I don't see why that would be a case that would even be expected. There are idiots who do that on occasion, I am sure, but the powerful in a modern state would not allow it to go unpunished for obvious reasons.

Sometimes the interests of the commoner and the elite are aligned.

You're not making any sense, Chris. You make points, but they are stated such that any obvious point you make is contradicted by obvious facts, and the other things you say make what seems to be your point nebulous.

The best I can come up with is that your point is that the powerful include the mafia, and that it is a mistake to simply submit to them. I thought it was obvious, by what I said previously, that there is nothing stopping you or a group of people with common interests from fighting. I never implied "don't fight." Instead, I implied that no solution human beings can come up with is perfect and will result in a moral and just world. Humans are selfish, and humans with power get their way. That is reality.

As a result, it is pointless to argue for a perfect political solution, because it is not perfect. Humans with power do not always have the same interests, and you can not expect to push your solution in without appealing to those interests. Sadly, this is how wars and revolutions start. And hopefully we don't have someone with a monopoly of power who can get their way without opposition.

"Ideology is nothing more than a drug that pacifies people so they can be controlled."
And in this light, it could be very important. Look to what Germany did during WW2. Ideology made a lot of people go to the maximum of their capacities. I am not supporter of the Nazi ideology at all, or their gov system, but that doesn't make it less true. If you throw it out, you loose a lot of human capacity.

Same goes for fanatic suicide terrorists. Again, I'm also against terrorists, but it is their weapon so to speak, and proves my point.

Maybe what you want to say is the leadership shouldn't be influenced by ideology, but that is a whole other thing as just throwing out ideology.

@avogadro:
He uses another definition of it, and you know it. It is unnecessary to give a full explanation every time when everybody understands you.

Avo is right I think.

but in any case the whole argument is a nonsense. "Ideology" is not much more than a worldview, a way of looking at things, I dont see how you can be conscious and not have an ideology.

"Politics is, and always will be, about power. Those with power oppress those without it, so get used to it"

The first part of that statement is undeniable fact, the powerful have and will always aim to get maximum profits out of of the oppressed by any means available; war conquests, slavery, serfdom or as employers.

But the conclusion "so get used to it" is just stupid. The whole of human history has been a struggle between the two sides; the powerful have their own ideologies about how society/ the world should be run to allow them to take the maximum share of wealth from the oppressed. The oppressed should naturally tend towards an opposite ideology where they fight to keep as much of their wealth for themselves.

Should the garment workers of India just get used to being paid

>>Ideology is nothing more than a drug that pacifies people so they can be controlled.<<

So the ideology of the US Bill of Rights and other protections of rights which kept the American people free for long enough to become an unprecedented superpower... is a drug that pacifies people so they can be controlled? They're being controlled now, in direct violation of that ideology. That ideology seeks to protect people from what you claim ideology is. Make sense!

> juuustaaas wrote:

> Calling throwing out ideology an ideology itself is like calling atheism religion. avo is wrong.

that isn't even what he is doing, his ideology values power...  also, atheism is a religion... agnostics have an argument for not counting as a religion, but atheists don't.

avogadro, how's atheism a religion when Buddhists (Buddhism: a religion) are atheist but always named seperately?
Atheism could be part of a religion (such as stated above), or just be part of a lack of religion, aka being "not-religious".

If Buddhists are atheists, I want to know how they came to "know" all the bull**** they came up with to fill all these books on Buddhism I have sitting on a shelf 3 feet in front/above this keyboard!

Some publisher played an awful trick on me!

---

I think his point, Chickenwingz, was that atheists commit to a belief on faith, just as members of any faith do. While some may think that the Atheists' conclusion is more likely/sensible than any theoglogy's conclusion, it is their absolute commitment to/belief in their unKNOWN conclusion that is an unconfirmed belief, just as theologians' beliefs. Which is why I completely agree with Chris's statement immediately above this post.

I think Agnostics, by definition, also commit to the belief that the truth of the matter is unknowable? (I'll never find a label!) If we were to define agnostics as calculating that (that the truth is unknowable) most probable but being open to any possibility (you just gotta PROVE it!), I think we could satisfy his (avogadro's) statements still. If only I owned a dictionary company!

> Justinian I wrote:

> Ideology is a waste of time. Debating about what values are right is a hopeless waste of effort, because it has no bearing on reality. Politics is, and always will be, about power. Those with power oppress those without it, so get used to it. Ideology is nothing more than a drug that pacifies people so they can be controlled. If you want things to work differently, then invest in assets that increase your own power. And don't think you won't have to make pragmatic compromises to get other powerful people to cooperate with you.

Religion is the opiate of the people. Guess who said that.

NOT Idealogy. if you notice. Touch up on your world history sir before going off and randomly spouting nonsense about idealism. If you're going to spout idealistic crap (about how it's pointless) start a philosophy thread and/or forum where we can talk Kant. Til then, this is Politics. Not Philosophy. Stick to bashing politicians.

Oh and for the record, if you want to discuss values  of right and wrong, today's society declares that an action is only right insofar as people around you agreeing with it. Otherwise, you're looked at as a vigilante, or a tyrant or a criminal. Right and wrong has no bearing on today's society, but rather materialism and relativism. Although I daresay MacIntyre was right with his idea of emotivism being the cause of today's downfall, it also ties in to several other key notions as well. Nonetheless, you mentioned something about politics being about nothing but power? What about marketing? Psychology? Business? Music? The Arts? What about Computer Programming? And what about parents? brothers? sisters? ANIMALS! PETS?! Boyfriend, girlfriend. Everything in one way or another has power over something else and that power is used to either oppress, teach, or use said something else in a manner that provides advantage to the cause of the individual in power. Power is only so much. A person with millions of citizens in the strongest country can be cast down tomorrow by his own people. The French Revolution, the Revolutionary War...need I go on?

Your argument doesn't have a very good basis. Fail.

I'm going to break this one up too just cause I have some available time:

> Justinian I wrote:

> An ideology is a collection of beliefs that are not founded on reason and experience. It is effectively faith, but it does not require a deity. An example is human rights that are founded on the belief that they are self-evident and inalienable. Such a conclusion can not be reached by reason and experience.

First off, only an idiot would believe what you are suggesting here. Idealism is basically, at it's core, an idea. (It's part of the word, dur (although if you want to go further, everything is an idea, whether founded or unfounded)) Idea's are thoughts or suggestions that have come about through reason and experience. Let's say your example of human rights. Human rights are self-evident and unalienable. Defining unalienable provides us with "something that cannot be repudiated (or revoked)" and self evident is, well, self evident, but "contains its own evidence without need of further proof". So Human rights are founded on the belief that they "contain their own evidence, without need of further proof", and "cannot be revoked". Now, as my understanding of US history goes, the people THROUGH REASON AND EXPERIENCE, came to that IDEA via the decisions made by a government that had power over them (going back a little bit in posts) that eventually cause them to push back. Thus Revolutionary war. Now, Justinian, pray tell, where this 'ideology' of yours becomes unfounded from reason and experience?

Next up:

What can happen is that people decide to value human rights, and then enforce human rights if their group is powerful enough. Though they may attach an ideology to those values to dupe others in to accepting them as absolute truth, it does not make it so. There is an advantage to duping others in such a way, but history suggests that it ends up serving the ends of tyrants. And the idea of benevolent rulers designing and manipulating these lies seems to be at best short-lived.

Now, before we get ahead of ourselves, depending on your outlook/religion: there is no Absolute Truth. Or God is the only Absolute Truth. In either case, you're suggesting that people in power, politicians as i recall, attach idealistic values to an idea that they market (for lack of a better term) to the people causing a truth to sprout (an absolute truth as it were), but that doesn't make it absolute because it's not empirical, no? Well, you seem to bring up history in this section, so allow me to as well: history is history; there is a saying that those who do not heed the lessons of the past are doomed to repeat them. Now then, history has shown us that a falsehood, although false at the time, can sprout into a truth, that can fast become widely accepted as truth. Might not be absolute (is there such thing as absolute truth?), but it is truth nonetheless.
       
        Now the last part of what you mention I will agree with, however, tyrants are judged mostly upon their actions, not their reasons or justifications. Not all at least. I noted someone mentioning Nazi's and Hitler a little earlier. I will touch on that and use it. Now, the country had been beaten, it was in depression and it was dejected, and had no hope of returning back to where it was. Hitler takes over, although he was brutal, cold, heartless and quite possibly insane (I think so at least), he was also a hero. History is written by the victors they say. Well, lets look at the side that the victors rarely point out. Hitler brought a weakened country out of a depression into a superpower (more or less) again in less than a decade. Granted they were brutally violent, but his achievement is not lessened. You can cry all you want about the holocaust, and I won't disagree with you, but the fact remains that his actions cause the people to rally, cause a country that had suffered very badly to regain its feet before almost all the other countries of the world. Not to mention the people also rallied to a cause that was a lie, that quickly became truth. And did they care? No. Some did sure, but the vast majority that didn't made the point moot. Mob mentality and the like, you know. Your last statement, however Justinian, proves correct. No matter how good, benevolent or kind the ruler is when the lie is formed, it doesn't last through the remainder of the regime. I will say this, I argued that Hitler was the best thing that happened to Germany in the 1930's and was a very good person by portraying him via this previous argument, on an exam in college and guess what? I got a 93 on the essay. History is there and history is waiting Justinian. History is infinite. You need only to take the time to read and look. Perhaps you should gather more information before making banal arguments that lack the cogent formation of proper arguments.

I am not bothering with the V Kemp stuff. Didn't read what he wrote