My "Political Philosophy"

[Chunwah]

I meant the various forms of Satanism. It's been a while since I studied these but here's something that goes to the point. I am sure you could google more stuff if you wanted. And since neither I or Sklansky believe in Satan I doubt he would find this insulting. But if he does, I apologize.


[ QUOTE ]
The Nine Satanic Statements

1. Satan represents indulgence, instead of abstinence!
2. Satan represents vital existence, instead of spiritual pipe dreams!
3. Satan represents undefiled wisdom, instead of hypocritical self-deceit!
4. Satan represents kindness to those who deserve it, instead of love wasted on ingrates!
5. Satan represents vengeance, instead of turning the other cheek!
6. Satan represents responsibility to the responsible, instead of concern for psychic vampires!
7. Satan represents man as just another animal, sometimes better, more often worse than those that walk on all fours, who, because of his "divine spiritual and intellectual development," has become the most vicious animal of all!
8. Satan represents all of the so-called sins, as they all lead to physical, mental, or emotional gratification!
9. Satan is the best friend the church has ever had, as he has kept it in business all these years!

The above statements and rules are excellent guidelines for any Satanist to follow and a good framework for the beginner on a left hand path. Remember, it is best to always follow the laws of the land. They are there for one's safety in the vast majority of cases. If you make the choice not to obey the law for whatever reason, make sure it is a conscious choice, and be ready to suffer the consequences.





[/ QUOTE ]

LaVey, 1967, c.e. from the Satanic Bible

[DougShrapnel]

This isn't a political philosophy and as everyone knows your thoughts most closely resemble hedonism. I am guessing, based on some of your posts, you really have a distaste for most philosophy but I'm not really sure why? Is it because there often isn't a right answer? A lot of mathematical types have trouble excepting vagueness in answers.


As far as you being an ACist that isn't very likely to happen since you are such an advocate of intelligence. You value intelligent persons opinions far to much to be an ACist. And because of that value I believe you'd prefer a government run by the intelligent over no government. A close political philosophy to yours might be eliteism. Which is the anti pluralism.

Pluralism
The political theory of pluralism holds that political power in society should not lie with the electorate but be distributed between a wide number of groups.

I'm saying that you'd be quite pleased if politically only the brightest had a say, minimally the most say. As they are more likely to get it right, in your opinion.

Apologizing in advance for any mischaracterisaztion.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
As far as you being an ACist that isn't very likely to happen since you are such an advocate of intelligence. You value intelligent persons opinions far to much to be an ACist. And because of that value I believe you'd prefer a government run by the intelligent over no government. A close political philosophy to yours might be eliteism. Which is the anti pluralism.

[/ QUOTE ]
Sounds spot on. DS seems much closer to Plato than to Borodog (not suprising we know how much he idolises Plato and co)

Fortunately his far too lazy to spend his time forcing people to be happy.

chez

[Nielsio]

[ QUOTE ]
This isn't a political philosophy and as everyone knows your thoughts most closely resemble hedonism. I am guessing, based on some of your posts, you really have a distaste for most philosophy but I'm not really sure why? Is it because there often isn't a right answer? A lot of mathematical types have trouble excepting vagueness in answers.


As far as you being an ACist that isn't very likely to happen since you are such an advocate of intelligence. You value intelligent persons opinions far to much to be an ACist. And because of that value I believe you'd prefer a government run by the intelligent over no government. A close political philosophy to yours might be eliteism. Which is the anti pluralism.

Pluralism
The political theory of pluralism holds that political power in society should not lie with the electorate but be distributed between a wide number of groups.

I'm saying that you'd be quite pleased if politically only the brightest had a say, minimally the most say. As they are more likely to get it right, in your opinion.

Apologizing in advance for any mischaracterisaztion.

[/ QUOTE ]


Then maybe Sklansky can learn a thing or two from Greenstein:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2HO7AQrsicM

[ALawPoker]

[ QUOTE ]
If you want to call it that. Someone else will tell me what the name of it is as I doubt it is original. It's based on three things.

1. Different people want different things. Some wnat the feeling heroin gives them. Some enjoy seeing a child smile. Or Gary Carson frown. Or hitting a home run. And they put different values on it.

2. There are two good reasons to not mindlessly seek what you want the most. One is that there may be immediate downsides to doing this. Physical injuries, legal punishments, punishments from God if you believe in him, or for some, a sense of discomfort because they believe that seeking certain pleasures don't fit into their own "principles". Either because the pleasure is "immoral" to them or the methods to attain it are. A second reason to consider eschewing instant rewards would be if that path reduces the chances of getting rewards in the future. However when making that calculation it is important to realize that a bird in the hand is often worth two in the bush. The future rewards might not show up. Or you might die. Or you might not enjoy them as much at a more advanced age.

3. Once you have figured out yourself and your goals using the precepts above, you then need to know one last thing. Life is a poker game.

[/ QUOTE ]

And also, as an aside, you believe that voting is an inefficient use of time. Right?

David seems to be an ACist on a sort of subconscious level. He has instinctively concluded what's best (as it relates to him as an individual) and acts accordingly, but hasn't consciously applied his conclusions to be concerned with the effectiveness of the state. He just lives his life. It might be interesting if he put some thought into the subject, but the subconscious is pretty powerful anyways.

[JMAnon]

I would call that rationally self-interested hedonism. As others noted, I wouldn't call it a "political" philosophy.

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm saying that you'd be quite pleased if politically only the brightest had a say, minimally the most say. As they are more likely to get it right, in your opinion.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think David is dumb enough to fall for this. I think he would realize that a society run by an elite cadre of brilliant technocrats would end in disaster. It doesn't matter how brilliant they are, a small number of people cannot rationally plan for tens of millions of others. The market is required to distribute planning because the information about resources and ends is distributed throughout the economy and is constantly changing. The number of alternative allocations for any given resource is astronomical, and the number of different resources is likewise astronomical. You *need* the massively parallel processing of all market participants to coherently allocate resources.

David is certainly smart enough to realize this.

[tame_deuces]

Without some controlling device/group/system to effectively distribute and interpret the different tasks at hand - aka the ugly g word - you don't get parallel processing, since the problem won't be defined in a consistent manner across your agents. At best you'll get some version of swarm intelligence.

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]

Without some controlling device/group/system to effectively distribute and interpret the different tasks at hand - aka the ugly g word - you don't get parallel processing, since the problem won't be defined in a consistent manner across your agents. At best you'll get some version of swarm intelligence.

[/ QUOTE ]

The problem is defined in a consistent manner. Do you see why?

[tame_deuces]

You will have to explain it to me, I'm not an economics expert and I fail to see how the market alone can distribute different chunks of a problem to all the agents. I would presume competition, principles of voluntary behavior and the lack of central intelligence would make it hard both to see a picture and 'agree' (I write agree in quotation because I'm not claiming a statist solution can make participants agree either) on it for all participants.

And if it did, wouldn't something like that effectively be a government in some form?