an ideal, but there is a need for each country to be governed in accordance with its specific situation.

i don't see how oppression is an idea earthly government but to each his own

[Sundiata]

Monarchy is the best form of government.

[HISPIDA]

Monarchy is the best form of government.

again, i don't see how oppression is ideal

[Ispravlennaja Tsekovija]

Monarchy is the best form of government.

again, i don't see how oppression is ideal

do keep in mind that in sundiata's monarchy the king would be joe biden and the queen would be kamala harris and although they would not allow abortion or gay marriage and they would move in lockstep with the decisions of the catholic church, they would still not be oppressive by his definition. i'll allow him to elaborate more

[Elwher]

Monarchy is the best form of government.

It depends on the monarch. Heaven and Hell are both absolute monarchies, but the results are a bit different.

[Nora Xent]

I'd want the Galactic Empire from Star Wars, or one that is as close as possible to it with just our technology/resources. I'm deep into the dark side if there were a force. I more or less would never defect to the rebellion unless I had no choice like if Tarkin was expecting me tomorrow, to account for my failure.

BREAKING NEWS:
A Neo-Nazi supports Space Nazis.
but to be honest, a government that will collapse as soon as the leader dies is not a stable government, nor an ideal government.

[Joohan]

Terran federation, starship troopers - the book version - though less libertarian in economics and social policy

[Saiwania]

BREAKING NEWS: A Neo-Nazi supports Space Nazis. but to be honest, a government that will collapse as soon as the leader dies is not a stable government, nor an ideal government.

What should count is that I'm not a neo-Nazi on here anymore. The Galactic Empire has nothing to do with Nazism other than the uniforms maybe being inspired, but its nothing out of the norm for other fascist regimes throughout history.

The worst thing the Empire did was destroy Alderaan but I'd consider that Tarkin's fault or a mistake. Palpatine from what I've read, wasn't pleased that it caused blowback to some extent. Reparations were offered to Alderaan citizens that were off world.

I'd never consent to destroying such a valuable planet as Alderaan, even if it looked like they needed an invasion or orbital bombardment. Not only could Alderaan support life, but it was too valuable/priceless in terms of it being lush/beautiful/developed real estate on a galactic scale. In our own solar system, "good" planets are too rare to just be wasted/destroyed. Destroy a lifeless rock like the moon instead, if a planet has to be blown up.

[Ispravlennaja Tsekovija]

BREAKING NEWS: A Neo-Nazi supports Space Nazis. but to be honest, a government that will collapse as soon as the leader dies is not a stable government, nor an ideal government.

What should count is that I'm not a neo-Nazi on here anymore. The Galactic Empire has nothing to do with Nazism other than the uniforms maybe being inspired, but its nothing out of the norm for other fascist regimes throughout history.

The worst thing the Empire did was destroy Alderaan but I'd consider that Tarkin's fault or a mistake. Palpatine from what I've read, wasn't pleased that it caused blowback to some extent. Reparations were offered to Alderaan citizens that were off world.

I'd never consent to destroying such a valuable planet as Alderaan, even if it looked like they needed an invasion or orbital bombardment. Not only could Alderaan support life, but it was too valuable/priceless in terms of it being lush/beautiful/developed real estate on a galactic scale.

god the men you put on this planet to toil under the sun and protect us are posting online about star wars again

[Nora Xent]

BREAKING NEWS: A Neo-Nazi supports Space Nazis. but to be honest, a government that will collapse as soon as the leader dies is not a stable government, nor an ideal government.

What should count is that I'm not a neo-Nazi on here anymore. The Galactic Empire has nothing to do with Nazism other than the uniforms maybe being inspired, but its nothing out of the norm for other fascist regimes throughout history.

The worst thing the Empire did was destroy Alderaan but I'd consider that Tarkin's fault or a mistake. Palpatine from what I've read, wasn't pleased that it caused blowback to some extent. Reparations were offered to Alderaan citizens that were off world.

I'd never consent to destroying such a valuable planet as Alderaan, even if it looked like they needed an invasion or orbital bombardment. Not only could Alderaan support life, but it was too valuable/priceless in terms of it being lush/beautiful/developed real estate on a galactic scale. In our own solar system, "good" planets are too rare to just be wasted/destroyed. Destroy a lifeless rock like the moon instead, if a planet has to be blown up.

The empire are literal space nazis. They have the Space SS, the Space Gestapo, a literal race hierarchy which they are meh to sometimes, and the space Waffen-SS. and the fact that you don't view mass-slavery of sentient brings as 'bad' or mass genocide as 'bad' says a lot about your actual ideology.

[Saiwania]

The empire are literal space nazis. They have the Space SS, the Space Gestapo, a literal race hierarchy which they are meh to sometimes, and the space Waffen-SS. and the fact that you don't view mass-slavery of sentient brings as 'bad' or mass genocide as 'bad' says a lot about your actual ideology.

There were tons of high ranking non-humans as part of the Imperial order. I'd say they all deserved their ranks.
Grand Admiral Thrawn is brilliant, and we have Palpatine's assistant Mas Amedda, and his Umbarran wife and who knows how many other Grand Moffs and officials.

[Nora Xent]

The empire are literal space nazis. They have the Space SS, the Space Gestapo, a literal race hierarchy which they are meh to sometimes, and the space Waffen-SS. and the fact that you don't view mass-slavery of sentient brings as 'bad' or mass genocide as 'bad' says a lot about your actual ideology.

There were tons of high ranking non-humans as part of the Imperial order. I'd say they all deserved their ranks. Grand Admiral Thrawn is brilliant, and we have Palpatine's assistant Mas Amedda, and his Umbarran wife and who knows how many other Grand Moffs and officials.

Grand Admiral Thrawn was a genius yes, but Mas Amedda was a sycophant.

[Heloin]

What should count is that I'm not a neo-Nazi on here anymore.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
*breaths*
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
*repeat for about eight hours*

[Diarcesia]

There is no ideal government

[Heloin]

There is no ideal government

One that provides free liquor and beer.

[Neanderthaland]

There can't really be one.

Even if people could agree on what constitutes a perfect society, and then nail it down so that everything is that way, you'd have at most... maybe? 100 years before things stopped working right. Probably not even that. Probably not even close to that. Almost certainly some external circumstance would change that makes the current system less than optimal. And as time went on these would accumulate and then cascade. Until the society can only maintain its "utopia" by ignoring problems and through force.

[Vikanias]

The only ideal government is one where we are ruled by super intelligent seals


/s