But there are plenty of things that people view as absolute truths… who gets to decide which one is a mental illness?
People, you, me, society at large. We should decide based on whether they fit the criteria. Do they hold to their beliefs despite incontrovertible evidence to the contrary? Obviously different people will hold different standards for different issues, there are going to be lots of muddied waters.
Is calling an ideology like white supremacy a mental illness going to do anything other than stigmatize the mentally ill and hide the roots of white supremacy anyway?
I shouldn’t think so, it’s certainly not my aim. I’m not calling for a public campaign to label white supremacists as mentally ill, so I don’t see why it would, or why it would hide the causes from view.
Like I said, sure you think the guy is delusional, but drop him even 40 or 50 years in the past (or in some communities today) and he’s just spouting good old fashioned common sense among many people. Was his ilk delusional then? Or does it only become a delusion once you change common sense in a society…
It wasn’t delusional then, because people back then didn’t know what we know now. Similarly flat earth belief wasn’t delusional at one point, yet now it is.
How would doing so possibly be easier or more efficient than simply limiting any government to a maximum size? Once it reaches it certain mass, it divides.
Change the socioeconomic conditions to bring the birth/death ratio below one. It works in developed countries where the average population is aging. Perhaps augment with contraceptives in cheap booze (to provide the choice to not take them by not drinking cheap booze), to address the children-heavy bias at low socioeconomic end. Then wait.
Who enforces spread-spectrum hops or sequences? They are automatic. Make it built in to the charter. The problem is people’s tendency to treat government like politics instead of networking. The protocol instantiates a government with a charter which functions until it hits a certain time or size threshold, then divides automatically.
Who enforces the following of the charter? Who makes sure others are following their charters?
I know you’re willfully unable to understand this but some people actually want societies that are based on the rule of law, done democratically with various processes to amend and enforce these laws.
People assume this because the default now is one-size-fits-all pseudo-systems. Those who choose to live differently might be safely assumed as implementing another parallel system. The notion of One System of Law versus No System of Law seems to be a false dichotomy. A diverse ecosystem is more likely to adapt and survive.
How do you have a diverse system of laws? If I punch you in thr arm that could be illegal according to your laws but totally legal according to mine. Whose laws do we follow? (Mine, obviously. I yelled punch buggy first)
As far as I’m concerned, the issue isn’t that we have “rule of law” but how our laws are created, amended, and enforced. I’m perfectly happy having a society actually built on the ideals inherited and developed from Classical times as interpreted by various wise individuals. I think you’ll find most Americans share this view. You’re in the minority being against it so I’m not sure why you think we’d embrace your ideas instead of fixing what is corrupt and broken in our system using its own mechanisms.
I’m not saying you are… but if he’s mentally ill and not a white supremacist, who IS a white supremacist?
How didn’t they know that racism was wrong, when people who were the primary targets of racists had been telling everyone that since the early 19th century (along with some white allies like many Quakers)? There is a long line of black preachers, inspired by the (very spotty information about) the Haitian revolution, which happened not long after the French Revolution (which nicely ties this conversation to the other one we’re having in that other thread) advocating for an end to slavery and black citizenship. Anti-racism didn’t just appear when Dr. King decided to back the Montgomery Bus Boycott… it has a long history. It took historians some 50 years to catch up to where WEB DuBois was in the 19-teens and 20s. The NAACP was formed in the wake of Birth of a Nation. Ida B. Wells spent her life protesting against lynching, writing in American and British newspapers… Civil rights was not in any way really new at all. Even the march on washington that happened in 63 wasn’t even new, as A. Phillip Randolph threatened one during the second world war to protest black men being kept out of the defense industries.
Which was common knowledge well before the early modern period, of course…
Government as a function of territory already loads it with many pre-assumed constraints. As I mentioned before, Somalia does not seem to relate to what I am describing, any more than any other country does.
Unfortunately, those governments that believe your assumption (nor most of their citizens) aren’t going to ignore a competitor setting up an alternative legal system in their territory once it obstructs their own view of law enforcement.
I feel like I’m talking to a dude sitting on a couch smoking weed and playing xbox debating how we could have the most perfect system ever with no sense of how to actually implement anything or get anyone to care.
That’s fine. I’d say that anybody is entitled to live that way, if they choose to.
Then you misunderstand me. Providing people with the means to organize with autonomy also facilitates groups of people being able to build “on the ideals inherited and developed from Classical times as interpreted by various wise individuals”.
I propose them because I think they address problems which other solutions have not. I think they are more civilised than what I have encountered elsewhere. The more ways people have to solve real-life problems is how I define wealth, so this is one way to share it. It can empower people. But this is not to say that I am invested in others embracing these ideas. They are merely a parallelism which some may choose to use, or not. People can fix existing systems, and also develop new ones - these are not mutually exclusive options.
