A topic for late night intellectual and philosophical discussion, ... if you dare

[Blackhatjack]

Men of ideas in the past have discussed topics which on first impression appear to be totally unrelated, only to find that great truths were revealed by opening their minds to possibilities that were theretofore unexamined.

In the tradition of those who came before us, and those who carry on the tradition today, consider the following:

In one class we may place those who are 'old souls', those who possess extraordinary 'prior knowledge' that could not be gained by experience, and those who are referred to as savants who possess genius intellect in limited fields(ie. piano, composing, mathematics, etc).

In another class we may place those who possess skills essential to manipulate the present economic and governmental systems we have today, driven by the goal of profit and the desire to acquire material possessions and power.

Everyone else falls within the third and final class.

Each class has different motivations. Intelligence, experience and knowledge differ among the various classes. All classes live in the United States.

Which class should have the primary say in how we live today in the United States?

[leftstreet]

1. What 'skills, intelligence and experience' are found in the third class?

:shrug:

[Blackhatjack]

2. Since this is an exercise in 'free thinking' what do you suppose them to be?

Rather than thinking of solutions by reduction(eliminating possibilities) consider increasing the possibilities and alternatives within the realm of rational thought.

[leftstreet]

3. As you gave them no attributes, I assumed you meant them to be dolts

'and everyone else...'

Which, of course, would make for boring class analysis

:-)

[Blackhatjack]

4. On the contrary, I do NOT. I merely identified 3 variables for consideration....

... IMHO there is a 4th variable I did not identify which to my mind is superior to the named three.

I would assume the members of the third class to have a wide range of attributes when considering intelligence, knowledge and experience.

[Ozymanithrax]

5. In accordance with the Constitution, all should have equal say...

otherwise you have set up some form of limited ruling class to lord over the less equal members.

[greyl]

6. Fuck classes.

Especially a set of only 3 such limiting ones.

[Blackhatjack]

7. Sorry, but you have to have 'classes' or 'groups' in order to compare and contrast between...

like individuals having similar characteristics. The word 'classes' as not meant to invoke a feudal discussion.

I also included everyone, rather than limit the discussion by excluding people who did not belong to a group(or class).

[greyl]

11. It's not effective to "compare and contrast" like that.

It's like saying, "sorry, but we have to kill this chicken in order to make a hat". Nobody wants a damn chicken hat.
I'm also saying that I disagree with the hierarchical aspect of your scenario.

[Blackhatjack]

15. I'm sorry you disagree with the structural boundaries of this discussion but...

... you have to have some limitations in order to keep the discussion focused on the issues raised.

You may create an entirely different structure in your own OP, if you like.

[greyl]

18. I didn't realize you only wanted certain issues to be raised or focused upon.

I failed you! ;)

[Blackhatjack]

20. I am open to new issues being raised, but we must have a starting point to begin our discussion

I presented the starting point in the form of a hypothetical question.

[greyl]

22. True. Seems I just took an angle oblique to yours away from the starting point. :) nt

[niyad]

8. you lost me at "men of ideas"-- do you mean to imply that women have none?

[Blackhatjack]

10. Oh come on, women are included for sure. 'Men of ideas' was merely a historical reference...

Consider it edited to read "Men(and Women) of ideas" to be clear --but it is not very lyrical.

[niyad]

13. and why is "and women" in parentheses? even your edit is really not inclusive.

and why do you think "men of ideas" is lyrical, but men and women of ideas is not?

Talkin Gender Neutral Blues
(Kristin Lems)
January 19, 2005

I was walkin down the street one day
Reading the signs that passed my way
And after a while I started to see
That none of those words referred to me...
Good will towards men, all men are created equal,
Praise Him!

Well I asked some friends if they agreed
That they felt left out in the things they read
They told me yes, and added some more
And soon we all felt pretty sore
You got your Congressman, spaceman, sideman....
But I never heard a no house husband!

Well some men came by and a fight began to grow:
?You girls are so dumb you just don?t know,
These here are called ?generic words?
They?re meant to include both the bees and the birds.?
Well gee fellas, how am I supposed to know?
I certainly don?t feel included!

Ok said I, if that?s so true,
I?ll just use ?woman? to cover the two
?It don?t make a difference to us,? they said
?If you wanna use woman, go right ahead.?
I said, thanks, that?s really sisterly of you
Glad to see you believe in sportswomanship!

?Now hold your horses,? they started to cry.
I think I?ll hold my mares, said I.
?You?re leavin all of us guys behind.?
Why no, we?re all part of womankind.
So don?t fret friends, take it like a woman
You?ll get used to it, just like we all did!

[spoony]

9. I'd argue that we already have a world where the second group

have far too much say. And while savants are nice, I don't think they're necessarily better at governing, in fact they may by fact of their genius be too removed from regular people to do so well. The third and final class should have the largest say, both because of their numbers (democratically speaking) and because of the variety of their motives compared to, especially, the second group.

Further, I think it only fair for the third, largest group to have the largest say because they will be called on to shoulder the burdens of most of the policies dictated by government, whether domestically or in potential military affairs. As it is, the second group dictates the third group's movements for their own gain. Perhaps I'm leaving out the first group too much, but by and large I think their interests are best represented being allied with group three rather than two.

[Blackhatjack]

12. That was a very insightful(and quick) analysis ... (you've done this before, right?)

I agree with your conclusion regarding 'The third and final class should have the largest say..."

I will withhold my reasoning temporarily.

However, what remains unsaid that likely tilts the decision in favor of the third class?(What should be the fourth, and superior variable I did not identify?).

[greyl]

14. They would be a majority, eh? nt

[Blackhatjack]

19. IS the Majority ALWAYS Right? Political Polling May Reveal a Majority...

... but the fact that today a 'majority' of those polled today would vote one way could change with the next polling. Compare the two pollings, and 'which majority was right?'

It goes to something we have not yet examined.

[greyl]

21. No, but are you asking a different rhetorical question now?

If one of the propositions inherent to your scenario is that it takes place in a Democracy, then your "correct" answer would be "whichever class was in the majority".

[spoony]

17. Would it be that we (I assume most of us) a part of it?

In addition to everything else there's a certain self interest as well as comfort with people in that group since I'm from it. Oh, and thank you. I look forward to your own exegesis.

[Blackhatjack]

23. This explains part of my own analysis ... 'they stood on the shoulders of giants...

and were too busy doing what they did without first asking if they should do it'(a paraphrase from Jurassic Park).

IMHO the first group has intelligence and knowledge, but lacks experience.

The second group has all three in varying amounts, but likely lacks something important.

The exercise of governmental power is the power to act or not act, on the basis of what?

Acting because you have the power to act is not enough. What is required, which might be a fourth superior variable in our discussion?

[Odin2005]

24. Moral vision? Virtue?

[shadowknows69]

16. Clearly it's time for bed. If this is still going about 9AM I'll chime in.

My head started to hurt after one sentence. Stick a fork in me.

[valerief]

25. It's always whoever controls the men with the guns. nt

[tblue]

26. ...

[OnyxCollie]

27. Which class should have the primary say in how we live in the United States?

The old souls.

The class that would actually have the primary say is the second class. But I would consider defining them a little more. Like the old souls who are able to tap into "prior knowledge" to excel in limited fields, this group has an awareness that reality may be defined and manipulated to fit their desires. Furthermore, this awareness is the basis of the rational actor model by which the second group makes its decisions. Depending on the point of view, these decisions may be considered abhorrent.

The third group doesn't exist. They are only figments of the imaginations of the first two groups.

[Blackhatjack]

29. There is a clear difference between "should" and "does". Good point.

But the use of 'should' is designed to appeal to a higher standard than what presently exists.

[OnyxCollie]

30. Got it.

And I think I came close to your morality based group. I would place them opposite the economically/politically advantaged group on a y-axis, with the old souls at one end of the x-axis and the irrationals at the other. More of a political compass I guess.

[Blackhatjack]

28. The Q Was: "Which class should have the primary say in how we live today in the United States?"

Here is a short version of my thoughts:

IMHO the fourth unnamed variable is MORALITY.

The United States is exceptional because we are a democracy which is based upon principles of morality. We are a shining beacon on a hill to the rest of the world, because of our principles --not always our actions.

The power of a government to act or not to act rests upon its legitimacy and morality. We must always act(or not act) because it is the right thing to do. We must not act simply because we have the power to do so. And the United STates government wields legitimate power through its various constitutionally created institutions as a direct result of the vote of its citizens. Lose the vote, and lose the legitimacy(ie. the situation in Iran or Afghanistan where corrupt government officials hold positions of power today even though they lost their legitimacy in corrupt elections).

In our discussion here, I set up the first group to have intelligence and knowledge, but no experience. They are incredibly smart, but did not travel a pathway which allowed them to gather experience. So it is doubtful that they would have the depth of understanding to exercise moral judgment in the wielding of power.

I set up the second group to have intelligence, knowledge and experience, but their prime motivation is profit and likely greed. It is hard to exercise a moral judgment that values the lives of governed where your primary concern is material profit. (Our Wall Street Bankers and Credit Card CEOs might fit this classification).

I purposefully did not describe the third group, which likely describes us and more than 90% of the United States' citizenry. While we maintain a wide range of intelligence, knowledge and experience, we understand that our government should act in accordance with the Constitution and moral authority. It should not fight unjust wars based upon non-existent weapons of mass destruction. It should not conduct torture committed in its name. It should not stand silent in the face of genocide. It should care for all its citizens, and not be dominated by those with money.

Those who hold high offices in our Government draw their power from the vote of the citizens, and that power can be taken away at the ballot box.

IMHO the third group should have the primary say 'in how we live in the United States'

WE ARE THE THIRD GROUP. It is time we exerted our power.

[Blackhatjack]

31. Thanks to Everyone Who Participated.

Thinking about relationships between people and actions can lead to 'breakthroughs' in understanding how we can get the government we deserve.

Before a major change can take place there must first be a revolution in ways of thinking.

Sometimes it takes no more than basic education of the public as to what is possible to accomplish great results.

[OnyxCollie]

33. Thank you.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=6066098

Capitalist societies oppose imperialism, asserts Schumpeter, and argues that to avoid the disdain society has for imperialism, “It must be cloaked in every sort of rationalization.”(40) From Schumpeter’s research a theory was derived that society’s impression of the motives for imperialism had descended from a ruthless time in history when “kill or be killed” was necessary for survival.(41) Schumpeter notes that these beliefs are fostered by the ruling class, which they find serves their needs.(42)

The bourgeoise class crafts a mythos of primal savagery and disseminates it to the other classes to encourage support for its agenda.(43) Addressing the necessity of an informed populace to prevent war, Miller proclaims that “Ignorance of the desires, aims, and characteristics of other peoples leads to fear and is consequently one of the primary causes of aggression.”(44) Waltz also acknowledges that war can be the result of a failure to properly educate the proletariat, “Their instincts are good, though their present gullibility may prompt them to follow false leaders.”(45) Yet Waltz, ever the realist, dismisses reason in favor of force.(46)

According to Gramsci, this ideology becomes the base from which politics and economics arise.(47) The “Gramscian Inversion” sets Marxism on its head. The state becomes the educator, a hegemonic force which constructs the views, ideals, and beliefs of the society it governs.(48) “The State is the entire complex of practical and theoretical activities with which the ruling class not only justifies and maintains its dominance, but manages to win the active consent of those over whom it rules.”(49)

The state professes an ideology that convinces the proletariat that it is operating in the interest of all.(50) Bergesen suggests that, “With the success of this belief comes the ability of that class to continue its privileged position while other classes consider this to be a state of affairs to which they can aspire.”(51) Quoting Bodin, Waltz suggests:

(T)he best way of preserving a state, and guaranteeing it against sedition, rebellion, and civil war is to keep the subjects in amity one with another, and to this end find an enemy against whom they can make common cause.(52)

Gilpin addresses the need for common cause by noting that “Nationalism, having attained its first objective in the form of national unity and independence, develops automatically into imperialism.”(53) And it is Waltz who observes that to set this belief system into motion, a profound and powerful catalyst is necessary: “In every social change... there is a relation between time and force. Generally speaking, the greater the force the more rapidly social change will occur.”(54)


40 Winslow, E.M. (1931). Marxian, liberal, and sociological theories of imperialism. The Journal of Political Economy, 39(6), p. 752.
41 Ibid. p. 751.
42 Ibid.
43 Ibid.
44 Waltz, K. (1954). Man the state and war. New York: Columbia University Press. p. 48.
45 Ibid. p. 17.
46 Ibid. p. 120.
47 Bergesen, A. (1993). The rise of semiotic Marxism. Sociological Perspectives, 36(1), p. 2.
48 Ibid. p. 3.
49 Gramsci, A. (1971). Selections from the prison notebooks. New York: International Publishers, p. 244 as cited in Ibid. p. 4.
50 Bergesen, A. (1993). The rise of semiotic Marxism. Sociological Perspectives, 36(1), p. 4
51 Ibid.
52 Waltz, K. (1954). Man the state and war. New York: Columbia University Press, p. 81.
53 Gilpin, R. (1981). War and change in world politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, p. 54 as cited in Menon, J. & Oneal, J.R. (1986). Explaining imperialism: The state of the art as reflected in three theories. Polity, 19(2), p. 179.

54 Waltz, K. (1954). Man the state and war. New York: Columbia University Press, p. 58

"In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together." -- President Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1961

Read Chapter Two: A Crime By Any Other Name from Jeffery Reiman's book, The Rich Get Richer and the Poor Get Prison.

[Broken_Hero]

32. Okay,

my question is this....

If the Enterprise had all that technology, the warp drive and all that stuff, why oh god why...didn't they have seat belts on the bridge of the Enterprise?

This intellectual question keeps me awake at night, as long as this question...

"what was the name of the grave in The Good, The Bad and the Ugly"

:)

[philly_bob]

34. UNREC Interesting, granted. But false distinctions make bad policy.

I'm sure OP would not for a second support allowing things like this to decide tax rates and health care; his subject line makes that clear.

The problem is that we have a solid 30% of population that want policy to be decided by the word of invisible entities.

On OP's original question, I'm in the third class.