Cool

It's entirely irrelevant if morality and self-interest are working together. I am asking about the primary motivation. Even if our self-interest is also moral, would we be moral if it were costly to our self-interest?

> TheYell wrote:

> yeah but we're generally nicer than other major world powers, in that we sponsor development.
anyhow we're about to launch the Foriegn Policy of Dumbassedness

Yeah, true, at least in some respects. The idea being that increased economic capacity in other countries friendly and strategic to us will benefit our own economy with trade.

I'm never posting again until this thread is closed too. If there's going to be favoritism, then [realize that i need to stop overreacting and btw... i love] IC and it's forums.

Sure . And I'll strike fear in to your enemies, tehe.

It's a philosophical proof? Huh? In philosophy, a proof is bad if it is not a valid argument and had strong evidence to support it. The arguments made in favor of ID tend to either not follow from the support given or the evidence given is easily refuted or is at least questionable. Second, they are not scientific. A scientific theory needs to be falsifiable - that is, an empirical test can be designed in an attempt to disprove the theory. With ID, there is no way to even begin testing the theory, and therefore it is not scientific. At best it's speculative.

Lol nobody should take Dawkins seriously. He gives Atheism a bad name.

> Zarf BeebleBrix wrote:

And there, you highlight the very flaw of your system: that there is no objective "best" candidate.  Hell, there's not even an objective definition for "decent" candidate.  Notice that there were only five good emperors.  If one emperor screws up, the system goes into a tailspin. >>

It wasn't that any of the meritocratic Emperors failed, it was the Marcus Aurelius selected his biological son as his heir, and he messed up bad. Like I said, the system of adoption on merit was defacto for five Emperors, not customary or expected. And technically, there was kind of a quantifiable way to measure merit. Who had accomplishments? Who was pragmatic minded? In addition to that, your relation to the Emperor counted as well. So the successor was someone the Emperor got along with, but who also was effective. Perhaps not the best, but sufficient.

Anyhow, I am not proposing the system the Romans used. It wasn't even formalized, just accidental really. But it shows the effectiveness of meritocratic selection, and that a continuous series of good rulers is possible. As for a future meritocratic autocracy, we may want it more objective, formalized, and some institutions to keep the dictators power in check - as in a weak constitutional autocracy. They would really be no different from the limitations of power placed on Franklin Roosevelt. The man arguably exercised dictator-like power, thanks to the odd circumstances surrounding his presidency, but the man at the helm couldn't be an idiot. As long as that man was FDR, congress wouldn't mess with him. If he went crazy, he would have been legally deposed or kept in check. On the other hand, there seems to be very little risk of a crazy dictator who was put in power based on his merit and pragmatic approach to things.

<< As for the American elections, it doesn't matter that the Presidents aren't the most qualified candidates.  Their staff of advisors, and their organization as a whole, had to plan out the tactics in the election, and are often carried over to the leading government, so you still get the tacticians in power.  Someone had to plan out that election, and there's a pretty good chance that they'll end up in the government when the election's over. >>

Yes, but only a few presidents had the style that could capitalize on this. It's possible to have a 15 year old Emperor do well as long as his cabinet and advisers are listened to, and an atmosphere of questioning and debate is facilitated. However, most presidents have very different styles, like "Do as I say!" Of course, this can lead to problems, where a crazy idealist pushes through what he wants on the executive level while ignoring the guys who could be thinking pragmatically. Bush is a great example of this "yes man" approach to the presidency.

Well on the historical record, democracies have tended to guarantee human rights better and have been more stable. But I can counter by saying that dictatorship in modern times has not tended to be acquired by military or administrative talent or accomplishment, rather by dynastic succession or demagoguery. In these two cases, crazy idealistic people tend to come to power and they see little need to make pragmatic decisions. They have some idealistic and utopian view of the world, and don't see government as a supplier of services and that to maintain power requires an efficient delivery of those services. Moreover, there have only been a few cases where a talented and accomplished individual ever exercised absolute power, and in most every case they have been exceptional and had a better understanding of this fact. This is proven by the meritocratic succession during the Five Good Emperor in Roman history, Emperors who weren't dumb and they delivered. They had a nice resume before ruling too.

So my point is this. Dictatorships can better guarantee rights, and it is in their best interest to do so. However, the reason dictatorships in modern times have not done so is because of stupidity. It takes an exceptional person with a pragmatic mind to pull it off. A democracy of idiots is better than a dictatorship of one idiot, but why go for the lesser evil when you can have the good? In fact, you can guarantee the good by meritocratic succession, the Romans did it for almost a century defacto.

Oh yes. One more thing. The recipe for consistent success is intelligence and pragmatism.

Based on what you told me, my thought is that he is hording power and increasingly acting as a dictator, effectively. This means that democracy in the west is being increasingly threatened. Personally, I think this is because Western Democracies are increasingly becoming ineffectual, unable to deliver the services people expect from government. In fact, they are ticking the people off more and more. This is why the extreme right is gaining increasing popularity.

> Theodora wrote:

> Why is it that when IA mentioned nerd sex, I thought of the candy.

Because you're a nerd and want the candy!

Why is rape the worst crime imaginable? I think denial of nerds sex is more criminal than rape. The reason is that it denies superior human beings a basic human need, and second reduces the overall intelligence of humanity over time. This crime not only denies human beings a basic human need, but it also has a detrimental effect on humanity itself.