While toiling away at my no-thought-required job today, I found myself constructing a new universal rule for the effective ongoing maintenance of any rule of law, and envisioning the effects of its application to existing systems.
That is, I think I worked out a good way to create a government which at its core functions based on simple rules preventing the creation of complex rules and “red tape” which takes away the effectiveness and capabilities of said government.
The job of lawmakers and law-interpreters (the latter being the judicial system) would become simultaneously both more difficult and less specialized – it would be hard work to create and maintain laws under the envisioned system that would be suitable to a democratic state, but that work could be done by anyone of average or better intelligance without any prior understanding or established experience within the system.
Alas, it would require some sort of total revolution of the mind of the world to be created, or at the very least the overthrow of at least one whole nation, so I will not go into further detail here – I am not about to change the world’s mind (I can’t afford to overcome the existing propaganda machines), nor am I about to overthrow a country to prove a point. So. No brilliant idea for you.
Oh, yeah.
I also wrote a page quickly on a topic which can be summed up briefly as “al Queda and Osama Bin Laden are not terrorists” – I may work some more on that idea, since it may explain why the “war on terror” has not been focused on al Queda or similar groups.
But for now, sleep.
I thought that, by definition, terrorists are not involved in acts of war, so it confuses me that there should be a war to counter non-acts of war.
Hey, your facial hair is approaching Bin Laden territory…
Anyway, regardless of how clever you dismiss terrorist groups as terrorist groups, I doubt it will “explain” any recent military decisions – it might provide a rationalization for those who weren’t involved in those decisions, though.
I thought that, by definition, terrorists are not involved in acts of war, so it confuses me that there should be a war to counter non-acts of war.
Hey, your facial hair is approaching Bin Laden territory…
Anyway, regardless of how clever you dismiss terrorist groups as terrorist groups, I doubt it will “explain” any recent military decisions – it might provide a rationalization for those who weren’t involved in those decisions, though.
Every time you post a comment it still shocks me how you can read the same words I wrote and respond as though I’d said something else entirely.
I didn’t say I was trying to “dismiss” any terrorist groups, just that I put together a page of words which implied that the term “terrorist” does not apply to a particular group of religious extremists. I didn’t go into any more detail. I didn’t try to justify America’s foolhardy decision to declare a war on terrorism, or in any way try to rationalize any military actions. Not on this site, anyway. That would have required a lot more words, some of them related to that topic.
I think what I said was a clear logical postulate: “if al Queda is not a terrorist group and the American military forces are warring against terrorist groups, then that could explain why American military forces have not been making war against al Queda.”
But it probably sounded like this to you: “if Daffy Duck is not a duck and Elmer Fudd is hunting ducks, then that could explain why Elmer Fudd is not hunting Daffy Duck.” – where the first clause seems so ridiculous to you that you ignore the rest of the statement. Except that based on my understanding of the goals and intentions of al Queda, into which I require more research to verify my understanding at a deeper level before I write a full essay on the subject in any public forum, what I actually said sounds like the following to me (which has the same logical construction as the other two postulates, but comes across differently: “if Daffy Duck is not a rabbit and Elmer Fudd is hunting rabbits, that could explain why Elmer Fudd is not hunting Daffy Duck.”
Sigh.
I may or may not get into the content of my ideas as to how al Queda does not fit the description “terrorists” at a later date; here I am simply trying to explain that what I said and what you think I said are not the same thing.
Every time you post a comment it still shocks me how you can read the same words I wrote and respond as though I’d said something else entirely.
I didn’t say I was trying to “dismiss” any terrorist groups, just that I put together a page of words which implied that the term “terrorist” does not apply to a particular group of religious extremists. I didn’t go into any more detail. I didn’t try to justify America’s foolhardy decision to declare a war on terrorism, or in any way try to rationalize any military actions. Not on this site, anyway. That would have required a lot more words, some of them related to that topic.
I think what I said was a clear logical postulate: “if al Queda is not a terrorist group and the American military forces are warring against terrorist groups, then that could explain why American military forces have not been making war against al Queda.”
But it probably sounded like this to you: “if Daffy Duck is not a duck and Elmer Fudd is hunting ducks, then that could explain why Elmer Fudd is not hunting Daffy Duck.” – where the first clause seems so ridiculous to you that you ignore the rest of the statement. Except that based on my understanding of the goals and intentions of al Queda, into which I require more research to verify my understanding at a deeper level before I write a full essay on the subject in any public forum, what I actually said sounds like the following to me (which has the same logical construction as the other two postulates, but comes across differently: “if Daffy Duck is not a rabbit and Elmer Fudd is hunting rabbits, that could explain why Elmer Fudd is not hunting Daffy Duck.”
Sigh.
I may or may not get into the content of my ideas as to how al Queda does not fit the description “terrorists” at a later date; here I am simply trying to explain that what I said and what you think I said are not the same thing.
Every time I post a comment and receive a reply it still shocks me how retardedly you misinterpret what I say. 🙂 Nothing is meant to be taken personally, you know. I never said that you were trying to dismiss terrorist groups – a lack of detail on my part, in the way of the Teel. It was an “if” situation. Wry. Off-handed. Whatever. Perhaps in agreement. Nothing you need to sigh about and write 10000 words of explanation about because you are just *so* misunderstood.
Every time I post a comment and receive a reply it still shocks me how retardedly you misinterpret what I say. 🙂 Nothing is meant to be taken personally, you know. I never said that you were trying to dismiss terrorist groups – a lack of detail on my part, in the way of the Teel. It was an “if” situation. Wry. Off-handed. Whatever. Perhaps in agreement. Nothing you need to sigh about and write 10000 words of explanation about because you are just *so* misunderstood.
Perhaps it was the use of “you” that made me think you were responding to me personally, and not just making general, non-personal, statements.
You and I genuinely do not think or communicate alike, or even in particularly compatible ways. There are ideas in each of our minds, and we attempt to express these ideas to each other in a way we each believe to be clear and consistent with the ideas we started with, but our expressions fall short of relating the ideas to each other, and misunderstanding results. I do not believe it is a defect in either one of us, but rather an incompatibility in underlying syntaxes and structures between how one and the other of us translates mentally from thought to expression and from expression to thought, such that upon being translated and translated again the original idea, while appearing to be understood in entirety, is grossly misunderstood.
Much as I expect the above to be meaningless in the minds of others than myself.
Perhaps I ought again make the “move to silence”.
Perhaps it was the use of “you” that made me think you were responding to me personally, and not just making general, non-personal, statements.
You and I genuinely do not think or communicate alike, or even in particularly compatible ways. There are ideas in each of our minds, and we attempt to express these ideas to each other in a way we each believe to be clear and consistent with the ideas we started with, but our expressions fall short of relating the ideas to each other, and misunderstanding results. I do not believe it is a defect in either one of us, but rather an incompatibility in underlying syntaxes and structures between how one and the other of us translates mentally from thought to expression and from expression to thought, such that upon being translated and translated again the original idea, while appearing to be understood in entirety, is grossly misunderstood.
Much as I expect the above to be meaningless in the minds of others than myself.
Perhaps I ought again make the “move to silence”.
Crap, no move to silence.
I’d like to hear about the re-work of the government. I sorta dig how they do it in Turkey, from admittedly, the little I know about Turkey. They seem to have a military that is made up of citizens who are not brainwashed, and everytime the government starts to ignore the constitution they form a coup, they take the leaders out of power, and then hold new elections and turn the power back over to the newly elected officials. It seems to help keep the officials a little cleaner than we have here, and it’s primary purpose is to keep the religious right in it’s place, out of the government. Which is something their constitution is very specific about, I gather.
I was thinking how much trouble it would be to do that in this country. I don’t know that a revolution against our government would even be possible these days, and it sure as hell would be bloody if anyone tried.
Crap, no move to silence.
I’d like to hear about the re-work of the government. I sorta dig how they do it in Turkey, from admittedly, the little I know about Turkey. They seem to have a military that is made up of citizens who are not brainwashed, and everytime the government starts to ignore the constitution they form a coup, they take the leaders out of power, and then hold new elections and turn the power back over to the newly elected officials. It seems to help keep the officials a little cleaner than we have here, and it’s primary purpose is to keep the religious right in it’s place, out of the government. Which is something their constitution is very specific about, I gather.
I was thinking how much trouble it would be to do that in this country. I don’t know that a revolution against our government would even be possible these days, and it sure as hell would be bloody if anyone tried.
If you could garner even a small militant contingent it would now be relatively easy to overthrow the US – our troops are spread thin across the rest of the world, and “homeland security” was never about protecting the homeland from an actual military action.
Your revolution would require a fair amount of backing from the American populous though, since so many of them have guns and would stupidly revolt against being freed from tyranny. SO in addition to a small-to-middling military force, you’d need to have a gigantic propaganda machine (grassroots or not, it needs to penetrate every market) to inform people what was actually going on, what you were trying to create.
***
Ooh, or here’s an even easier idea that most people seem to dismiss as naive: If you want to change something about your democratically elected, representative government, elect new representatives, or do what it takes to get the ones you have now in office to make the changes you want. That’s their job, and it’s your job as a citizen with voting rights to force them to do it correctly.
***
But none of this has to do with my recent ideas for reworking the foundations of government. These are old ideas.
If you could garner even a small militant contingent it would now be relatively easy to overthrow the US – our troops are spread thin across the rest of the world, and “homeland security” was never about protecting the homeland from an actual military action.
Your revolution would require a fair amount of backing from the American populous though, since so many of them have guns and would stupidly revolt against being freed from tyranny. SO in addition to a small-to-middling military force, you’d need to have a gigantic propaganda machine (grassroots or not, it needs to penetrate every market) to inform people what was actually going on, what you were trying to create.
***
Ooh, or here’s an even easier idea that most people seem to dismiss as naive: If you want to change something about your democratically elected, representative government, elect new representatives, or do what it takes to get the ones you have now in office to make the changes you want. That’s their job, and it’s your job as a citizen with voting rights to force them to do it correctly.
***
But none of this has to do with my recent ideas for reworking the foundations of government. These are old ideas.
“You and I genuinely do not think or communicate alike, or even in particularly compatible ways.”
Yeah, you got that, too?? 😀
It’s quite possible that you are an emu.
“You and I genuinely do not think or communicate alike, or even in particularly compatible ways.”
Yeah, you got that, too?? 😀
It’s quite possible that you are an emu.