If there is anything that is limiting human progress and organization and order, it is this thing called "politics"; it is a natural side-effect of this 'democracy', where we determine the fate of the country according to what happens to be in vogue. Though truly, all countries suffer from politics, democratic or not.


In the US, this liberal-conservative division is completely unnecessary; do people not realize that you don't have to live together? In my opinion, the best thing to do is to create separate gated communities, where some are for conservatives and some are for liberals, and then let them both live in peace and enjoy their lives, and never have to bother with politics again.

Or, we can stay the way we are, and have both hate the other when they are in power, and have this constant stupidity in our public offices. I like the former idea alot better: have two separate communities, one for each, and then we can stop with these politics. Liberals wouldn't even have to acknowledge the existence of conservatives, and vice versa; it'd be best.

It's like we're fighting over the same bedroom, when really, it'd be best to have our own rooms.

I'd say lack of ethics and morals are two main problems.

They are not futile. But I do agree, I'm damn sick of the mob rule and it's decent into mediocrity.

They are not futile. But I do agree, I'm damn sick of the mob rule and its decent into mediocrity.

That is the problem with democracy: it doesn't take into account that most people aren't fit to rule. It's like letting non-doctors vote on a medical issue. It's stupid.

That is the problem with democracy: it doesn't take into account that most people aren't fit to rule. It's like letting non-doctors vote on a medical issue. It's stupid.

We don't actually have a direct democracy. We elect politicians, who are in effect "specialists" in politics (hence we disproportionately elect lawyers).

So another proper analogy would be "It's like letting people select their own doctors, who then develop a consensus diagnosis."

Once computers are smart enough to decide for us, let them do it and just sit back and relax, until then democracy is the best we got.

We don't actually have a direct democracy. We elect politicians, who are in effect "specialists" in politics (hence we disproportionately elect lawyers).

So another proper analogy would be "It's like letting people select their own doctors, who then develop a consensus diagnosis." Nonsense


Once computers are smart enough to decide for us, let them do it and just sit back and relax, until then democracy is the best we got.

You completely miss the point: no, it isn't. The best thing would be two divide into liberal and conservative communities, so that way neither is angry or upset.

That almost happened, we called it the civil war.

You are just wrong. Liberals need conservatives to keep them from giving away the store, and conservatives need liberals both to keep the system adaptable (because conservatives hate watching systems evolve and change, even in response to new and different circumstances).

Voting works not because the the individuals are well suited to rule, but because the consensus position is generally a safe response. If you split that consensus into conservative and liberal (two positions that have only themselves emerged in the past 100 years and likely will change again in the future), then you will have created two failed states out of one healthy one.

That almost happened, we called it the civil war.

And yet it didn't happen, so why not actually do it for real this time?

If liberals are so sick of conservatives and vice versa, then we need two states, one for each.

Though during the civil war, they were both Conservatives.

You completely miss the point: no, it isn't. The best thing would be two divide into liberal and conservative communities, so that way neither is angry or upset.

So every time there is a fracture in political beliefs, divide? You would end up with a lot of very small divide communities, its the collective that is strong, divided they are weak.

I rather just keep things stable as they are until the singularity.

It's not as simple as Libreal Vs. Conservative. People put these broad labels on because it's easier than saying: "I'm a pro-life, anti-war, gay, christian, pot smoking, socially liberal, fiscal conservative". (one exists somewhere)

But we have separated to a great degree, already. Real people live in the USA and party line, vote whore robots live in Washington DC.

If there is anything that is limiting human progress and organization and order, it is this thing called "politics"; it is a natural side-effect of this 'democracy', where we determine the fate of the country according to what happens to be in vogue. Though truly, all countries suffer from politics, democratic or not.

I would reject this premise outright. Though the word comes from a time when people first experimented with democracy, politics have always existed in human society. One could probably say democracy is a natural side-effect of politics: Were people robots following a program without any independent thought or passion, politics wouldn't exist.


In the US, this liberal-conservative division is completely unnecessary; do people not realize that you don't have to live together? In my opinion, the best thing to do is to create separate gated communities, where some are for conservatives and some are for liberals, and then let them both live in peace and enjoy their lives, and never have to bother with politics again.

At what point did segregation actually work? In order to never bother with politics again, humans would need to be hermits, separated from one another as individuals. If we were better off as hermits, we would not have evolved as social creatures.


Or, we can stay the way we are, and have both hate the other when they are in power, and have this constant stupidity in our public offices. I like the former idea alot better: have two separate communities, one for each, and then we can stop with these politics. Liberals wouldn't even have to acknowledge the existence of conservatives, and vice versa; it'd be best.

It's like we're fighting over the same bedroom, when really, it'd be best to have our own rooms.

I find it striking that the notion of conducting yourself with some measure of honesty and decency unsettles you so greatly.

Even if the solution of separation worked in theory, please describe a mechanism of physical segregation that is practical. Who exactly is going to leave their homes behind because of such a crazy scheme? This is a country where the avereage man and woman isn't even all that enthusiastic about voting, and you are talking about splitting up families to live in different nations. (Or do you imagine that we would have two states occupying the same land?)

You also have to account for what happens to people whose views change over time (especially as both states fail miserably), and how you separate/deport those children in Conservamerica who grow into liberals, a Liberamerica who turn into conservatives.

I of course assume that people who are liberal on social issues and conservative on economic ones will get their own (third) country. They might as well, since that country might well survive.

They are not futile. But I do agree, I'm damn sick of the mob rule and it's decent into mediocrity.

Meaningless. Since when did public opinion carry enough weight to rule anything?

So every time there is a fracture in political beliefs, divide? You would end up with a lot of very small divide communities, its the collective that is strong, divided they are weak.

I rather just keep things stable as they are until the singularity. When there is a fracture as significant as it is now in the United States, then yes, you must divide...because staying together means hating each other. Just look at all the conservatives and liberals today, trying to force their junk down each others' throats.


I would reject this premise outright. Though the word comes from a time when people first experimented with democracy, politics have always existed in human society. One could probably say democracy is a natural side-effect of politics: Were people robots following a program without any independent thought or passion, politics wouldn't exist. Actually, I would say that politics are a natural side-effect of democracy. Democracy forces government to tolerate different groups of people; if we were not democratic, we could have only one ruling ideology. It would be gruesome at first, getting rid of the others, but eventually it would mean greater stability and, most importantly, long-term direction.

With democracy, it's a game of ball, back and forth.


At what point did segregation actually work? In order to never bother with politics again, humans would need to be hermits, separated from one another as individuals. If we were better off as hermits, we would not have evolved as social creatures. Human beings don't need to be hermits; they just need to live with those like their own. Politics arise when there are differences among people. Of course there will always be differences, but the major things ought to be uniform, and it would mean that there will be a lot less politics. For instance, if everyone in the US were a democrat or a republican, then people would fight alot less. They can still differ on this or that detail, but they would still be together for the most part.

Which is why it would be best to separate and have conservative governments and liberal governments, and funnel people that way.


There's no reason to oppose that idea, unless you want to force your ideology on the conservatives.



Even if the solution of separation worked in theory, please describe a mechanism of physical segregation that is practical. Who exactly is going to leave their homes behind because of such a crazy scheme? I would, and I'm sure others would too; it'd be finally an escape from politics, and the creation of a great, homogeneous, long-term community where there could finally be peace.

If people are too lazy to move, they can stay and enjoy the stupidity.

I would, and I'm sure others would too; it'd be finally an escape from politics, and the creation of a great, homogeneous, long-term community where there could finally be peace.

If people are too lazy to move, they can stay and enjoy the stupidity.

I think you'd find it was a very small percentage (and certainly 99.9% conservatives), the the federal gummint would be agin' it to the extent you thought your were going to take land away from the United States. Plus, they would enforce their view using higher powered weapons than you'd have.

That said, if you could serve as the Pied Piper who leads all the tea party activists onto some god-forsaken patch of scrub in the hinterlands of America, I'd happily write my senator and ask that your group be allowed to go. In fact, forget taking all the tea partiers (I am being greedy), if you could please just take Glen Beck, that would be service enough.

Westward ho, young savior of America!

:D

I think you'd find it was a very small percentage (and certainly 99.9% conservatives), the the federal gummint would be agin' it to the extent you thought your were going to take land away from the United States. Plus, they would enforce their view using higher powered weapons than you'd have. Hitler probably was able to enforce his policies through brutality as well. What's your point?

My point is that it would be best to divide the country, ideologically.

It's only a matter of time before the straw breaks the back, and we have another civil war.

Actually, I would say that politics are a natural side-effect of democracy.

I know. Thanks for repeating it.


Democracy forces government to tolerate different groups of people; if we were not democratic, we could have only one ruling ideology.

Which is why dictators never get killed or overthrown.


It would be gruesome at first, getting rid of the others, but eventually it would mean greater stability and, most importantly, long-term direction.

When I think back on nations that have culled population, I think I see your point. It's why nations like the United States and Britain are so far behind Iran (Shah Reza Pahlavi), the Soviet Union (Stalin), Uganda (Idi Amin), and Kampuchea (Pol Pot), just to name a few. If only we could enjoy the peace, prosperity, and progress of those apolitical utopias.


Human beings don't need to be hermits; they just need to live with those like their own.

You really think that will do it?


Of course there will always be differences, but the major things ought to be uniform, and it would mean that there will be a lot less politics.

You know what's really creepy about that? You actually seem to be overestimating human group dynamics. I mean:


For instance, if everyone in the US were a democrat or a republican, then people would fight alot less.

(chortle!)


They can still differ on this or that detail, but they would still be together for the most part.

(guffaw!)

In order for there to be the kind of peace you believe in, you will also need material equality, and I would think the Soviet tyranny should have made a point or two about how difficult that is.


Which is why it would be best to separate and have conservative governments and liberal governments, and funnel people that way.

And you would pretend that the segregated peoples would leave each other alone?


There's no reason to oppose that idea, unless you want to force your ideology on the conservatives.

Well, by your theory, I could skip forcing the ideology, and just force death on them.

It would be gruesome at first. But then things would get better. Until some of the differences between people began to shake out into their own spectrum of liberal and conservative.

Whether naîvete or malice, your solution is no solution at all. It's something of a pipe dream. A crack pipe dream.

When there is a fracture as significant as it is now in the United States, then yes, you must divide...because staying together means hating each other. Just look at all the conservatives and liberals today, trying to force their junk down each others' throats.


naaw, I think we should divide when states actually vote to secede, if only we had let the south go!

When I think back on nations that have culled population, I think I see your point. It's why nations like the United States and Britain are so far behind Iran (Shah Reza Pahlavi), the Soviet Union (Stalin), Uganda (Idi Amin), and Kampuchea (Pol Pot), just to name a few. If only we could enjoy the peace, prosperity, and progress of those apolitical utopias. Bah, how lame of you. There are abundant examples of successful autocracies; do we really need to go over this again? I can list failed democracies, if you'd like. Though the real question is, how much more ahead would the US be if it could cull population, and get rid of those that are holding it back? If it's already so far ahead with this burden, then certainly without it, it will be even farther ahead. Right?


You really think that will do it?
Why not? People that agree with each other don't fight.

chortle!)



(guffaw!) Thanks for the intellectually stimulating answers.


In order for there to be the kind of peace you believe in, you will also need material equality, and I would think the Soviet tyranny should have made a point or two about how difficult that is. You would need material equality if people believed in it; but conservatives don't believe in economic equality. Only communists, liberals, marxists, etc, do; so, they can work together to that end without opposition. Don't you see? Without conservatives opposing it, you can actually have a shot at achieving equality.




And you would pretend that the segregated peoples would leave each other alone? Why shouldn't they? And if they didn't, then that just goes to show how pathetic Humanity really is.


Well, by your theory, I could skip forcing the ideology, and just force death on them. Sure. You could say it is "For the greater good.."


Whether naîvete or malice, your solution is no solution at all. It's something of a pipe dream. A crack pipe dream.
Nonsense. It's actually pretty simple: create fully autonomous, localized neighborhoods, and let people live.

I tend to think that the more local you go, the better, because it is more personal; so, creating gated communities with liberal or conservative biases wouldn't be that difficult to do, and it would probably result in many people being happier since they can live in the conditions that they want.

naaw, I think we should divide when states actually vote to secede, if only we had let the south go!

If only. I agree with you...though, you seem to not understand history very much. There were no liberals back during the Civil War, at least not in the modern sense (denoting marxism). Both sides were patriotic, bible-waving Americans.

My point is that it would be best to divide the country, ideologically.

But you are presuming there are no costs to doing it, which is silly as there are huge costs. You have yet to address the fact that you'd be splitting up families, which sounds more Hitlerian than the U.S. protecting itself from seperatists.


It's only a matter of time before the straw breaks the back, and we have another civil war.

That is just nonsense. There is no evidence that we are on the verge of anyone really seceding or taking arms against the federal government in a systematized way. There are a few crackpots and a lot of people who are unhappy, but the same was true during many periods in the past. In order to get a true civil war, you really need people to divide up in the way you want them to. That's when the idea of "breaking away" seems plausible, because there is already physical separation, and it creates an echo chamber that makes the crazies feel like they are justified.

Really, though, America is not a red and blue nation. Overall the voting map looks purple, and 43% of the voting age population did not bother. Think about that. If you separated us into three countries: Conservative, Liberal and Not-Interested-Enough-To-Vote...the last of the three would be by far the larger country.

But you are presuming there are no costs to doing it, which is silly as there are huge costs. I am presuming nothing. What costs would there be?


That is just nonsense. There is no evidence that we are on the verge of anyone really seceding or taking arms against the federal government in a systematized way. There are a few crackpots and a lot of people who are unhappy, but the same was true during many periods in the past. In order to get a true civil war, you really need people to divide up in the way you want them to. That's when the idea of "breaking away" seems plausible, because there is already physical separation, and it creates an echo chamber that makes the crazies feel like they are justified. I wouldn't think so; with the pace of acceleration increasing for all this debt, and the movements, and the supposed 're-awakening' of Conservatives, it's quite plausible to think that the conflict will escalate in the coming decades.


Really, though, America is not a red and blue nation. Overall the voting map looks purple, and 43% of the voting age population did not bother. Think about that. If you separated us into three countries: Conservative, Liberal and Not-Interested-Enough-To-Vote...the last of the three would be by far the larger country.
I don't care. If people are apathetic, that is their problem; however, I think it's a good idea to allow liberals and conservatives to have their own territories if they do want it, so that way they can shut the fuck up and quit fussing.

I am presuming nothing. What costs would there be?

Umm...the physical and emotional costs of moving; the costs of broken families living in different countries; the war with the U.S. military, the costs of conservatives who want cities building (all the U.S. cities are pretty much liberal, so the liberals get them). Building up separate governments for each side (including separate militaries). Also, the liberals are going to wat some of the grain belt, even though those are conservative. That is non-negotiable. Feel free to move the conservatives to the deserts though, you can pretend to be the new Hebrews.

You really have not thought this through if you think this will come cheap.


I wouldn't think so; with the pace of acceleration increasing for all this debt, and the movements, and the supposed 're-awakening' of Conservatives, it's quite plausible to think that the conflict will escalate in the coming decades.

Quite plausible? Only if you are a crackpot. It's incredibly unlikely that two sides, both claiming to love America, are going to start shooting one American soldiers over matters of fiscal policy preferences. Only lone nuts will take to arms, and those will be the ones who openly claim that they hate America.


I don't care. If people are apathetic, that is their problem; however, I think it's a good idea to allow liberals and conservatives to have their own territories if they do want it, so that way they can shut the fuck up and quit fussing.

And when differences develop within those areas, divide again? In any event, you would only have the fringe nutcases who want to move to enact this plan, and they would probably want to be thought of as the "real" United States.

Persoanlly I think it's far more likely that two states divided on the lines you talk about would go to war than that a civil war would arise in the U.S.

If only. I agree with you...though, you seem to not understand history very much. There were no liberals back during the Civil War, at least not in the modern sense (denoting marxism). Both sides were patriotic, bible-waving Americans.

So? My argument had nothing to do with liberals, it was based on what you said about sides that disagree about politics, the north and south had a variety of different political views, most well known being slavery.

Umm...the physical and emotional costs of moving; the costs of broken families living in different countries; the war with the U.S. military, the costs of conservatives who want cities building (all the U.S. cities are pretty much liberal, so the liberals get them). Building up separate governments for each side (including separate militaries). Also, the liberals are going to wat some of the grain belt, even though those are conservative. That is non-negotiable. Feel free to move the conservatives to the deserts though, you can pretend to be the new Hebrews. That isn't how I would divide it up; I would divide it up so that each side has a good amount of land that is multiple terrains (cities, farmland, etc).

As for those 'costs', that isn't my problem if families are politically split. And nobody would force them to move.


Quite plausible? Only if you are a crackpot. It's incredibly unlikely that two sides, both claiming to love America, are going to start shooting one American soldiers over matters of fiscal policy preferences. Only lone nuts will take to arms, and those will be the ones who openly claim that they hate America.
This is typical of imperial hegemonies; the people opposing the tyranny are "lone nuts", but the point is, if the government continues to oppress and tyrannize, then people WILL do something.


Persoanlly I think it's far more likely that two states divided on the lines you talk about would go to war than that a civil war would arise in the U.S.

Why would they go to war? They'd have what they want.

And if not countries, then we should still have separate territories or gated communities for the two different factions; and the government of the US will grant those gated communities the right to set their own laws, so that way each can live in peace the way they want.

So? My argument had nothing to do with liberals, it was based on what you said about sides that disagree about politics, the north and south had a variety of different political views, most well known being slavery.

You're quite right. During the Civil War, the South, being primarily Democrats, were for slavery and the North, under Abe Lincoln the Republican, were anti-Slavery.

There are abundant examples of successful autocracies; do we really need to go over this again?

Sure, go for it. Try making an argument that isn't irresponsibly presumptive, for once.


Though the real question is, how much more ahead would the US be if it could cull population, and get rid of those that are holding it back?

I don't know, are we measuring in absolute values?


Why not? People that agree with each other don't fight.

That's the key, isn't it? People that agree with each other.


Thanks for the intellectually stimulating answers.

It's what you give me to work with. What the hell am I supposed to say about delusional, insupportable assertions of foolishness?


You would need material equality if people believed in it; but conservatives don't believe in economic equality.

You need to think that through.

Let's imagine your segregationist utopia for a moment.


• The conservatives come together in their own segregated utopia.
• They don't believe in economic equality (or equal protection under the law), so within a short period, some of them would have less.
• Those who have more would, as conservatives do, start stacking the deck to deprive those who have less.

Now, how long do you think the lower strata of that arrangement would say, "I'm a conservative, so I'm happy that they stack the deck and starve my children for a little bit more money that the upper class will never live long enough to spend"?

Let them eat cake?


Only communists, liberals, marxists, etc, do; so, they can work together to that end without opposition. Don't you see? Without conservatives opposing it, you can actually have a shot at achieving equality.

A very limited equality in a socioeconomically regressive condition resulting from mass segregation.


Why shouldn't they? And if they didn't, then that just goes to show how pathetic Humanity really is.

Many would say humanity is pathetic.


Sure. You could say it is "For the greater good.."

There's some irony in you having called WillNever a psychopath (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2471202&postcount=23).


Nonsense. It's actually pretty simple: create fully autonomous, localized neighborhoods, and let people live.

Yeah, that'll work. People never decide they need more room, or more resources to process and consume. They'll certainly leave each other alone.


I tend to think that the more local you go, the better, because it is more personal; so, creating gated communities with liberal or conservative biases wouldn't be that difficult to do, and it would probably result in many people being happier since they can live in the conditions that they want.

And I can't wait to hear your explanation of how the concomitant decline in quality of life is actually an improvement.

And if not countries, then we should still have separate territories or gated communities for the two different factions; and the government of the US will grant those gated communities the right to set their own laws, so that way each can live in peace the way they want.

Isn't that exactly the way things are now? the "gated communities" are like states that the government allows to have their own laws and live the way they want? If you don't like you're state's policies you can always move to a state that has policies you prefer. But I doubt there are that many people that care that much. People don't typically drop everything and move because of trivial policies about this and that.

Sure, go for it. Try making an argument that isn't irresponsibly presumptive, for once. I'm not discussing that nonsense again.


That's the key, isn't it? People that agree with each other. And at any rate, certainly they would agree more with each other under my idea than under the present situation. People today are so torn as to how the nation should be, that it is not at all any sort of unity.


It's what you give me to work with. What the hell am I supposed to say about delusional, insupportable assertions of foolishness? I have to put up with yours, so grant me the same courtesy.


You need to think that through.

Let's imagine your segregationist utopia for a moment.


• The conservatives come together in their own segregated utopia.
• They don't believe in economic equality (or equal protection under the law), so within a short period, some of them would have less. What do you mean "equal protection under the law"? And of course some would have less: some are less innovative and less hard working than others.

• Those who have more would, as conservatives do, start stacking the deck to deprive those who have less. I doubt it, especially in a smaller community. Those who have more will probably donate to charity and aid those who have less, out of the goodness of their hearts and without need of an overarching government forcing them to. That's why charities like the Salvation Army raise hundreds of millions every year.


A very limited equality in a socioeconomically regressive condition resulting from mass segregation. So liberals need conservatives in order to be successful?



There's some irony in you having called WillNever a psychopath (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2471202&postcount=23).

Why? I didn't say it was for the greater good, I said that you could say that it was for the greater good.


Yeah, that'll work. People never decide they need more room, or more resources to process and consume. They'll certainly leave each other alone.
It's called diplomacy.

And I can't wait to hear your explanation of how the concomitant decline in quality of life is actually an improvement.
So liberals and conservatives arguing together is 'better quality of life'?

Isn't that exactly the way things are now? the "gated communities" are like states that the government allows to have their own laws and live the way they want? If you don't like you're state's policies you can always move to a state that has policies you prefer. But I doubt there are that many people that care that much. People don't typically drop everything and move because of trivial policies about this and that.

I think the reason they don't do that is because it isn't practical, or doesn't warrant leaving one's home that they've been in for so long. I don't think it is that they don't care. I am sure most people would prefer to stay where they are and have the others leave.

You're quite right. During the Civil War, the South, being primarily Democrats, were for slavery and the North, under Abe Lincoln the Republican, were anti-Slavery.

yep and the republicans and democrats have switch roles sense, at least on the issues of race relations.

yep and the republicans and democrats have switch roles sense, at least on the issues of race relations.

No, because neither of them are racist

No, because neither of them are racist

I disagree, they are both racist.