Jump to content

Ontology talk:9k/RD/Q5467: Difference between revisions

From LithoGraphica
← Older editNewer edit →
Reversedragon (talk | contribs)
Bureaucrats, Conference pass, Interface administrators, Arts-aligned editors, Crimson-aligned editors, Violet-aligned editors, Administrators
18,964 edits
The sum of representatives will produce something beyond narrow factional interests
Reversedragon (talk | contribs)
Bureaucrats, Conference pass, Interface administrators, Arts-aligned editors, Crimson-aligned editors, Violet-aligned editors, Administrators
18,964 edits
The concept that the United States is founded on representative democracy as a filtration measure against feudalism is contradictory with the concept tyranny is avoided by keeping government at the most local level
Line 33: Line 33:
{{Hue|ff1=DFy}}
{{Hue|ff1=DFy}}


{{li|I=S1/LR|Q=54,67|Q2=5467}}In its mention of "Republic" the United States pledge of allegiance refers to large-scale representative democracy [https://legalhelp.us/and-to-the-republic-for-which-it-stands-meaning-and-origin/]  ->  I don't think that holds up to "gostak analysis". the Christian God seems like a much bigger element of the describing what the "Republic" is than republicanism, for better or for worse.
{{li|start=y|I=S2/LR|Q=54,67|Q2=5467}}In its mention of "Republic" the United States pledge of allegiance refers to large-scale representative democracy [https://legalhelp.us/and-to-the-republic-for-which-it-stands-meaning-and-origin/]  ->  I don't think that holds up to "[[E:gostak analysis|gostak analysis]]". the Christian God seems like a much bigger element of the describing what the "Republic" is than republicanism, for better or for worse.


{{li|I=S1/LR|Q=618|Q2=618}}United States constitution Article IV, Section 4 / {{i|the United States shall guarantee to every State ... a Republican Form of Government}} / The federal government is obligated to maintain a Republican Form of Government in every state  ->  to the exclusion of Communism, anarchism, and previous tribal societies. according to an unapologetic Liberal-republican page! think about that. every local-state "has powers of the state or the people", but only when they all follow what the central government wants. something weird about that should stand out to you.
{{li|I=S1/LR|Q=618|Q2=618}}United States constitution Article IV, Section 4 / {{i|the United States shall guarantee to every State ... a Republican Form of Government}} / The federal government is obligated to maintain a Republican Form of Government in every state  ->  to the exclusion of Communism, anarchism, and previous tribal societies. according to an unapologetic Liberal-republican page! think about that. every local-state "has powers of the state or the people", but only when they all follow what the central government wants. something weird about that should stand out to you.


{{li|I=S1/LR|Q=618|Q2=618}}Well-designed districts will push representatives toward the broader public good / James Madison argued that well-designed districts would push representatives toward the broader public good [https://legalhelp.us/and-to-the-republic-for-which-it-stands-meaning-and-origin/]  ->  unfortunately that's not how it actually works at all. since the Federalists and the Democratic-Republicans it's been impossible to arrange political parties into transient issues people would be willing to lose on, and what happens every time and happens increasingly is that political parties sort people into permanent demographic "sub-nations" similar but not identical to the causes of division in the United States civil war. people become Democrats or Republicans on a cultural basis almost the way they would join a religion, so they intuitively expect representation to be segregated so each district contains only Republicans or Democrats electing Republicans or Democrats, with the concept of representing people first predicated on being a Republican or a Democrat. there is no such thing as a "well-designed district" any more because Idea-philosophy practiced for hundreds of years can only result in an inability to merge separate Idea-grounded realities into a consensus about reality.
{{li|I=S2/LR|Q=618|Q2=618}}Well-designed districts will push representatives toward the broader public good / James Madison argued that well-designed districts would push representatives toward the broader public good [https://legalhelp.us/and-to-the-republic-for-which-it-stands-meaning-and-origin/]  ->  unfortunately that's not how it actually works at all. since the Federalists and the Democratic-Republicans it's been impossible to arrange political parties into transient issues people would be willing to lose on, and what happens every time and happens increasingly is that political parties sort people into permanent demographic "sub-nations" similar but not identical to the causes of division in the United States civil war. people become Democrats or Republicans on a cultural basis almost the way they would join a religion, so they intuitively expect representation to be segregated so each district contains only Republicans or Democrats electing Republicans or Democrats, with the concept of representing people first predicated on being a Republican or a Democrat. there is no such thing as a "well-designed district" any more because Idea-philosophy practiced for hundreds of years can only result in an inability to merge separate Idea-grounded realities into a consensus about reality.


{{li|I=S1/LR|Q=618|Q2=618}}The sum of representatives will produce something beyond narrow factional interests [https://legalhelp.us/and-to-the-republic-for-which-it-stands-meaning-and-origin/]  ->  if that's true, then why do senators and representatives wear party letters? (on name cards and those TV headline-box things.) if that process was working they'd only be identified by their state, and nobody would see that and panic about them unexpectedly being a different party than expected. but in the real world you couldn't do things that way without somebody deciding it's a conspiracy for too many people of some particular party (which really could be either of them) to seep in and control everybody else. getting representatives to actually behave in any impartial way has always required labeling them with their faction to determine the balance of factions. in practice there is hardly even any such thing as issues and parties are big objects full of people trying to rule each other that the Constitution clumsily tries to limit from doing that.
{{li|I=S2/LR|Q=618|Q2=618}}The sum of representatives will produce something beyond narrow factional interests [https://legalhelp.us/and-to-the-republic-for-which-it-stands-meaning-and-origin/]  ->  if that's true, then why do senators and representatives wear party letters? (on name cards and those TV headline-box things.) if that process was working they'd only be identified by their state, and nobody would see that and panic about them unexpectedly being a different party than expected. but in the real world you couldn't do things that way without somebody deciding it's a conspiracy for too many people of some particular party (which really could be either of them) to seep in and control everybody else. getting representatives to actually behave in any impartial way has always required labeling them with their faction to determine the balance of factions. in practice there is hardly even any such thing as issues and parties are big objects full of people trying to rule each other that the Constitution clumsily tries to limit from doing that.
 
{{li|I=S2/IV|Q=618|Q2=618}}The concept that the United States is founded on {{em|representative}} democracy as a [[E:filtration (separation of Liberal-republicanism from feudalism)|filtration measure against feudalism]] is contradictory with the concept that tyranny is avoided by keeping government at the most local level  ->  I think this rather silly page about the US constitution finally cracked the mystery of why people conceptualize Communism as genuinely unnatural. {{i|Jefferson's filter saved the world from mob rule. checkmate, Communists!}} the problem: this explanation of center-Liberalism makes right-Liberalism impossible. if "classical liberals" trying to take decisions down to the most local level makes any sense at all, then Trotskyism makes an equal amount of sense. that's the answer to the riddle this time: right-Liberals cannot explain why their preferred system isn't worse than Trotskyism, and at the end of the day center-Liberals can't either.


{{endHue}}
{{endHue}}

Revision as of 03:01, 8 November 2026

Main entry

  1. United States pledge of allegiance [1] [2] -> this definitely belongs on any iceberg chart about the United States or Liberal-republicanism.
  2. What does the pledge of allegiance mean? (sense)
  3. United States pledge of allegiance / I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all

Component statements

  1. sentence diagram (linguistics) -> we're really doing this. we're really getting into this.
  2. I pledge allegiance to the Flag / I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America -> the part of the pledge that's usually the first to get mocked.
  3. I pledge allegiance to the Republic / I pledge allegiance to the Flag ... and to the Republic for which it [the flag?] stands [3]
  4. the Republic, one nation under God -> this is a predicate statement about the republic and what its characteristics are.
  5. the Republic, indivisible / indivisible (predicate statement) -> I have never understood why the republic is indivisible when the entire foundation of Liberal-republicanism is forcing single parties to divide in two and breaking up monopolies. wouldn't a better way to describe it be "always divided" or "always divisible"??
  6. the Republic, indivisible [4] -> the page this was on only made it more confusing by claiming "Republic" mostly refers to local-states and the representation that begins inside them, which would imply "indivisible" doesn't apply to the overall country and instead refers to each the local-states. but in that case, what would it mean?
  7. the Republic, with liberty and justice for all -> this part at least makes sense, even if it's flawed. it at least means something.

Related

  1. In its mention of "Republic" the United States pledge of allegiance refers to large-scale representative democracy [5] -> I don't think that holds up to "gostak analysis". the Christian God seems like a much bigger element of the describing what the "Republic" is than republicanism, for better or for worse.
  2. United States constitution Article IV, Section 4 / the United States shall guarantee to every State ... a Republican Form of Government / The federal government is obligated to maintain a Republican Form of Government in every state -> to the exclusion of Communism, anarchism, and previous tribal societies. according to an unapologetic Liberal-republican page! think about that. every local-state "has powers of the state or the people", but only when they all follow what the central government wants. something weird about that should stand out to you.
  3. Well-designed districts will push representatives toward the broader public good / James Madison argued that well-designed districts would push representatives toward the broader public good [6] -> unfortunately that's not how it actually works at all. since the Federalists and the Democratic-Republicans it's been impossible to arrange political parties into transient issues people would be willing to lose on, and what happens every time and happens increasingly is that political parties sort people into permanent demographic "sub-nations" similar but not identical to the causes of division in the United States civil war. people become Democrats or Republicans on a cultural basis almost the way they would join a religion, so they intuitively expect representation to be segregated so each district contains only Republicans or Democrats electing Republicans or Democrats, with the concept of representing people first predicated on being a Republican or a Democrat. there is no such thing as a "well-designed district" any more because Idea-philosophy practiced for hundreds of years can only result in an inability to merge separate Idea-grounded realities into a consensus about reality.
  4. The sum of representatives will produce something beyond narrow factional interests [7] -> if that's true, then why do senators and representatives wear party letters? (on name cards and those TV headline-box things.) if that process was working they'd only be identified by their state, and nobody would see that and panic about them unexpectedly being a different party than expected. but in the real world you couldn't do things that way without somebody deciding it's a conspiracy for too many people of some particular party (which really could be either of them) to seep in and control everybody else. getting representatives to actually behave in any impartial way has always required labeling them with their faction to determine the balance of factions. in practice there is hardly even any such thing as issues and parties are big objects full of people trying to rule each other that the Constitution clumsily tries to limit from doing that.
  5. The concept that the United States is founded on representative democracy as a filtration measure against feudalism is contradictory with the concept that tyranny is avoided by keeping government at the most local level -> I think this rather silly page about the US constitution finally cracked the mystery of why people conceptualize Communism as genuinely unnatural. Jefferson's filter saved the world from mob rule. checkmate, Communists! the problem: this explanation of center-Liberalism makes right-Liberalism impossible. if "classical liberals" trying to take decisions down to the most local level makes any sense at all, then Trotskyism makes an equal amount of sense. that's the answer to the riddle this time: right-Liberals cannot explain why their preferred system isn't worse than Trotskyism, and at the end of the day center-Liberals can't either.

Ideologies, fields, or genres

  1. Idealism
  2. Liberal-republicanism
  3. linguistics
  4. language as language-game

Wavebuilder combinations

pronounced P: pronounced Wave-builder: forms result [Item]
--
along with [Item]
pronounced 618. (S)pronounced (L-R) (S): LR ⧼hue-ins-domain-spacer/⧽?? (pronounced proposed / LR)1-1-1
forming from [Item]
pronounced 618. (S)pronounced (L-R) (S): LR ⧼hue-ins-domain-spacer/⧽?? (pronounced proposed / LR)1-1-1
--
--

Subpages or related scraps

External links

  • use of en dash [8]
Retrieved from "https://research.moraleconomy.au/index.php?title=Ontology_talk:9k/RD/Q5467&oldid=47223"