Posts by stormystag16

Edward Flores4 said:Look, how am I supposed to know exactly what you're feeling? It’s not like I can read minds here. And honestly, I have no clue what part of my writing you’re labeling as "idealistic"—or even what your personal definition of idealism actually is. If I really have to pin myself down to some kind of "-ism," then I guess I'm an optimist... but I'm definitely not an idealist.

Look, being an optimist is fine and all...😉

Edward Flores4 said:Unfeasible???

How can you label a system as impossible when we haven't even attempted to put it into practice yet? You can't really call something "impossible" until you've actually given it a shot and seen how it holds up.

A system like that is absolutely possible—and frankly, it’s probably inevitable—because none of the other models are going to keep our civilization hanging on this planet indefinitely. Systems built entirely on cutthroat competition and raw ego are basically on a slow march toward collapse. That decay might drag on for decades, centuries, or even millennia, but in the long run, any lasting system has to be rooted in actual capability—otherwise, it simply won't exist at all.

It reminds me of that old saying an Indigenous leader once told the Mayor of Sydney:
"Once you've eaten the last sheep from the pasture and the last fish from the sea, you'll realize you can't eat your money."

Just because people are terrified of disrupting the status quo doesn't mean a "rule by the capable" is impossible; it just means people don't *want* it. To them, the current setup is "best" simply because they aren't ready to let go. But calling something "the best" is pure subjectivity—it’s a loaded term. "Best" doesn't necessarily mean sustainable, fair, functional, or even viable in the long haul. Right now, the current system is labeled "best" only because everyone gets a vote, which feeds that individual sense of being "important," even if it comes at the expense of competence, efficiency, ethics, and actual long-term survival.

In other words... the question doesn't really land. It's a bit like asking which animal is the "best," or which internal organ is the most important. Either everything functions perfectly, or the moment one part fails, the whole process of dying begins. If your heart "breaks," you die pretty quickly; if it's a kidney, you might manage to limp along for a while. But looking at the big picture, the universe only sustains systems based on mutual, reciprocal responsibility among all their parts. Anything else is just caught in some stage of its own extinction.

am I sensing a little too much idealism in your post?🤷

Edward Flores4 said:Look, the issue isn't about "discovering" a superior way of doing things—we actually figured out exactly what a better system would look like pretty quickly and without much trouble. It’s always been clear. The real bottleneck, the actual hurdle we keep hitting, is simply whether there's any genuine will to actually step up and put that system into motion.

I honestly think there’s some truth to what Henry Ford was getting at when he said that every nation gets the kind of government it deserves. It’s a heavy thought, I know—and maybe a little blunt—but if you look at how things play out in America, it really makes you stop and think. It’s like when you see a neighborhood where nobody bothers to maintain their yard; eventually, the whole street starts to look a bit rough, right? A government isn't just this abstract thing floating above us—it’s essentially a reflection of the collective mindset, the habits, and even the apathy of the people living under it. If a society stops valuing accountability or loses its sense of civic duty, you can't really act surprised when the leadership reflects that exact same lack of integrity. It’s all connected. ☕

yeah, I'm with you there...😉

but, we haven't actually nailed down what the best system is... we've just pointed out which ones suck and which ones are totally impossible...🤷

Edward Flores4 said:Exactly. I'm talking about a system where your "vote" carries weight proportional to your actual IQ—you know, meritocracy meets logic—and where "democratic decisions" stay local. Instead of one massive, sweeping set of mandates dictated from D.C. that applies to the whole country, decisions would only affect the specific community that actually made them.

Beyond that, we need a political structure driven by genuine enthusiasm rather than raw ambition. In my experience, ambition tends to move in inverse proportion to actual ability—it’s almost a rule. Ambition itself usually stems from some kind of inferiority complex, which, let's face it, has a devastatingly corrosive effect on anyone caught in its orbit.

actually, even Churchill said democracy is imperfect, but it's the best we've got right now, so we should stick with it... he and I see eye to eye on this...☕

Actually, Churchill's point was:
"Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."

...which is a pretty significant departure from how you're interpreting it 🙄

At its core, democracy is just a system where every four years you get to pick which group of politicians is going to fleece you, and where you have the right to an opinion even if you haven't put a single thought into it.

honestly, I feel like an aristocracy would be a much better call, but then again, the whole idea of being ruled by the "best and brightest" seems pretty impossible to pull off in reality☕

driftingangler6 said:...but how many people would actually end up voting under those rules? You’d basically be killing off the whole democratic ideal right at the starting line.

and who’s to say democracy was handed down by God or anything?
(look, don't get me wrong, I'm not some anti-democracy nutjob, but maybe some other setup would actually work better for everyone involved)

honestly, even Churchill said democracy is flawed, but it's the best thing we've got right now, so we might as well stick with it.... he and I are on the same page there...☕

Frank Chase6 said:It exists—sadly...

I think there’s a thread over on the politics subforum discussing whether people should actually pass an intelligence test before they’re allowed to vote. If you sit back and really think about that concept—and then consider who actually holds the right to vote here in America—you’ll realize exactly why I said "sadly" lol

🙏 🙏 🙏 but I totally agree...👍

Richard Thompson2 said:Is there actually any hope left for this country?
They all spent years preaching about how awful communism was, promising us democracy if we just switched gears... and now that we've got it, what's the point?
Does a place like this honestly need a dictatorship just to function?
I’m dropping this here because I’m looking for some actual substance—I want to hear from the philosophers, the thinkers, the people who don't just loop back to the same tired excuses of "it's not our fault" every single time.
I just want to find the most objective take possible on all this.

ha... you know what they say... hope dies last, so I guess there's still a glimmer for this country somewhere...🤷
but honestly, looking at how much of a sham our "democracy" really is... you can see the problem itself...
If you want an objective take on politics, stick to the textbooks. Once you read what those authors actually say democracy is supposed to look like, try comparing that to the mess we're living in right now...☕

hiddenpilot2 said:I’ve been taking ginko, and honestly, it’s been a lifesaver for my focus and even helping with the depressive moods.
For me, it just feels like I actually have control over myself again. I can actually sit there and study all day long,
instead of my mind constantly drifting off... I can finally reel my thoughts back in and stay locked into whatever I'm working on.

are you being for real right now?

where can I grab some of that ginko?
how much does it run me?
any side effects I should worry about?
has anyone here actually had a bad experience with it?

honestly, those kinds of movies just aren't my thing...☕