Cultural Manipulation

[Ladewig]

Indeed; I do not oppose or reject this in any way. However, I, too, am fairly young and definitely idealistic, and would rather support, albeit only theoretically, that minority than the vast majority.

I do not delude myself by believeing that the universal "natural state" for humans is the selfless individual which has, subsequently, been corrupted into sloth and corruption (or something similar). However, neither do I agree that the universal "natural state" for humans is the opposite. Also, I disagree with anyone who would belittle either view; most often, I feel, this is done to the former, these days.

If neither of those is the "natural state" for humans, then what is? Or do you believe that there is no "natural state"?

Also, on what evidence do you conclude that selfishness (which manifests itself as sloth or corruption in communist societies) is not the natural state?

 

[hammegk]

Is this a product of the US public schools?
If so, be very afraid.

 

[gnome]

I wouldn't say so, hammegk... just someone learning (I hope)... by having their ideas discussed and disputed.

Scary would be if they walked away without having learned anything.

 

[Mycroft]

I've got the debauchery going for me...but the "excess wealth"? Well it doesn't go very well paired with debauchery! Sheesh! Debauchery is EXPENSIVE these days!

-z

You just have to learn to do debauchery on the cheap.

 

[David Swidler]

Or solo. Messy, but cheap.

 

[blakehaydn]

Truly terrifying. The more you speak of your Utopian government, the more it sounds like an Orwellian novel. In fact, the more you speak of it, the more I'm inclined to agree that you're not just speaking of Communism, but of a Communism the world has feared for decades. You actually talk about educating people on why they should give up their wealth and in the next sentence you speak of instilling them with a sense of Nationalism.

Couldn't be communism because people still own personal property, I would be more content if you called it a socialism or mixed economy atleast. There would still be varying economic reward, reward based on merit. The point is taking pure profitability out of the equation, practical profitability is fine as long as it doesn't become excessive.

If we are speaking of communism, do you mean something like internnational communism? Isn't nationalism the opposite of that?

 

[blakehaydn]

You also make a point in clarifying that this is not Communist in nature by pointing out that Communist countries started out by being "corrupt on almost every aspect from the very beginning to a very large degree." However, your utopia certainly does not sound like a democratic society. If it is not ruled by the people, it must be ruled by the few. How exactly can you have a government ruled by the few that is not corrupt? What method would you use for determining who ruled?

Same way you have a government ruled by the many that is not corrupt, by having people with proper motives voting in/making the rules. What you don't understand is that America is very corrupt and has been for a very long time. We've committed genocide and got away with it under a democracy, so how do you figure that democracy is less corrupt than autocracy?

But to answer your question, both education and deed play a roll in who takes leading positions. You have to understand that this technocratic society would be socialized in much different ways than past civilizations. It's a very complicated subject, I know. But advancement must come, and now we are regressing as a society.

First off, society is educated in critical thinking and objectivity.... and psychological awareness. These are all very important elements in being a rational person who makes rational decisions. Secondly, the media is not controlled by a handful of people, this is dangerous (I'd love to talk more about this). Thirdly, the economy is not designed around the power of profitability, it is designed around practicality and quality. These are simply a few very important technocratic standards, the system on the other hand is another subject.

Now, for deciding who "rules." You can only run for office in the field of your education, and you can only be elected by those who are in that field of education and have reached the proper level to be able to vote in that specific field.... along side passing rigid critical thinking tests. Keep in mind that wealth cannot be involved in these elections to a significant degree like here in the U.S., and all get an equal time with media.

 

[blakehaydn]

How would this be a utopia? It sounds like you work extremely hard to recieve less pay and the payoff is art, science, and a sexual utopia (until you realize that this too can be harmful)

Ahh, where to start.

You work a bit harder, yes, but that is after socialization makes that the norm by building a culture with a good work ethic, but you work less hours (more time for yourself and family). Less pay? Perhaps, maybe a little less maybe a little more depending on the wealth of the nation (which right now is high for us yet we get poor social benefits). But what you would definitely receive in a technocracy is free healthcare and education for your young. Better healthcare and education at that.

About sexual utopia: I think you are confusing sexual utopia with sexual decadence (which you see a lot of in the U.S. and other decadent civlizations). Sexual decadence is harmful (mentally and physically). Being able to explore and understand your own sexuality without social repression is the utopianistic element I present.

 

[CaptainManacles]

Worst...party name...EVER!

Jeremy

Wait, "Utopianist Technocratic Party", wasn't that the robot guy who sat at that table in Star Wars episode two? He was all like "you have our support beep beep."

Instead of excess wealth being spent on selfish interests or decadence, it will be used productively for the good of society.

what is the differnce between a selfish interest and a non-selfish interest? What is "the good of society" and who get's to decide?

The only differences in this type of "strict" technocracy I speak of is that decadent pleasures that are harmful (such as smoking) aren't allowed and corporate corruption of these great things in life are not allowed (which makes them excessive or changes their true meaning)

What constitutes harmful? What constitutes corruption of great things in life? Who get's to decide what great things in life are? Who get's to decide what something's 'true meaning' is? More importantly, why can't I decide what is and is not great on my own? Do you think it neccisary to kill me to stop me from smoking?

 

[blakehaydn]

How large of a step would it be to go from outlawing tobacco, alcohol, and "decadent" food to caffiene, sugar, TV, skiing, thinking for yourself?

Ahh, back from a nice run at 4 in the morning here in Wisconsin. Definitely a beautiful warm early spring night with some clouds and glowing stars and moon. Back to business:

An impossible step I say. Even with only a moderate education in health & fitness I can point out flaws of the idea to outlaw these things. For one, natural caffeine has health benefits. Secondly, sugar? What sugar are you talking about? There are hundreds of kinds of sugar. Certainly I think high frutcose corn syrup should be outlawed simply because it is only used to cut costs (again, profitability comes in) and is also very unhealthy. But there are plenty of other sugars such as stevia that are fine for you. Something like honey is actually very healthy. TV does not need to be outlawed, it's programming needs to be redesigned, I'd love to talk about this in another post as it's one of my main passions. Thinking for yourself, now that's funny. Thinking for yourself in this society is bound to get you between a rock and a hard place. It is easy to discern from these examples that you begin to overreact when simple scientific evidence suggests these things are not harmful therefore would not be outlawed in technocracy. Of course something like sugar can be harmful if you eat it all day, but carrots can also be unhealthy if you eat nothing but them. If you provide predominately healthy food for people, they will generally be healthy. If you provide predomitately unhealthy food for people, they will generally be unhealthy. It is simple social science.

 

[blakehaydn]

Truly terrifying.

Truly terrifying? What is truly terrifying to me is an economy that provides free healthcare to illegal aliens (that's pretty expensive), whose elections are dominated by money (that's expensive), and an economy that pays a golfer and a race car driver $80,000,000 a year each while the common man struggles to put food on the plate for his family and struggles and EVEN GOES IN DEBT IN THE RICHEST NATION IN THE WORLD to put his young through college. What are they doing in college? Learning skills to help society advance, this is what it's most important. Not race car driving, not golf.

Some people enjoy doing things they know are harmful to them. Most people enjoy having the freedom to do either.

Yes, and you know that is fine to a very small degree if they make their own product on their own property. But before you know it it reaches a point where they start affecting other people, and then those people also pick up these addictions... before you know it there is a whole industry around it, and then guess what, it becames socialized (psychological term) to do this sort of thing. This causes great regression on many levels, but sure makes a lot of wealth for those who make a product that hurts people.

 

[blakehaydn]

the more I'm inclined to agree that you're not just speaking of Communism, but of a Communism the world has feared for decades.

Funny, I'm supporting communism? Yet you're obviously defending a system who throws it's resources away on illegal immigrants (free healthcare for them) despite all the social problems in this country. You're supporting a country who sells military technology to other countries and trains foreign military, who gets the profit from this? Surely not our children's education. That is international socialism at it's finest.

 

[blakehaydn]

Wait, "Utopianist Technocratic Party", wasn't that the robot guy who sat at that table in Star Wars episode two? He was all like "you have our support beep beep."

For the record I should note that I am no longer in the UTP, I have formed the Forward Party late last year. Both are technocratic parties, the first was for international technocracy, the second national technocracy. This means we work on advancing our own culture (eliminating our own faults and replacing them with technocratic ideas one by one) instead of trying to fight every bit of "cultural corruption" or "cultural manipulation" head on. It is hard enough to advance one's own culture to technocratic standards, but we were trying to find ways to progress even lesser developed cultures with ourselves as one common people.

what is the differnce between a selfish interest and a non-selfish interest? What is "the good of society" and who get's to decide?

It's all about motivation, socialization, quality and practicality and the limitation of wealth per individual. Wealth is essentially power, it is funny to me to see some of you folks so against autocratic systems (not saying i'm for an autocratic system at all), yet you wish to impose no limit on wealth which ultimately achieves a similar power.

What constitutes harmful?

That which is harmful is unhealthy, that which is helpful is healthy... physically and mentally. Science has told us these truths.

What constitutes corruption of great things in life? Who get's to decide what great things in life are? Who get's to decide what something's 'true meaning' is? More importantly, why can't I decide what is and is not great on my own?

We are getting very general here, but the above stands. Aside from these unhealthy activities that are deemed unhealthy by science you still pick your own interests. Once psychological control is eliminated you will then have more options in interests and resources to feed your interests. You will actually be a man with more freedom.

Do you think it neccisary to kill me to stop me from smoking?

This is absurd. Plenty of plans by the government can get people to stop smoking in a healthy way. This is far down the road but I can give you a general overview of the plans.

*It is important to note that this is far down the road after much healthy as opposed to manipulative socialization has been implaced. So it is useless to jump immidiately at this and say people will never accept this because they would be in a different mindset, especially after they recieve good social benefits. I will list different alternatives starting with the most extreme (my favourite of course / \ ).

Option A (Forward Party's technocracy)

I. Announce the plan of the end of smoking to the public.

II. Make the citizens aware of their last year (or two) of smoking. The government would provide free cigarrettes. The first month, lets use January, they would receive many packs, and each month it would descend until december where people would receive their last pack. You could even have a grace period of allowing one more pack for the next three months or whatever.... the experts would have to work out the details on what would be the safest and easiest. Even if people took cigarrettes that didn't smoke to make some extra money, it would still be a means to an end. Of course, in an honest society this wouldn't be much of a problem, in our current society however, I still think it would be worth the cost.

Option B (intermediate compromise)

Disallow the manufacturing of cigarrettes, but allow individual citizens to make them without machinery. This will dramatically reduce socialization's affect on promoting smoking.

Option C (practical capitalism (or technocratic capitalism))

*Allow extra free social or economic benefits for those who don't smoke.
*Put extreme taxes on the tobacco companies and use that money for health education.
*Outlaw all ads by these companies.

 

[Ladewig]

For the record I should note that I am no longer in the UTP, I have formed the Forward Party late last year.

Wouldn't it be simpler to call it the anti-libertarian party? You seem to have read each plank of the libertarian party's platform and written down the exact opposite.

Your utopia sounds like a great place to be one of the people deciding what subjects other people may study, what fields other people may work in, what places other people may live, what pastimes other people may engage in, and what foods other people may eat. On the other hand, it sounds like an awful place to be other people.

I can't agree with any aspect of your party. I'll sign almost any party's petion to be on the ballot, but yours seems too far out there for me to even give a signature, much less a vote or a campaign contribution.

 

[CaptainManacles]

For the record I should note that I am no longer in the UTP, I have formed the Forward Party late last year. Both are technocratic parties, the first was for international technocracy, the second national technocracy. This means we work on advancing our own culture (eliminating our own faults and replacing them with technocratic ideas one by one) instead of trying to fight every bit of "cultural corruption" or "cultural manipulation" head on. It is hard enough to advance one's own culture to technocratic standards, but we were trying to find ways to progress even lesser developed cultures with ourselves as one common people.



It's all about motivation, socialization, quality and practicality and the limitation of wealth per individual. Wealth is essentially power, it is funny to me to see some of you folks so against autocratic systems (not saying i'm for an autocratic system at all), yet you wish to impose no limit on wealth which ultimately achieves a similar power.

Move to strike, non-responsive.

That which is harmful is unhealthy, that which is helpful is healthy... physically and mentally. Science has told us these truths.

Science can tell us what is and is not healthy. Weather health is a high or low importance to an individual is totally subjective.

We are getting very general here, but the above stands. Aside from these unhealthy activities that are deemed unhealthy by science you still pick your own interests. Once psychological control is eliminated you will then have more options in interests and resources to feed your interests. You will actually be a man with more freedom.

So we have to value our health above all other things because you say so? I think not. What about old people? When we can keep them alive indefinately are we required to do so, based on your standards of value? Given that we have limited resources, who getś to decide who lives and who dies? Why can I not set my own standards of what I find good for me and bad for me?

This is absurd......

.....Make the citizens aware of their last year (or two) of smoking. The government would provide free cigarrettes. The first month, lets use January, they would receive many packs, and each month it would descend until december where people would receive their last pack. You could even have a grace period of allowing one more pack for the next three months or whatever.... the experts would have to work out the details on what would be the safest and easiest. Even if people took cigarrettes that didn't smoke to make some extra money, it would still be a means to an end. Of course, in an honest society this wouldn't be much of a problem, in our current society however, I still think it would be worth the cost.

This demonstrates your ignorence of the reality of what your doing, and of history and human nature. You will have to slaughter people to stop people from smoking, and you will still not end it. You say you will slowly restrict how much they can smoke, but that doesnt really address the issue. HOW will you enforce that? When someone smokes and they are not suppose to, will you fine them? If they dont pay their fine will you jail them? If they wont come to jail will you shoot them? Again, are you willing to kill me to stop me from smoking, because if you were in charge, you would have to.

Allow extra free social or economic benefits for those who don't smoke

Im guessing the words ´brave new world´ mean nothing to you?

 

[Rob Lister]

I think it would be a great system for a bee-hive.

Too bad people are not bees.

I wish him luck.

I did like the part about having to take a test in logic and critical thinking to get elected. That was the icing on his bee-hive test. Rob wonders who would write such a test and who would grade it.

To be fair, if he wrote an objective definition of his platform, I might actually take it seriously enough to investagate it further.

 

[clarsct]

Have we not learned that prohibition does not function?

Of course, since we didn't learn the lesson in our current society, why would we learn it in this "Utopian" society?

If you were to really base your society on science, you would see rather quickly that PEOPLE LIKE THEIR DRUGS!!!!


In some cases, prefering it over sex or food, even. Sound scientific research into that phenomenon, but that isn't 'healthy', is it?

So, who decides what I eat? What if a particular form of literature isn't 'Healthy'? What if I want to read 'The Story of O'? Or is this not healthy? Are you going to ban Pornography? What about the basic liberties we enjoy now? The Bill of Rights?

Oh, and what if we vote against you?

 

[JamesDillon]

Ordinarily, political views are motivated and controlled by culture, religion, social standards and the like (supported by an underlying theme of what is "practical" or "just" amongst the brainwashed minds of society). This obviously leads to illogical decisions, which feed off each other, creating even bigger and more complex problems. When aristocratic parties and groups who manipulate these social standards of cultural morality are granted positions in government, it quickly leads to an excess of their empowerment in the economic system. And those who rule the economy ultimately control society through religion, entertainment, etc. This causes an economy that can be ridiculously manipulated by a highly organized and intelligent form of greed, due to unawareness and inaction of the mentally subdued population. The Utopianist Technocratic Party's motives are different from this in the fact that we base our views off of logic and scientific fact and not cultural opinion, and that we believe that all excess wealth is to be recycled to the lower economic classes, educational system, scientifical foundations and business to better our economy as a whole, and multiply technological progress.

Wow, what a novel and insightful position! At least, it was 150 years ago, when Marx wrote it. Mind you, Marx was a much better writer than you are.

 

[luchog]

Wait, "Utopianist Technocratic Party", wasn't that the robot guy who sat at that table in Star Wars episode two? He was all like "you have our support beep beep."

what is the differnce between a selfish interest and a non-selfish interest? What is "the good of society" and who get's to decide?

What constitutes harmful? What constitutes corruption of great things in life? Who get's to decide what great things in life are? Who get's to decide what something's 'true meaning' is? More importantly, why can't I decide what is and is not great on my own? Do you think it neccisary to kill me to stop me from smoking?

Well, for starters, it would be someone who knows how to use apostrophes properly.

 

[trvlr2]

Ummm-Would the Party reconsider taking over the world ,if we could recommend a really good acne medicine?