PBD - Heated Debate on Anarchy With Michael Malic

[Danioover9000]

10 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

That's not really addressing the issue. Just avoiding it.

   Dude, just thinking of him gives me migraines.

[Danioover9000]

@Tanz

9 hours ago, Tanz said:

@Leo Gura Michael Malice doesn't seem to have the right answers but he's onto something in regards to people governing themselves. I have to admit people are far from being organized but a lot can change in a decade time frame. Such as if small communities grow food and share with one another and create an alternative way of exchanging without government oversight. There are wealthy to upper middleclass  neighborhoods in California that do not recieve funding at all from the government allowing them to choose which subjects and topics the kids can learn.

Intelligently the ultra wealthy have figured it out such as SVB. The minute they fail the government bails them out over a weekend. REAL swift and fast.

Malice has mentioned in a podcast some commentary on the right bitching and complaining why the left control tech and media. He mentioned that the right needs to do the same rather than complaining. He did mention something along the lines of them being more organized and intelligent.  We can have the same train in thought to any problem. And the answer is going to be revolved around education and personal action. Something at this moment in time does feel distant in our lifetime. 

The masses indeed are selfish and lazy but  a big part of me has to believe in tomorrow's children.

A huge change in consciousness willl be required but can happen swiftly if people get desperate enough or if psychedelics become as readily available as weed.

   Man, I recently like what you've been posting and it's a good read, but sometimes you have posts like these above?

   To me is a really big assumption, of destroying the Federal system and letting these communes communities develop under a few rich people. What makes it an appealing notion to you?

[Danioover9000]

@Nilsi  I don't think you've given a charitable interpretation of Daniel Schmachtenberger's view here, which leads @Leo Gura to go to the wrong conclusions.

[Danioover9000]

@Epikur  So what government are you for? I'm for a STEM government, a government that stems from actual reality, that all people are fundamentally BS and should be treated carefully. The general population of today is not ready for hippie commune world.

   Diss track inbound.

[Danioover9000]

@Epikur At Lex Fridman, but now that I've seen this video Michael Malice is getting some piece as well.

[Epikur]

1 hour ago, Danioover9000 said:

@Epikur  So what government are you for? I'm for a STEM government, a government that stems from actual reality, that all people are fundamentally BS and should be treated carefully. The general population of today is not ready for hippie commune world.

   Diss track inbound.

Never heard the term STEM government but sounds quite ok to me.

[Danioover9000]

@Epikur

41 minutes ago, Epikur said:

Never heard the term STEM government but sounds quite ok to me.

   A government of science, technology, engineering, mathematics. Super efficient governance.

[Epikur]

31 minutes ago, Danioover9000 said:

@Epikur

   A government of science, technology, engineering, mathematics. Super efficient governance.

I aske ChatGPT what is the difference to Technocracy:

 

Quote

Not necessarily. While both STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics) government and technocracy involve the application of technical expertise to government decision-making, there are some differences between the two concepts.

STEM government refers to a system of government where decision-making is informed by science and technology. This means that experts in fields such as science, engineering, and mathematics play a significant role in shaping policy and guiding government decision-making.

On the other hand, technocracy is a system of government where technical experts, such as engineers or scientists, are the primary decision-makers in government. In a technocracy, power is held by those who possess technical knowledge, rather than by elected officials or representatives.

So while both STEM government and technocracy prioritize the use of technical expertise in government decision-making, the key difference is in who holds the decision-making power. In a STEM government, experts provide guidance and advice to elected officials, who ultimately make the decisions, while in a technocracy, the technical experts themselves hold the decision-making power.

 

[Nilsi]

35 minutes ago, Danioover9000 said:

@Epikur

   A government of science, technology, engineering, mathematics. Super efficient governance.

So modernism?

[aurum]

8 hours ago, Victor van Rijn said:

Listen to this short fragment of Bashar talking about the government:

https://ia600209.us.archive.org/32/items/BasharPlanetaryMidwife_201603/Bashar-YouAreYourGovernmentPart1.mp3

https://ia800209.us.archive.org/32/items/BasharPlanetaryMidwife_201603/Bashar-YouAreYourGovernmentPart2.mp3

That’s a pretty smart alien. Good find.

[Leo Gura]

9 hours ago, Victor van Rijn said:

Listen to this short fragment of Bashar talking about the government:

https://ia600209.us.archive.org/32/items/BasharPlanetaryMidwife_201603/Bashar-YouAreYourGovernmentPart1.mp3

https://ia800209.us.archive.org/32/items/BasharPlanetaryMidwife_201603/Bashar-YouAreYourGovernmentPart2.mp3

Thank God Bashar is not some New Age conspiracy theorist.

[Israfil]

10 hours ago, Nilsi said:

Because they dont care. They spend more time thinking about what movie to watch on Netflix tonight, than on how a well functioning society should be structured, let alone about ideals like Justice, Beauty, Truth... - 99% (Im being very generous) of humans are literally animals that need to be ruled by an elite.

You're biased. There are plenty of people that do care about those things, people just don't have the power to solve these issues by themselves. There's also a hidden assumption that once you create the perfect race, they would bother creating the perfect world for the inferiors, or even for themselves. Competency in administrative matters has nothing to do with high moral standards or benevolence. You're just theorizing about the possibility of this said society and assuming you understand people's priorities, even underestimating more than 99% of the population.

Just because you like fascism or eugenics, doesn't mean that it is good for people. 

[billiesimon]

1 hour ago, Leo Gura said:

Thank God Bashar is not some New Age conspiracy theorist.

Do you think that Bashar is really some kind of alien contact or just a partition in Darryl's psyche?

He often expresses very wise spiritual truths, and seems to be very advanced with personal development advice. He doesn't sound like a normal human intelligence, but it may still be some kind of positive "psychosis/schizophrenia".

[zurew]

11 hours ago, Nilsi said:

Because they dont care. They spend more time thinking about what movie to watch on Netflix tonight, than on how a well functioning society should be structured, let alone about ideals like Justice, Beauty, Truth... - 99% (Im being very generous) of humans are literally animals that need to be ruled by an elite.

They don't need to think about any of those things to do riots and to participate in a revolution. I already gave two examples where people participated in riots not too long ago (and those were under a democratic framework) now imagine what those people would have done under a dictatorship. 

If they seriously disagree with your morality that you want to force on them, your system wont last too long. Maybe you could argue that there are some places where people are more okay with complying, but even when it comes to those cases , they are seriously depended on how much they agree with the system that you want to force upon them.

Unless you actually create a system where you threat people with death, I don't think most people will comply with your dictatorship - and even if they will for some time - your system won't be sustainable for too long, because some people (within that 1% that you mentioned) will be incredibly motivated to get your power, so they will either want to kill you or at the very least get your position and you will constantly have to fear about that dynamic and eventually your system would be destroyed.

 

Regarding your argument about how much people need to be ruled by an elite:  You can argue that most people are not that developed or educated nowadays, but that doesn't mean that it will stay that way. I don't know how much you are attached to the idea of a dictatorship philosophically. What would you say about a hypothetical, where all or at least 90% of the population is very developed and educated (would you still prefer a dictatorship kind of governance, or would you prefer some kind of governance that is much closer to a democracy?)

 Also no elite or team of elites is capable to actually properly rule the world alone, because its just way too complex and so many things need to be taken into account and everything is interconnected ,so you need all people's or most people's full contribution and collaboration in order to actually maintain systems and to develop and to fix things.

Also, as I layed out in my previous responses and above, a dictatorship can't last long and it is determined to be taken over and eventually to be destroyed and you can't even make people to fully contribute to your system (they will contribute as much as they need to not get  punished too much, but they won't give their full capability and power, because of reverse incentives and because of moral disagreements vs in a Daniel Schmachtenberger kind of democracy they will contribute with all their will and knowledge, because they will be incentivised to do so and they will know that their values will be taken into account)

Edited March 19, 2023 by zurew

[Leo Gura]

11 hours ago, billiesimon said:

Do you think that Bashar is really some kind of alien contact or just a partition in Darryl's psyche?

He often expresses very wise spiritual truths, and seems to be very advanced with personal development advice. He doesn't sound like a normal human intelligence, but it may still be some kind of positive "psychosis/schizophrenia".

It genuinely seems from his talks that there is a higher intelligence at work there. Not sure how to explain it. Bashar always has great advice. I love it.

Edited March 20, 2023 by Leo Gura

[Majed]

@Leo Gura i might be be completely wrong on this, but a lot of stage green people are anarchists. for me that's close to absurd since the problems with capitalism is itself the fact that there's not enough government regulations and we're letting selfish unconscious monkeys do whatever they want.  and so if anarchism was to happen how would you regulate stage red gangsters from exploiting other people ?  how would you control selfish devils from harming others, it's ridiculous. the world isn't made out of highly selfless conscious individuals, it's made out of selfish ignorants. 

[Leo Gura]

15 minutes ago, Majed said:

@Leo Gura  a lot of stage green people are anarchists. for me that's close to absurd

Yup. You got it

It's very easy to criticize government. What's really hard is designing and implementing a better government. As soon as you actually try it, you will see how impossible it is.

So the wise sage appreciates the current system and doesn't jump on the criticism bandwagon like all the other fools. Criticism is pointless unless you got a better alternative. Nothing will humble you more than trying to create a better alternative to what he already got.

To start to create viable alternative solutions requires at least stage Yellow. It requires deep systems thinking and not just SJW virtue-signalling and demonizing of the status quo.

Edited March 20, 2023 by Leo Gura

[koops]

44 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

It's very easy to criticize government. What's really hard is designing and implementing a better government. As soon as you actually try it, you will see how impossible it is.

So the wise sage appreciates the current system and doesn't jump on the criticism bandwagon like all the other fools. Criticism is pointless unless you got a better alternative. Nothing will humble you more than trying to create a better alternative to what he already got.

To start to create viable alternative solutions requires at least stage Yellow. It requires deep systems thinking and not just SJW virtue-signalling and demonizing of the status quo.

What about Osho?

He was a wise sage, but was critic of government and religion, even democracy but didn't propose anything new.

 

[Danioover9000]

@Majed

1 hour ago, Majed said:

@Leo Gura i might be be completely wrong on this, but a lot of stage green people are anarchists. for me that's close to absurd since the problems with capitalism is itself the fact that there's not enough government regulations and we're letting selfish unconscious monkeys do whatever they want.  and so if anarchism was to happen how would you regulate stage red gangsters from exploiting other people ?  how would you control selfish devils from harming others, it's ridiculous. the world isn't made out of highly selfless conscious individuals, it's made out of selfish ignorants. 

   It is ridiculous to some extent. How could stage green be higher in development than orange and blue, yet are anarchists and can't come up with better alternatives to government?

[Danioover9000]

@koops

23 minutes ago, koops said:

What about Osho?

He was a wise sage, but was critic of government and religion, even democracy but didn't propose anything new.

 

   Osho the 99 Roles Royce owning Guru? He's cool but it's his lieutenants that caused most of the Rajneesh and Oregon country incidents.