Is bee smarter than human?

[ivconic]

"Evolution?" - exit! Only possible exit as i am concerned.

Aren't we smart enough? Haven't we all the technology necessairly to live much better and more relaxed? Than what is stoping us?

[J_Player]

J Player what you are saying is making a lot of sence and i agree.
Removing government would lead to anarchi sooner or later and total bust of everything.
On the other side; system we have it today is everything but not human and not serving to small man at all. Today system is serving to minority against majority.
Where is solution? Where is exit (for us - small people)?

Hi Ivconic,

You are correct. Unless a huge majority of citizens vote for some particular changes they want, they will not happen in a democracy. In the USA version, the things people can vote for must go through a complicated process before we will even see them on a ballot to vote.

What solution for the small people?
The only solution I have seen worked for a man and woman who moved to a remote part of Canada and built a log house near a stream where they went fishing and caught abundant fish, and went hunting for their food. They taught their child until he came of the age where they wanted him to have a regular education, so thier escape ended.

An alternate solution would be to look for a country that has the kind of government you like the best and become a citizen there. The problem is you need to leave your home and friends, same as if you went in the woods to live.

The only remaining solution is to make changes in the laws of your country. Maybe this can be done by voting if you have a method of government that will do what the majority of people want.

Even in countries where the majority of the people are not represented, If enough people are up in arms about things that are not right, the government will sometimes make changes to keep the citizens happy.


Best wishes,
J_P

[ivconic]

"That is to say it is a kind of government where the citizens can vote so we see what the majority wants to become law...."

This is how it should be in real life. Pitty it is not like that.
One example;
i am 1000% sure that 95% of USA population are against any kind of war (except self defencing kind of a war). Still USA is starting (and causing) many wars and crises arround the world? How come?
or...
we in Serbia voted against political mafia, corruption, criminal...and many other bad things. Nowdays we have all that much more than ever!?
I never wanted to fight (always voted against) against Croats, Bosnians and Albanians...yet we had local wars in '90.!? How come?
Voting is not enough - that's my point. Somebody behind the curtains will always fake the votes. Who? Those who don't want changes!
How to beat them? War? No! Not at all!
Simply do not give your money to them!
How?
Well....avoid Coca Cola for a start....avoid McDonalds, avoid tv news and brainwashing, avoid all the things "they" pushing you to use in everyday life.
It would be good start to global change.
Instead Coca Cola (i have nothing against, just using it as example) go and buy some juice or soda made by some small manufacturer....at least for a week or two.....
What we need is to shake main reliances of that system and system will crash easilly. No effort at all!
But we must do that fast and synchronized, all of us togather.

"Point is that globalism is based on "big numbers" directly dependable of each "small number" inside it! Suppres only one "small number" and whole system will crash!"

[Fred]

I think democracy will never really exists as long as the governments are constituted of "candidates".
I mean, as long as men fight for power, they will be bad leaders - by definition.
Perhaps the "presidents" should be sorted between men and women, (or small groups), of people having at least a certain level of education. (this is sad, but we cant afford someone with no education to rule a country)

I think the bee analogy good, after all 99% of the world is owned by a very few % of people, the bee-keepers.
the surplus of honey must be taken out so the bees continue to work hard and don´t have possibility to leave the hive-as the would naturally do if they were allowed to make reserves...

[J_Player]

I think democracy will never really exists as long as the governments are constituted of "candidates".
I mean, as long as men fight for power, they will be bad leaders - by definition.
Perhaps the "presidents" should be sorted between men and women, (or small groups), of people having at least a certain level of education. (this is sad, but we cant afford someone with no education to rule a country)

I think the bee analogy good, after all 99% of the world is owned by a very few % of people, the bee-keepers.
the surplus of honey must be taken out so the bees continue to work hard and don´t have possibility to leave the hive-as the would naturally do if they were allowed to make reserves...

Bees who live naturally away from beekeepers have a perfect arrangement --- No honey taxes.
They get to keep all their honey to do whatever they want with it.

Best wishes,
J_P

[J_Player]

"Evolution?" - exit! Only possible exit as i am concerned.

Aren't we smart enough? Haven't we all the technology necessairly to live much better and more relaxed? Than what is stoping us?

Modern people have developed thier technology much farther than they developed their ability to govern themselves. If we had developed a higher universal moral and ethical standard that everyone lived by, then it would not matter much what kind of government was in place. A kingdom would work as well as a commune or a democracy. It is like the bees. They all do their respective jobs, they are happy, and everything works. They really don't need anyone to govern them.

We could also dispense with most government functions except some basic maintenance things like roads, disaster prevention and rescue, studying science for improved life quality etc. We would no longer need police or locks on the doors because there would be no need if everybody was that advanced morally. We would see all the laws were exactly what most people want for laws. Nobody would stoop to using tricks to stop the will of the majority from being put in place. We wouldn't see any wars. The military would no longer need guns because they would be busy with recue during natural disasters.

In some ways we haven't come much farther than the tribal ways of cave men morally. But most people do have ethical standards a lot higher than belligerent primitive customs. The problem is ethics are not the same for all people, so we still need to take precautions that make it necessary to have more government than the bees have.

Best wishes,
J_P

[J_Player]

I think democracy will never really exists as long as the governments are constituted of "candidates".
I mean, as long as men fight for power, they will be bad leaders - by definition.
Perhaps the "presidents" should be sorted between men and women, (or small groups), of people having at least a certain level of education. (this is sad, but we cant afford someone with no education to rule a country)...

Hi Fred,

Democracy and candidates are two different things. Democracy came from a Greek word that means "government by the people" when translated into English. Candidates are only one of many ways to implement democracy. Of course, you could change to other methods of implementing democracy that might work better in providing a government of the people.

The idea of candidates started when the USA was a new country breaking away from England. At that time there were 13 colonies that were governed by English law and paid taxes to England. The people were wondering the same things that Ivconic is asking... what are we getting for our tax money? They felt like they were paying taxes, but had no say in what the laws would be.

So they decided they would be better off starting their own country that is run by the people who live here, not by an overseas country that does not give them the laws they want. This is where we see the brilliance of Thomas Jefferson. He researched all the kinds of governments to see what he could find for the best way to get a government where the common people decide what they want. He chose democracy, and the others around him agreed. They figured this was by far the best way to get a government that allowed the people to decide what laws they want.

But how to do this when there are 13 different colonies?
Each of these colonies had thier own laws, money and customs, not much different than the European Union has countries with different laws, different money and customs (ok they finally made their money the same). The idea was to make a new country from the 13 colonies that would become separate states that still have their own laws, but follow some basic laws that new the country enforces. The way they were able to accomplish this is to allow each state to elect thier own representatives to form a congress, and to allow different political parties to provide candidates for people to vote to become a president, and preside over the congress. This actually worked very well for a long time. But as time passed, technology improved, and business interests became involved in politics. Things were beginning to change so the will of the majority of common people was not always what the government was doing.

Today, if you were to take a poll of all USA citizens, you may find that there are some government policies that do not reflect what the majority of people want. Why?
Maybe this is partly caused by the procedure of electing candidates from political parties that have specific agendas. Maybe it is caused by global business interests that have political lobbies. Maybe other reasons as well. From what I see, the early implementation of democracy worked very well over 200 years ago, but conditions today seem to make it hard for the common people to decide policies of the country exactly as they want.

So what would work better?
I don't know. Part of the problem is as you say. Politicians have a bad name in most parts of the world.
They are often considered crooks who take bribes, and cannot be trusted.

Making qualifications for presidential candidates for education?
That's an idea. It would insure leaders are educated. But what about the brilliant leader that has no education? Education does not guarantee you will get good government. It only removes the uneducated. This would eliminate potential presidents that could be great leaders like Abraham Lincoln was. If England had educational requirements for their politicians, I doubt Winston Churchill would have been able to become prime minister, and Gandhi would not have had the chance to lead his country.

If you wanted a radical departure that gets back to the principle of democracy, you wouldn't need representatives and maybe not a president. You could take a poll of all the citizens in a country. We have the technology today. Everyone can go to a computer and enter their citizen ID to make their vote for every item that is to be voted on. When all the votes are counted, then we would see the new laws put in place. Who needs politicians?

But as I said in the previous post... this all depends on the moral and ethical level of the people running the system. If you have honest people making it work, then you will see the laws are exactly what the majority of people want. If not, then you got the same as what we got now, but only with a new method to implement it.

Oh well... Back to something that works... like metal detectors.

Best wishes,
J_P

[ivconic]

"...If you wanted a radical departure that gets back to the principle of democracy, you wouldn't need representatives and maybe not a president. You could take a poll of all the citizens in a country. We have the technology today. Everyone can go to a computer and enter their citizen ID to make their vote for every item that is to be voted on. When all the votes are counted, then we would see the new laws put in place. Who needs politicians?.."

Actually...that is the main problem; representatives (politicians,politic party..).
They expect people to vote..for who? Such limited choice.
Main idea of progress is lost somewhere from single man through politic party.
Because party itself has primary task - to subsist on top by any means. Everything else comes after. Small man who voted for, usually comes to last place as party priority.

[ivconic]

"...But as I said in the previous post... this all depends on the moral and ethical level of the people running the system. If you have honest people making it work, then you will see the laws are exactly what the majority of people want. If not, then you got the same as what we got now, but only with a new method to implement it.."

Luckilly that is possible. Not SF. That's why i am so angry, because i can see such good examples that really exist. So if they can...why can't we?
Evolution..evolution of human mind and a way of thinking, that's what we need.

[J_Player]

"...If you wanted a radical departure that gets back to the principle of democracy, you wouldn't need representatives and maybe not a president. You could take a poll of all the citizens in a country. We have the technology today. Everyone can go to a computer and enter their citizen ID to make their vote for every item that is to be voted on. When all the votes are counted, then we would see the new laws put in place. Who needs politicians?.."

Actually...that is the main problem; representatives (politicians,politic party..).
They expect people to vote..for who? Such limited choice.
Main idea of progress is lost somewhere from single man through politic party.
Because party itself has primary task - to subsist on top by any means. Everything else comes after. Small man who voted for, usually comes to last place as party priority.

You are exactly right.

In the USA, a candidate does not have a chance in hell to become president unless he is supported by one of two political parties. A third independent party candidate may have a chance if there are serious problems with the two main parties. The result is there are two choices to vote for who you want to become president. And the choice is not so much about the person, but the political party idea you want.

That is the simple version. The citizen also has thier chance to vote to decide who will be the single choice for each party. But the bottom line is The USA citizen generally has a choice to vote for political party-A or political party-B to put their candidate in the position of president. Voting for anything different is useless. And this exists for the reason you gave. "The primary task of the party is to subsist on top by any means". This forces any candidate who has new innovative ideas for government to change their ideas so they conform to one of the two political parties, so they have a chance of becoming elected. Then, if they are elected, they must carry out the objectives of their party, and only if they are lucky, they might be able to enact some of thier new innovative ideas. The political pressures on elected officials is very strong, so we generally do not see much innovation other than what their party approves of. I can imagine the choices aren't much better in other countries that have this kind of representative government.

But think of the technology we have today... There are online robots watching millions of websites to see who clicks on different links, and spyware watching people's habits of web-surfing, and buying. These robots automatically report back to servers that collate all the data to make very accurate surveys of what people want so they can advise advertisers what products to expect a profit on and what products to forget about.

These robots are a lot more advanced than what it takes to find out what the majoriity of a country wants for laws.
You are correct... there is no science fiction here. We have had the technology for awhile.

So what stops us?
"party itself has primary task - to subsist on top by any means"

Best wishes,
J_P

[WM6]

That's just my opinion. It could be wrong, and it could change over time.

If you have such time? Because:

Then came a gun-men in your office and pinpoint your body.
And then came government and protect your dead golden teeth fillings.
And then came your successor and all the story is repeated.
And then came by natural lawfulness revolution.
And then came by natural lawfulness counter revolution.

Revolution is only part of evolution.

Evolution is free market for those capable to survival.

Free market is free only for strongest player, it can not be free for all.

So, Free market must fall, nevertheless by selfdestruction, by revolution, or by evolution.

Then comming gun-mans.... and .... R Hunting started ...

And then came History and Story repeated.

[J_Player]

If you have such time? Because:

Then came a gun-men in your office and pinpoint your body.
And then came government and protect your dead golden teeth fillings.
And then came your successor and all the story is repeated.
And then came by natural lawfulness revolution.
And then came by natural lawfulness counter revolution.

Revolution is only part of evolution.

Evolution is free market for those capable to survival.

Free market is free only for strongest player, it can not be free for all.

So, Free market must fall, nevertheless by selfdestruction, by revolution, or by evolution.

Then comming gun-mans.... and .... R Hunting started ...

And then came History and Story repeated.

Hi WM6,
I don't understand what you are saying or asking.
My posts are replying to the posts that Ivconic and Fred made to tell them how their ideas are seen from the perspective of a USA citizen who knows the history of events that concern the things they posted about. This is the off-topic forum where we talk about things different than treasure hunting.

Best wishes,
J_P

[ivconic]

" You are exactly right.

In the USA, a candidate does not have a chance in hell to become president unless he is supported by one of two political parties. A third independent party candidate may have a chance if there are serious problems with the two main parties. The result is there are two choices to vote for who you want to become president. And the choice is not so much about the person, but the political party idea you want.

That is the simple version. The citizen also has thier chance to vote to decide who will be the single choice for each party. But the bottom line is The USA citizen generally has a choice to vote for political party-A or political party-B to put their candidate in the position of president. Voting for anything different is useless. And this exists for the reason you gave. "The primary task of the party is to subsist on top by any means". This forces any candidate who has new innovative ideas for government to change their ideas so they conform to one of the two political parties, so they have a chance of becoming elected. Then, if they are elected, they must carry out the objectives of their party, and only if they are lucky, they might be able to enact some of thier new innovative ideas. The political pressures on elected officials is very strong, so we generally do not see much innovation other than what their party approves of. I can imagine the choices aren't much better in other countries that have this kind of representative government.

But think of the technology we have today... There are online robots watching millions of websites to see who clicks on different links, and spyware watching people's habits of web-surfing, and buying. These robots automatically report back to servers that collate all the data to make very accurate surveys of what people want so they can advise advertisers what products to expect a profit on and what products to forget about.

These robots are a lot more advanced than what it takes to find out what the majoriity of a country wants for laws.
You are correct... there is no science fiction here. We have had the technology for awhile.

So what stops us?
"party itself has primary task - to subsist on top by any means"

Best wishes,
J_P "



Exactly!
Now that returns us to the begining of the story; how to beat those?
Well...first we should see who's behind the 2 main political parties.
I know, you know, everybody knows. It is not secret.
So how to beat those?
How to beat and conquer those without real fighting?
Easy.
Do not put you hard earned money in their pockets.
Do not buy thier products. Buy products made by some small independant enterprises. Mix. Change habits.
....
I will again take Coca Cola as an example ( sorry Coca Cola!).
Let's take that Coca Cola has 2 million careers. So...2 millions of fees per month. 2 million taxes. Each employee has familly. Usually 4 members of that familly. So 2*4= 8 millions. 8 millions people are affected if something goes wrong with Coca Cola!! Right?
So...
if 50% of Cola drinkers change their habit and void to buy that product...at least for 2 weeks...! What should be overall losses?
Because Coca Cola must spare significant funds on monthly bases to cover all the expenditures.
Coca Cola will bust. 8 million destinies will be affected. Politic party which was financed from those money will also shake!
......
Take a list of all the daily products you've been buying. Analyze which products were made by which company. Analyze which company is financing which political party.....and you will have complete picture of real situatuon.
Once you do that you will find out the best possible way how to beat the system. Easy and with so less efforts.
System will crash.
What we need is only to synchronize and start acting at the same time.

[WM6]

I don't understand what you are saying or asking.

This is the off-topic forum where we talk about things different than treasure hunting.

Dont worry J_P I am posting off topic too.

If you fear of a revolution, be on her side and you get a monument in bronze. For your monument will have the government confiscate all bronze and copper coin findings. So started counter revolution. Do you understand?

[Fred]

Hi J_P,

I know there is a difference between candidates and democracy , IMO it is precisely in that difference that resides the problem: as long as you are a candidate, you are willing to obtain power thus you cannot be a good president (or whatever)
I know it is utopia but maybe it could work like this: the leaders of each departments could be sorted between a sample of population of different ages,(higher % of new people if we want evolution ) and between each group decisions would be voted.
Similar in a way to obligatory military service of ~1 year that was active in many European countries.
Of course when i talked education i didn´t mean high grade,( i don´t really believe in education either), but just a minimum level that will allow the "chosen" to comply their task. (reading and righting correctly for example )

And about bees i don´t see many places in the world where they can work without a beekeeper stealing their honey... they are all counted...