Bitcoin Forum

I generally think of different ideologies in terms of evolution:

e.g

Capitalism -> natural evolution, no manipulation of fitness space

Socialism,Communism -> manipulated fitness space with: fitness penalties for high performers(disproportional taxes) and fitness benefits for disadvantaged(social benefits).

There seems to be a huge cross-over how currently these different ideologies are defined and leads to opponents discussing definitions rather than which system is actually more beneficial. Its like arguing over the length of a piece of string.....  its quite clear there is a problem with the argumentative framework used.

I believe (maybe one day a mathematician will show) that all ideologies can be transposed into "Theory of evolution logic space". 

We know that the theory of evolution is proven.

JMO

Of course a mathematician can chart all ideologies.  You just have one axis.


Obviously, anything that can be labeled as 'extreme' is bad because we put a bad guy on each end of the spectrum, and this is the best way to analyze politics.

lol

in terms of manipulations to the fitness space.  :)

We know that the theory of evolution is proven extremely well-evidenced.

There is so many things wrong with this scale, I'm not even going to address it.  However, based on the premise that everyone views politics with themselves as the "center", I'd bet dollars to donuts that you consider yourself a moderate Democrat.

And I can relate.  I was a Green as a younger man, then I studied the science and learned that the Greens were full of crap.  So then I thought that I must be a Democrat.  Even became a state delegate, where I learned that the name was a misnomer, and democracy was nowhere to be found within the Democratic Party.  But I knew that I wasn't a Republican, who (ironicly) believe that democracy works. 

I assure you, a Nolan chart is far better at representing ideologies compared to one another than the left-right spectrum.

LOL, I was being facetious.  Internet sarcasm and whatnot.

My point was that the issue is always framed in horrifically wrong terms that have no basis in reality and are formed (either by accident or design) for the maximum amount of infighting between those who identify with those sides.

My secondary point was that anyone with an actual idea is always labeled an 'extreme' and thus dismissed without any discussion.  It allows talking heads to avoid any sort of situation where they may ask a question to which they don't already know the answer.

I beg to differ.  Natural selection is well evidenced.  The theory of evolution presumes that natural selection has been the dominant process of genetic change across history based on the evidence that it is the dominant process of genetic change today.

Back to the point, do you consider yourself a moderate Democrat?

I don't follow you, sorry. Do you think that it's not extremely well-evidenced? How do you differ?

The farthest from it.  I'm absolutely a philosophical anarchist.

edit:  Can I have my dollars now?  ...or do I get the donuts?  :P

So you're a European moderate Democrat, then.  By "farthest from it" you mean complimentary?


It was never a bet with you.

More like they breed evil tyrants and sheepie population.

Evolution is "proven" in the sense that it exists.  Whether it is beneficial or should exist or even can be eliminated are separate arguments.

George Carlin on nature (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EjmtSkl53h4)
(couldn't find the clip about nuclear waste, but this is close)

I view this as problem with implementation, if i know that such an ideology can never be implemented than there's no point trying to transpose it into "evolution logic".

creighto mentioned the Nolan chart, which is a great tool in making comparisons imo.

I don't distinguish much between theory or implementation.

If the theory works, than the implementation works. If it doesn't, new theory.

kk what about this?

Ideology A -> manipulated fitness space with: fitness penalties for high performers(disproportional taxes) and fitness benefits for disadvantaged(social benefits).


Look at Sweden, one of the highest personal tax rates in the developed world, yet one of the best healthcare,education systems in the world. Ranked top 4 countries in equality.

Maybe they got the implementation right...

Just because they're the best doesn't mean their implementation is particularly efficient. I admit the American health care system is inefficient. I give you that.

But schooling in general? It's fricking inefficient. Go use khanacademy or something.

Firstly i would have thought best = most efficient. And the khan site u mentioned (great site btw) is not as comprehensive as current education systems, it's biggest flaw is that it only accesses for high-school maths.