- All Debates
- Popular Debates
- Active Debates
- New Debates
- Open Challenge Debates
- My Challenge Debates
- Accepted Challenges
- Debate Communities
- Argument Waterfall
- New People
- People by Points
Your profile reflects your reputation, it will build itself as you create new debates, write arguments and form new relationships.
"Would you consider your government tyrannical?"
This made me think of what defines whether a government is tyrannical or not, which would presumably be a subjective assessment. This is particularly true since different societies require different levels of authoritarianism to maintain order (Russia requires more than the U.S., for example). I'd say that the practice of punishing people for offensive speech is tyrannical, though I'm not sure if this makes the government tyrannical. While I appreciate that tyrannical practices are what cause a government to be evaluated as tyrannical, I am not sure where to draw the line. Should I assess a government as tyrannical when it has one tyrannical practice or when it has ten? If we look at it as a scale then we could say that the British government is somewhat tyrannical, but comparable to many other societies (particularly historically) it is relatively libertarian.
"What would opting out of the system look like? In the US people have often experimented with communes, usually structured around some type of socialism. Some Amish communities live mostly off the grid. Other than records of property ownership, there is very little legal evidence that an individual Amish person exists. Is that what you mean?"
I'd like a mechanism for people/groups to be able to not pay property taxes etc. and effectively secede from the nation they reside within. This would of course mean forsaking all the benefits of society, and any infrastructure or services that the person/group needed would need to be paid for (e.g. must pay road tax if driving). This would mean that libertarian "live off the land" types could be free to hunt and fish and live naturally without having to earn money to pay taxes (provided they own land). It would also mean that radicals can form their own communist "utopia" on their own land. In doing so, we might remove the desire of these radicals to destroy the system they reside within by allowing them to do things their own way without affecting everyone else. It also would demonstrate to them massive benefits to the society they reside within: while society is oppressive, it is also responsible for a greatly improved quality of life.
The issues with IQ as a measure of intelligence are rather numerous, for example, one can score vastly differently on different tests as different tests are measuring different parts of one's intelligence. Verbal, spacial and emotional intelligence; abstract problem solving; working memory; attention; processing speed; fluid and crystal intelligence etc., there are a multitude of different domains of intelligence. Your score, then, depends in part on what part of intelligence the test is measuring.
This is not to say that IQ testing is without merit, Mathfan's list of college majors by IQ demonstrates this quite aptly. It does mean, however, that every IQ test will assess you based on different criteria (and even when they are the same the weighting will differ). This can result in individuals achieving wildly different IQ scores on different tests. Interestingly, the higher one's IQ overall, the greater the difference between their aptitudes across domains of intelligence; e.g. verbal, spatial, social etc. This is probably part of why the socially retarded, super intelligent nerd is such a common stereotype.
First of all, adults should be permitted to use drugs if they wish. Further, in my country, England, we can own a gun for hunting or sport but not for self-defense and I'd like to see this change (though the British public are incredibly anti-gun). We English also have the issue of offensive jokes being classed as criminally indictable "hate-speech".
In addition, there is no place for people who wish to opt-out of the system we live under to live; I'd like to see an area put aside for this purpose. Not only would it allow people to honestly assess the benefits and costs of our society first hand, but it would also allow people to test other means of organization.
If they are using it themselves, they should suffer no consequence, just like parents who drink responsibly. If they are giving it to their children, or if they use it so much that they cannot properly look after their children, I can see the need for intervention.
Death threats and incitements to criminal action are already illegal. Since, like me, you're from the U.K., have you seen the fact that people are being arrested here for mildly offensive jokes (Source 1) under hate speech laws?
Utopian ideas usually sound good at a glance, but on further analysis they always have hidden costs that the ideologue either doesn't see or purposefully conceals. From my reading of history, these hidden costs are always higher than any gain from utilizing the system and in the end the system doesn't even achieve it's goal(s).
Part of why these societies don't work is because they don't see the world and people as they are, but as they "should" be. Worse still, after finding that people are not as they "should" be, they attempt to brainwash people into being as they "should" be.