[QUOTE=thisispain;33453884]well it's not supposed to be something for you or anyone else to decide.
the idea of sovereignty comes from the fact that the people must allow you to rule and their consent goes towards anything.[/QUOTE]
No, it doesn't. You're talking about social contract theory or consent of the governed or some shit, sovereignty only refers to the "[URL="http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/sovereignty/"]supreme authority within a territory.[/URL]"
[QUOTE=thisispain;33453884]if i'm not allowed to have the power to decide things that i help to provide money towards and consent to allowing, then what is it besides tyranny?[/QUOTE]
One man can never have complete control over any process involving their money in life. You don't get to dictate what your banks do with it to the letter, you don't get to dictate what form it comes in, you don't get to oversee the entirety of the military just because you pay taxes, and no ideal states provide for that kind of asinine micromanagement because it would prevent anything from getting done. If everyone has to have absolute oversight over everything and agree on every detail of anything they contribute to then nothing will be achieved.
Clearly, then, all states are tyrannical, if we're dictating "tyranny" as rule by a state violating your concept of sovereignty. You concept of sovereignty is also likely batshit, so I'm not seeing the issue.
[QUOTE=thisispain;33453884]unless you believe that people should be ruled without popular sovereignty but that's called dictatorship.[/QUOTE]
The U.S. has no dictator, yet it has federal agencies which fuck over your popular sovereignty in several fields, such as the regulation of medicine. Your definition is broken.
[QUOTE=thisispain;33453884]well it's not supposed to be something for you or anyone else to decide.
the idea of sovereignty comes from the fact that the people must allow you to rule and their consent goes towards anything.
if i'm not allowed to have the power to decide things that i help to provide money towards and consent to allowing, then what is it besides tyranny?
unless you believe that people should be ruled without popular sovereignty but that's called dictatorship.[/QUOTE]
This is all a silly semantic argument brought about by my misuse of words, and I'm terribly sorry about that.
When I say paradise, I mean "Neat place that I would be pretty content with" and not "Perfect place with no problems where everyone agrees on everything end of story Utopia hooray" If this is not the same as the accepted definition (which apparently it isn't) then you can take that up with my third grade teacher.
When I say technocracy, I mean a place where scientific progress is the main pursuit of the government in place of power or land, and, as Turnips5 said, all leadership offices are held by people that are experts in their field. How these leaders are chosen doesn't really matter, but it would probably be by consensus from other qualified people in their field. What I [I]don't[/I] mean is "Place where everyone who disagrees with me is chopped up and made into soup."
Of course, remember that we are talking about a hypothetical nation where everyone is some sort of scientist, so the other people aren't there to be persecuted in the first place. The assumption is that all of the scientists and engineers already consent to this sort of government. Our main export is technology and we import TV shows, movies and state subsidized pornos. Children who grow up wanting to become artists attend college in the U.S. and Europe and live out the rest of their lives doing whatever they do. Nobody chops them up. There is some sort of democratic "Anti-asshole system" for impeaching leaders that become corrupt, the specifics of which, again, don't really matter and aren't for me to figure out. People pay taxes with the understanding that the government will use it as efficiently as possible to improve the overall quality of life, and because all leaders are experts in their fields, we can avoid ideologies and inefficiencies clogging up the system.
[QUOTE=thisispain;33453550]
[QUOTE=Turnips5;33453414]
"Other forms have been described as not being an oligarchic human group of controllers, but rather administration by discipline-specific science, ostensibly without the influence of special interest groups."
[/QUOTE]
which is impossible and a complete fantasy like the notion of paradise.
[/QUOTE]
I'm afraid I don't see how this is impossible, it's not even particularly ambitious. Please forgive me for asking, but would you mind explaining?
It seems that everyone has a different idea of what a 'technocracy' is. I don't think the definition is important, it's the ideals that are presented.
[editline]27th November 2011[/editline]
To clarify, I don't think everyone in [a society in which democratically-elected experts make decisions in their respective fields] needs to be a scientist to benefit from it.
A large amount of the world's billionaires have no college degree. If you have the motivation and focus to succeed you will, if you don't, not even a fucking physics degree from UC Berkley will change that.
meh i cede, it's improper for me to apply what i think is technocracy to people who obvious have a different view on what technocracy is*
(read: too lazy to make a proper rebuttal)
[editline]26th November 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=Turnips5;33453945]
and again, you perpetuate the myth that scientists can't be artists too. come on man[/QUOTE]
you read that the wrong way. i meant people who do art and have no scientific background.
[QUOTE=Turnips5;33452380]If science was a mundane thing to do, there wouldn't be scientists doing it. That was a dumb thing to say.
[editline]26th November 2011[/editline]
Good job being a shining example of a perpetuator of the myth that scientists and engineers aren't creative[/QUOTE]
I never said they were not creative. What I am trying to say is that art inspires. A scientist who hopes to be credible works within established boundaries and laws set forth by scientists before him. An artist is only constrained by his imagination.
[QUOTE=thisispain;33455148](read: too lazy to make a proper rebuttal)[/quote]
hey me too
[quote]you read that the wrong way. i meant people who do art and have no scientific background.[/quote]
I'm sure if they had a minister of culture (like we have in the UK) they they'd have some kind of background of art history
I think maybe "technocracy" isn't as good as the core concept of "get people who know their shit to be in charge of their respective fields" - so the minister for art should know his shit equally as well as an environmental advisor
Does this mean everybody loves eachother again?
[QUOTE=Jimpy;33455275]I never said they were not creative. What I am trying to say is that art inspires. A scientist who hopes to be credible works within established boundaries and laws set forth by scientists before him. An artist is only constrained by his imagination.[/quote]
This is entirely untrue. Science would never move forward if that were the case. You think Einstein was "limited" by Newton's laws before him? Fuck no, he used them as the basis of entirely new theories which he devised himself. I mean, for christ's sake, this is a direct quote by him :
“The true sign of intelligence is not knowledge but imagination.”
Science relies on imagination. You think up new explanations for things that could happen and test those hypotheses to see if they hold water.
[QUOTE=Jimpy;33455275]I never said they were not creative. What I am trying to say is that art inspires. A scientist who hopes to be credible works within established boundaries and laws set forth by scientists before him. An artist is only constrained by his imagination.[/QUOTE]
Forgive me for the same comparison, but
this
[img]http://history.nasa.gov/ap11ann/kippsphotos/KSC-69PC-442.jpg[/img]
is equally as inspiring, if not moreso than this
[img]http://www.theartofhappiness.net/random/lovers/randim.php?folder=images[/img]
a giant phallus isn't very inspiring
a giant phallus which propelled men to the fucking MOON
the moon sucks okay
the moon is beautiful okay
you look up at night and it's just
there. staring at you
[QUOTE=Turnips5;33455599]the moon is beautiful okay
you look up at night and it's just
there. staring at you[/QUOTE]
The ocean's cooler.
it stared for 200,000 years at us, and until 50 years ago all we could do was stare back
[QUOTE=Turnips5;33455380]This is entirely untrue. Science would never move forward if that were the case. You think Einstein was "limited" by Newton's laws before him? Fuck no, he used them as the basis of entirely new theories which he devised himself. I mean, for christ's sake, this is a direct quote by him :
“The true sign of intelligence is not knowledge but imagination.”
Science relies on imagination. You think up new explanations for things that could happen and test those hypotheses to see if they hold water.[/QUOTE]
I'm pretty sure that Einstein wasn't placed in an anti-cultural bubble so as no art could effect his ideas. Jules Vern wrote fantastic stories of pseudo-science which got the general populace interested in time travel, underwater exploration, and space before science had even touched the physical surfaces of any of them. You'll have an easier time funding science and the forwarding of the human race if you can get those not interested in science interested, and that mind you is left to the artists.
[QUOTE=bobsmit;33455496]Forgive me for the same comparison, but
this[/QUOTE]
You fail to realize that while one is a photograph and the other is a painting, they are both art made my artists.
The US needs to get rid of Liberal Arts Degrees
Yeah thats right I want to get rid of Starbucks major demographic
[QUOTE=ExplodingGuy;33455607]The ocean's cooler.[/QUOTE]
[img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f6/ALVIN_submersible.jpg[/img]
[img]http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2009/02/16/world/16submarine-600.jpg[/img]
Phalluses: kicking nature's ass since the stone age.
cant we all just get along, man and phallus
wait what
[QUOTE=Jimpy;33455660]I'm pretty sure that Einstein wasn't placed in an anti-cultural bubble so that no art could affect his ideas. Jules Vern wrote fantastic stories of science-fiction which got the general populace interested in time travel, underwater exploration, and space before science had even touched the physical surfaces of any of them. You'll have an easier time with the funding of scientific endeavors and the forwarding of the human race if you can get people who are not interested in science interested, and that mind you is left to the artists.
You fail to realize that while one is a photograph and the other is a painting, they are both art made by artists.[/QUOTE]
If doing anything that represents anything is art, then okay, everything is art anyway.
[img]http://thedebtweowe.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/Moon-Landing.jpg[/img]
Most decent images of the Apollo program were not taken by people who spent years in art school. They were taken by cameras that fit efficiently in the weight budget of a spacecraft, or placed so that they would have to deal with minimal shock and heat from the launch, while at the same time being angled to capture most of the craft. The one above was taken by Neil Armstrong, an engineer. It is a fact that he took the picture, not thinking about composition or symbolism, but as an image that contained all of the major facets of the mission.
Note: Nothing in that picture, with the slight exclusion of the flag, has even the slightest motion to put form over function and it still manages to look pretty god damn cool.
So. If all photographs are art (which I can see why they might be) then all people who take them are artists. So if everyone is an artist, what is this argument about? Armstrong did all of the inspiring I need.
[editline]26th November 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=Bobie;33455772]cant we all just get along, man and phallus
wait what[/QUOTE]
I have a very close relationship with my phallus, I assure you.
[QUOTE=InsanePyro;33455670]The US needs to get rid of Liberal Arts Degrees
Yeah thats right I want to get rid of Starbucks major demographic[/QUOTE]
5 reasons why you suck:
1. you don't know what a liberal arts degree that is obvious
2. yet you pretend you actually do know it
3. you feel the need to make sure we all know how wrong you are about it
4. you wanna get rid of some random shit nobody cares about
5. you didn't use apostrophes when they were needed
[B]ATTN IDIOTS: LIBERAL ARTS DEGREES HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH ART[/B]
I don't know why people are comparing the importance of art with weird nonrepresentational paintings.
Art is a very broad and subjective term and using examples like that doesn't contribute anything to your argument.
[QUOTE=Meller Yeller;33456088]I don't know why people are comparing the importance of art with weird nonrepresentational paintings.
Art is a very broad and subjective term and using examples like that doesn't contribute anything to your argument.[/QUOTE]
Yeah according to the people in this thread art is entirely comprised of motel paintings.
[QUOTE=Jimpy;33455660]I'm pretty sure that Einstein wasn't placed in an anti-cultural bubble so as no art could effect his ideas.[/QUOTE]
Explain, as is, this statement is a non sequitur.
[QUOTE=Jimpy;33455660]Jules Vern wrote fantastic stories of pseudo-science which got the general populace interested in time travel, underwater exploration, and space before science had even touched the physical surfaces of any of them.[/QUOTE]
This would be noteworthy were it not for the fact that Verne often called upon known technology and science in his writings, making his "pseudo-scientific" work closer to speculative science fiction than anything else. There's a reason he was considered a founder of science fiction and not science fantasy. If you managed to read 2k Leagues without noticing any of the reality in the work (hint: check the diving gear, actual math in the original nontranslated work and the naming references) then you're simply dense, sorry.
[QUOTE=Jimpy;33455660]You'll have an easier time funding science and the forwarding of the human race if you can get those not interested in science interested, [B]and that mind you is left to the artists.[/B][/QUOTE]
False dichotomy.
Isaac Asimov was a scientist. Isaac Asimov made art.
[QUOTE=Altin;33450890]A country comprised entirely of engineers and accountants would be efficient as fuck, i'd live there.[/QUOTE]
Generally, when I look at Facepunch I see a lot of people who oddly value technology more than it deserves. This is such an example of a person. You're ridiculous.
[quote]
According to the most recent U.S. census data, among the first majors to go: psychology, U.S. history and military technologies.
[/quote]
[quote]
psychology
[/quote]
Why?
[QUOTE=Meller Yeller;33456088]I don't know why people are comparing the importance of art with weird nonrepresentational paintings.
Art is a very broad and subjective term and using examples like that doesn't contribute anything to your argument.[/QUOTE]
Oh god don't get the general FP populace started on the topic of abstract art...
If they called it "Liberal Studies" this argument wouldn't have happened.
Wait wait, people are actually hating on art here? That makes no sense at all. Without art there would be no science and vice versa. How can some people be so dense, I don't know.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.