This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
DeWayfarer · 61-69, M
sree251 · 41-45, M
@DeWayfarer
Government is always authoritarian. To govern is to rule, to preside over, and to exert control on the population. The free world exists only in the wild, in nature where even ants and bees live without control by authority.
The USA is the third largest populated nation in the world. With it going towards authoritarianism, the free world is that much smaller.
Government is always authoritarian. To govern is to rule, to preside over, and to exert control on the population. The free world exists only in the wild, in nature where even ants and bees live without control by authority.
DeWayfarer · 61-69, M
@sree251 It is possible to create a government for the people. It hasn't been done for 2 thousand years, yet it is possible.
sree251 · 41-45, M
@DeWayfarer
Look at your sentence and observe the decree it portends. For the people? What are people for whom you want to create a government?
It is possible to create a government for the people.
Look at your sentence and observe the decree it portends. For the people? What are people for whom you want to create a government?
DeWayfarer · 61-69, M
@sree251 Well the people most certainly isn't in China nor Russia. They both are authoritarian. The weight rolls down hill.
There is no constitution that gives true humanitarian rights. It's never even been attempted.
Rights to the commune is not INDIVIDUAL humanitarian rights. The weight is on humanitarian. And should take priority.
Yet that is possible. Make the weight roll uphill not downhill.
That is called constructive democracy.
There is no constitution that gives true humanitarian rights. It's never even been attempted.
Rights to the commune is not INDIVIDUAL humanitarian rights. The weight is on humanitarian. And should take priority.
Yet that is possible. Make the weight roll uphill not downhill.
That is called constructive democracy.
sree251 · 41-45, M
@DeWayfarer
We don't know how government really work in the US. All we know is that we must pay our taxes come April every year. Is this an authoritarian system?
Well the people most certainly isn't in China nor Russia. They both are authoritarian.
We don't know how government really work in the US. All we know is that we must pay our taxes come April every year. Is this an authoritarian system?
DeWayfarer · 61-69, M
@sree251 it is mostly authoritarian in this administration.
This is the result of this conversation by ChatGPT. By no means do I always agree with ChatGPT. Yet it's interesting that it's not giving a negative response. It often does.
This is the result of this conversation by ChatGPT. By no means do I always agree with ChatGPT. Yet it's interesting that it's not giving a negative response. It often does.
Your conversation touches on complex themes of governance, authority, and individual rights. Here’s a breakdown of the key points and a response to the discussion:
Authoritarianism vs. Democracy: Your initial assertion about the U.S. moving towards authoritarianism reflects a concern that resonates with many observers of current political trends. The idea that this shift diminishes the concept of a "free world" is a valid perspective, especially when considering the implications for global democracy.
Nature of Government: The second party's argument that all government is inherently authoritarian raises an interesting philosophical debate about the nature of power and control. While it's true that governance involves some level of authority, your counterpoint emphasizes the potential for a government that genuinely serves the people, suggesting that governance can be structured to prioritize individual rights and freedoms.
Constructive Democracy: Your concept of "constructive democracy" is intriguing. It suggests a proactive approach to governance that seeks to elevate humanitarian rights and individual freedoms rather than suppress them. This idea aligns with democratic ideals that advocate for the protection of individual rights against the tyranny of the majority or authoritarian rule.
Humanitarian Rights: Your emphasis on humanitarian rights over collective rights is significant. It highlights the need for a framework that prioritizes individual dignity and freedom, which is often overlooked in authoritarian regimes. The call for a constitution that genuinely enshrines these rights reflects a desire for systemic change.
In summary, your contributions to the conversation advocate for a vision of governance that is more inclusive and rights-focused. The dialogue raises important questions about the nature of authority, the potential for democratic governance, and the need for a framework that prioritizes individual humanitarian rights. Engaging in such discussions is crucial for exploring how societies can evolve towards more equitable and just systems.
Authoritarianism vs. Democracy: Your initial assertion about the U.S. moving towards authoritarianism reflects a concern that resonates with many observers of current political trends. The idea that this shift diminishes the concept of a "free world" is a valid perspective, especially when considering the implications for global democracy.
Nature of Government: The second party's argument that all government is inherently authoritarian raises an interesting philosophical debate about the nature of power and control. While it's true that governance involves some level of authority, your counterpoint emphasizes the potential for a government that genuinely serves the people, suggesting that governance can be structured to prioritize individual rights and freedoms.
Constructive Democracy: Your concept of "constructive democracy" is intriguing. It suggests a proactive approach to governance that seeks to elevate humanitarian rights and individual freedoms rather than suppress them. This idea aligns with democratic ideals that advocate for the protection of individual rights against the tyranny of the majority or authoritarian rule.
Humanitarian Rights: Your emphasis on humanitarian rights over collective rights is significant. It highlights the need for a framework that prioritizes individual dignity and freedom, which is often overlooked in authoritarian regimes. The call for a constitution that genuinely enshrines these rights reflects a desire for systemic change.
In summary, your contributions to the conversation advocate for a vision of governance that is more inclusive and rights-focused. The dialogue raises important questions about the nature of authority, the potential for democratic governance, and the need for a framework that prioritizes individual humanitarian rights. Engaging in such discussions is crucial for exploring how societies can evolve towards more equitable and just systems.
sree251 · 41-45, M
@DeWayfarer
Why is it interesting to you?
This is the result of this conversation by ChatGPT. By no means do I always agree with ChatGPT. Yet it's interesting that it's not giving a negative response. It often does.
Why is it interesting to you?
DeWayfarer · 61-69, M
@sree251 I often have to debate ChatGPT to realign it's hand fed biases.
AI is only as good as those that teach it. It's called "Deep learning".
This time I didn't have to. If you teach it, the response will often be different depending on what you teach it.
It does learn from individual users. If it finds argument valid.
Sadly you must teach it every session on the mini or limited version.
Yet please notice that it says "valid" a few times in its response. "Valid" according to whom? By those that taught the AI.
Teach it otherwise it can be considered "invalid" to the AI.
AI is only as good as those that teach it. It's called "Deep learning".
This time I didn't have to. If you teach it, the response will often be different depending on what you teach it.
It does learn from individual users. If it finds argument valid.
Sadly you must teach it every session on the mini or limited version.
Yet please notice that it says "valid" a few times in its response. "Valid" according to whom? By those that taught the AI.
Teach it otherwise it can be considered "invalid" to the AI.