Because someone thinks an entire profession shouldn't be trusted doen't mean that person is correct. I have problems with people trying to lump individuals into a group, and ascribe the sins of some of the individuals to the entire group. Intersectionality is a fundamentally flawed concept.
I got the purposefully misleading thing from a previous conversation where I pointed out your using words with other than the standard meaning. Your answer was "freedom of speech". One flaw with our system was the endowment of corporations the rights of personhood. And you are free to donate money to political causes, if the Canadian law is anything like the US law. As such, paying people to lobby your cause to lawmakers is considered protected speech.
You just described representative republics, which the US is, I'm glad you are coming around. The complication of "harder decisions" is who determines who is qualified to make those decisions. Who decides whether an authoritarian structure has sufficiently met the burden of self-justification? Who decidea the process of dismantling? Who decides, and how do they, what should replace the authoritarian structure? If it is up to popular vote, who decides in case of a tie? How is the vote conducted? All sorts of problems. A lot of what you describe is how the US was founded. Even they couldn't dismantle the monarchy, and they had to fight a protracted and bloody war just to break away.
These are very broad claims, and I can see the allure of thinking this way, but the claims are too unspecific to really discuss.
The cartesian answer, as you put it, does not address whether everything is BS or not. It is an answer to whether or not you exist at all and how you can know. Beyond that, I'm still waiting for your logical argument for why you are not the only mind that exists. Then we can start delving into what is and what is not BS, and how to know which is which.
i think racism, capitalism, imperialism, etc are all tied together so im assuming thats intersectionality i dont recall what the guys i listen to say about that word.
i agree with you that corporations are not people. obviously you want limits on political spending because otherwise you are going to be in the situation were currently in where a small portion of hte population controls politics. this is a brief summary of life before citizens united on public citizen's website: "
Before Jan. 21, 2010, there were some fairly basic, generally noncontroversial, rules for making political contributions or other expenditures to influence U.S. elections. Chiefly, the donor needed to be a person, and that person needed to be a citizen or permanent resident of the United States. These rules were only slightly different than the rules on voting eligibility.
Contributions of more than $200 to federal political committees were disclosed, and corporations and unions were prohibited from spending money from their treasuries for overt activities to influence elections.
There were abuses of the system. For years, political parties and outside groups evaded the prohibition on corporate and union money by using money from these sources to pay for sham issue ads that were actually intended to influence elections. Meanwhile, funding of elections was never representative of the electorate, as a whole.
[1]
But, despite these shortcomings, the vast majority of the money flowing into the system was given by individuals, was disclosed and was subject to contribution limits."
A huge change happened on Jan. 21, 2010, with the Citizens United ruling. Here are 9 ways the case has eroded democracy and 1 place where it's helped.
www.citizen.org
im not sure they founded america as a represenative republic since only white people with property were allowed to vote, and they were against popular democracy and in favor of protecting private property from the masses. they set up a powerful central govt to squash rebellions with the constitution. you only got freedom to assemble i believe by people organizing to get it in the constitution. i think the founders replaced the british ruling class with an american one. i dont really want to get into this other stuff now because im trying to answer your 2 big questions about absolute morality and this:
i just dont like the idea that im the only mind that exists because it sounds egoistic and ridiculous. i like the idea that thinking means i exist but do people with no brains mean they dont exist? im talking about 100% brain damage. i dont whats the significance of talking about this but its kinda interesting.
if you have more questions about how authoritarian structures of domination and control justify themselves (i believe thats teh word chomsky used) you can read "on anarchism" or watch his videos about anarchism.
, but corporations are not people and if i recall money is not speech. public citizen basically recommends enforcement and transparency for lobbyists and politicians alike.
, but i could be wrong. i forgot the other 2 guys, i think one guys name was russell. chomsky suggested they are posed as questions but not actually which i found interesting. i think they are both interesting and would like to hear more. i like talking to you because you raise some good points like the appeal to authority and money thing.
