What is the purpose of Society,Government and Politics?

[StephenK]

It's interesting that we collectively debate over which political or economic systems are the best, without first defining what paradigms we're using to define 'best'. Without addressing this, I think having abstract debates about politics/economics is pretty much pointless, as the fundamental forces that drive our opinions are different.

So when it comes to these complex social systems, are you interested in 'fairness' as an end goal? Do you define fairness to be 'equal opportunity' or 'equal outcome'? Is there a point at which 'equal opportunity' will neglect those that need an extra helping hand? Is there a point at which 'equal outcome' can result in disproportionately high investment in certain individuals to the detriment of the collective?  Or, are you interested in minimizing suffering? If so, how do we quantify suffering? Also, rather than focusing on how to redistribute resources, shouldn't we be more focused on how to make people happy with less? Isn't the addiction to finding meaning in material resources merely a pointer to our innate obsession with materialism? How much do we really need? Who is richer, the happy street sweeper or the neurotic, anxious multimillionaire on the verge of suicide? Who needs help?

Unless the debate around these issues is sorted out, meaningful debates around higher order issues like economics and politics becomes a clash of definitions and obfuscated assumptions. 

Edited August 30, 2019 by StephenK

[Leo Gura]

The point is to maximize consciousness and love across all living beings.

Don't get lost in petty issues.

[Bodigger]

5 hours ago, StephenK said:

It's interesting that we collectively debate over which political or economic systems are the best, without first defining what paradigms we're using to define 'best'. Without addressing this, I think having abstract debates about politics/economics is pretty much pointless, as the fundamental forces that drive our opinions are different.

So when it comes to these complex social systems, are you interested in 'fairness' as an end goal? Do you define fairness to be 'equal opportunity' or 'equal outcome'? Is there a point at which 'equal opportunity' will neglect those that need an extra helping hand? Is there a point at which 'equal outcome' can result in disproportionately high investment in certain individuals to the detriment of the collective?  Or, are you interested in minimizing suffering? If so, how do we quantify suffering? Also, rather than focusing on how to redistribute resources, shouldn't we be more focused on how to make people happy with less? Isn't the addiction to finding meaning in material resources merely a pointer to our innate obsession with materialism? How much do we really need? Who is richer, the happy street sweeper or the neurotic, anxious multimillionaire on the verge of suicide? Who needs help?

Unless the debate around these issues is sorted out, meaningful debates around higher order issues like economics and politics becomes a clash of definitions and obfuscated assumptions. 

I like much of what is said here.  However, it seems obvious to me that there are two distinctions.

1   -   People who genuinely want to help people

2   -   People who genuinely want other people to help people 

[Aeris]

 a beautiful dream for all

[StephenK]

@Leo Gura Maximizing 'love/consciousness' has the epistemic pitfalls that 'maximizing wellbeing' or 'minimizing suffering' has. That is, how do we quantify 'love/wellbeing/suffering'? To take action on distributing resources (physical as well as social) is to quantify these things in actionable terms. If Tim has a 'love/wellbeing' quotient of 75%, and Mark has a 'love/wellbeing' quotient of '40%', how do we go about deciding who defines these numbers, and who then needs to be elevated, and to what degree? Do we put a weight to all people equally? What if someone is near death? Do all conscious beings get granted equal weights in the equation, or is does it form a weighted distribution? For instance, do humans get a greater weight in the equation than, say, chickens? Does this boil down to the idea that 'we're all equal, but some of us are more equal than others'? It all sounds great in principal, and I understand that the sentiment is good, but when we get our hands in the dirt, it seems far from simple.

@Bodigger Yes, and the vast majority of people fall into the 2nd group, myself included if I'm to be honest. Thinking about being compassionate and helpful is far easier than actually being helpful and compassionate. 

[Leo Gura]

Of course there are a billion traps to maximizing love. That is what all of evolution is doing, and you think us humans can write it out in some kind of bulleted list?

To understand how to maximize love best you must learn to tap into God Consciousness.

And even then it will be messy and full of traps.

[RobertZ]

Maybe one reason why a person might suggest which system is ‘best’ without defining what is best, is because self-determination is at stake. People have their own processes in asking, ‘Where do we come from?’  ‘What are [our] values?’ and ‘Where are we going?’

Polycentric systems allow communites and groups more freedom in defining what is best for them. Self-determination is a mixed bag, naturally.

[StephenK]

@Leo Gura Well, if we can't quantify the simple difference between a chicken and a human being in terms of love/consciousness, then speaking abstract political/economic theory becomes a game of devilry does it not? Lets get our foundations sorted before we start running.

@RobertZ Yes, when we look at a forest, it is self-organizing and polycentric/decentralized in nature -- same goes the design of the body. I think any functional government will have to be both intelligent and polycentric/decentralized to a large degree, as polycentrism seems to be an innate feature of reality. I think the aversion to a global centralized government is healthy, as we see it as something that goes against the patterns observed in nature. 

Edited September 1, 2019 by StephenK

[Leo Gura]

@StephenK I would gladly trade 1 chicken for Donald Trump

[tsuki]

@StephenK Practice is active, guiding, while theory is passive, reflective. You are putting the cart before the horse when you argue against maximizing love on the basis of quantifiability.

You are right that it does make the discussion about large scale issues rather pointless, though. Perhaps, we should focus on more practical aspects? Like how to care for your environment while running a small household?

[StephenK]

@Leo Gura ?. You know, wars have been started over comments like that??

@tsuki I agree. Being kind to those around us, including ourselves seems like a good heuristic/rule to follow. 

[Leo Gura]

@StephenK Yeah... it's an insult to chickens

[crab12]

If everything is love then how do you maximize it? And why even try? Serious question, not trying to be nihilistic.

[Leo Gura]

@crab12 By acting in a more God-like way. If God were a human would he really be cool with 50,000 people dying every year simply because they cannot afford overpriced health care in the US? Just so rich corporations could maximize their profits?

Greed and fear create this kind of politics. A politics based on love would be more empathetic and giving.

[kieranperez]

8 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

@crab12 By acting in a more God-like way. If God were a human would he really be cool with 50,000 people dying every year simply because they cannot afford overpriced health care in the US? Just so rich corporations could maximize their profits?

Greed and fear create this kind of politics. A politics based on love would be more empathetic and giving.

Is that something you wish to solve directly as you to start to embody Truth more and more in your own consciousness work?

[Leo Gura]

@kieranperez No, that's not my function.

[oMarcos]

CAOS must be well managed.