If you are citizen of an European Union member nation, you may not use this service unless you are at least 16 years old.
You already know Dokkio is an AI-powered assistant to organize & manage your digital files & messages. Very soon, Dokkio will support Outlook as well as One Drive. Check it out today!
When you implement “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need,” magically, everyone starts having quite a lot of need and very little ability.
People will never be motived, without mass brain-washing, to work for the good of society despite the absence of a social mechanism compelling them to work.
When the wealth is redistributed only the redistributers will have wealth!
Socialsim doesn't work. On the surface this sounds good. This is why young people gravitate to liberalism. However when they get older, they realize that liberalism has negative un-intended consequences. For instance, how does one go about implementing the "to each according to his needs" part? To give something to someone according to their needs, you have to have it in the first place. Or steal it. And you don't want to trust a government that has the power to take everything from someone. Power corrupts and ultimate power corrupts ultimately. And then you see a sinister lining to the "from each according to his ability".
Shouldn't it be "from each according to their free will and energy"? You can drive a horse till it dies, or until it does not have the ability to go any further. Is that the way a government should look at it's citizens? What if I have the ability to be a great architect, but I don't have the motivation? Should the government force me?
We should be rewarded by how much we contribute, as determined by the marketplace with a few modifications by government to keep the system fair.
This system requires someone to have the power to determine how much someone else needs. Because governments are made up of men, and men are by nature evil, those in power will always determine that they need much more than others.
When it comes to “from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs,” who gets to decide what those abilities and needs are?
Socialism works fine as long as there is Capitalism to pay for it, but sooner or later, Socialism runs our of other people’s money.
The Founding Fathers created government to provide Justice, not fairness.
Socialism is based on the premise that all people are good at heart. One look at the prison population in any country will prove that wrong.
If people think they can make socialism work in a better way, the should only do it with their money. They shouldn't try to take money from people who are not interested in their experiments.
You can agree that we don't have equality of opportunity, and want to try and fix that, but still not support government control of business. For instance, if we remove the property tax funding of education, that way you can give all kids the same amount of money for their education. If we work really hard to try and give each kid a fair start, and say they have equal opportunities, then we can treat adults like grown ups, and keep capitalism that rewards those who really want to work hard, or are smarter, or lucky, and not just those who got a good start in life. Scholarships for the poor, Harvard charging you based on what you parents made, all of these things are good things that we can do to make capitalism more fair, without resorting to socialism, which is too inefficient, and harms people's character by making them lazy.
Score: +3 (reasons to agree), -14 (reasons to disagree), -4 (reasons to disagree with reasons to agree), = -15
Einstein said, “You cannot solve a problem with the same mind that created it.” Similarly, we won’t improve our country until we improve our level of public debate. On these pages I outline how we can automate conflict resolution and cost-benefit analysis and solve our problems at a level higher than how they were caused.
To start, we will break our problems down into their sub-components, including beliefs, supporting, and weakening evidence, and arguments. This will allow thousands or millions of us to evaluate each part of an argument and evidence one at a time. We will group beliefs by topic and sort them by their positivity, strength, and level of specificity. This will prevent duplication and allow us to focus on one issue at a time.
The Idea Stock Exchange (ISE) proposes a groundbreaking framework for tackling complex issues, resolving conflicts, and fostering informed decision-making. Here's a detailed breakdown of its key features:
Evidence-driven: Prioritizes verifiable data and logical reasoning, ensuring well-informed conclusions.
Dynamic Ranking System: Inspired by Google's PageRank, it evaluates arguments based on the strength of their evidence, dynamically adjusting as new information emerges.
2. Multi-faceted Evaluation Metrics:
Cost-Benefit Analysis: Assesses proposed solutions by examining potential costs, benefits, likelihoods, and impact.
Argumentative Strength Assessment: Categorizes arguments based on logical consistency, evidence, relevance, and significance.
Maslow's Hierarchy Integration: Aligns the evaluation with fundamental human needs for a broader perspective.
3. Sophisticated Scoring and Ranking Protocols:
Precision Scoring Formula: Combines argument scores with evidence assessments to determine argument validity.
Evidence-Based Ranking System: Leverages algorithms to rank solutions based on predicted costs and benefits, with dynamic updates based on new information.
4. Uniqueness and Redundancy Scores:
Equivalency Score: Identifies similar arguments using semantic similarity metrics and machine learning, coupled with community feedback, to reduce redundancy and develop unique scores.
"Better Ways of Saying the Same Thing": Helps users find alternative expressions of the same idea, enhancing clarity and reducing duplication.
5. Logical Fallacy and Argument Evaluation:
Fallacy Detection: Implements algorithms to identify and flag potentially fallacious arguments, promoting rational discourse.
User-Contributed Evidence Assessment: Allows the community to contribute evidence supporting or weakening arguments for collaborative verification.
6. Technological Integration and User Interaction:
Database Tools: Proposes building tools to map conclusions, assumptions, and their relationships for deeper understanding.
Interactive Interface: Users can actively participate by submitting evidence, voting on argument strength, and suggesting alternative viewpoints.
7. Promoting Quality Debate:
Separating Argument Types: Distinguishes between truth, importance, and relevance arguments for a more nuanced debate structure.
Encouraging Constructive Dialogue: Aims to shift focus from emotional responses to evidence-based reasoning, fostering meaningful discourse over sensationalism.
8. Community-Driven Evolution:
Open-Source Development: Encourages community involvement in refining and evolving the platform, ensuring its adaptability and relevance.
Additional Considerations:
Data Quality and Bias: Implementing robust measures to ensure data accuracy and mitigate potential biases in algorithms and user contributions.
Transparency and Explainability: Providing clear explanations of scoring methods and decision-making processes to build trust and understanding.
User Engagement and Education: Fostering active participation and educating users on the platform's functionalities and responsible use.
We are a political party that organizes all the ideas and arguments by subject, and lets them battle in a survival of the fittest death-match.
We are a political party that supports candidates that promises to make their decisions based on online cost benefit and idea evaluation algorithms. They just have to use a forum that ties the strength of their conclusion to the strength of their assumption, so that when you strengthen or weaken an assumption you also strengthen or weaken conclusions based on the assumption.
We have had the technological ability to create a world based on logic for too long. It is about time we build a rational political party based on the assumption that we support plans, conclusions, activities, and policies that can gather evidence based support, and that we don't do things that don't stand up to analysis.
We will conduct open, online, cost/benefit analysis of each issue. It is about time.
Welcome to the website for the best political party of all time, and the future of reason based decisions making.
"No concept you form is valid unless you integrate it without contradiction into the sum of human knowledge."
Comments (0)
You don't have permission to comment on this page.