Communist

Is there even one that does? We currently have two (maybe only one) politicians that do.

even if it gave us one more that’d be a lot haha, things are just that terrible here.

Yup, but they at least have political parties that support free healthcare.

you’re forgetting how terrible the american parties are.

That isn’t good evidence, we don’t have a large sample size and the culture can vary highly depending on the conditions at the start.

One country, even 10 countries, would not be a scientific study.

I think in the us it’d be possible to have a party that supports universal healthcare. Sure they’d still be libs but that would still massively help.

All it does is make the political bribery slightly more expensive.

I disagree, i think it makes it possible for 3rd parties to succeed, maybe not in practice, but at least theoretically, which is a worthwhile change. But let’s grant that that’s all it does… that’s still a good thing and not worth opposing.

At a deeper level, representative elections always result in an oligarchy. The wealthy / economically dominant classes are the only ones who have enough money / prestige to finance their campaigns and win the popularity contest. It makes any political system based on elections nothing more than political theatre.

Yup, I agree with all this, but i don’t see it as a reason to oppose better election systems.

You’re right that it doesn’t solve much but the two party system in the US is particularly terrible. Fundamental change is a lot harder to achieve than changing voting systems and even with a socialist state we’d want one of these, so I think there’s no point opposing it even if it isn’t a panacea

deleted by creator

deleted by creator

deleted by creator

deleted by creator

deleted by creator

deleted by creator

deleted by creator

deleted by creator

i’ve used dvorak but I plan to switch to a charachorder

They don’t of course, but the leading argument to not use china’s system was always because of human rights, when there is no human rights or economic advantage, etc, it becomes pointless to resist marxist leninism, except to advocate anarchism.

That reply makes no sense, also communists believe personal property and private property are two different things. Nobody would take your clothing… did you really think no communist philosopher ever thought of that?

their influence on your decision making process does not imply free will

This means that nothing about free will is important in any decision making process, and thus free will is just a garbage concept that has no bearing or meaning in reality.

Even if there was such a thing as free will, it would be completely unimportant in decision making.

it is hard to imagine free will has nothing to do with why you don’t hold the tree morally responsible.

It doesn’t, let’s imagine free will separate from knowledge, reasoning, experience, etc. No amount of knowledge, reasoning, experience would prevent the tree from falling according to the laws of physics, that’s why I don’t hold the tree accountable. The tree has no knowledge, no reasoning, no experience, no morals, so, even if it could freely make the choice not to do it, because it doesn’t have those things, it doesn’t matter at all.

Do you think knowledge, reasoning, experience, and risks do not play any role in our decisions?

Sure, it is inevitable that we will make the decision we make, but it’s not that the marble will fall down every time that makes our choices significant, it’s the fact that we don’t arbitrarily make decisions.

If, because you know about determinism, you stop bothering to learn about the world, there will be a different outcome, even if that was inevitable, that’s how you influence the world. Free will doesn’t mean anything and isn’t important.

Even if there was free will, those things would be vastly more important than it. Free will is totally unimportant.

if god exists, he defines what evil is.

There’s no way to make babies having cancer moral. There’s no version of that god that is any good. If this isn’t a test, why give babies cancer?

what is the difference in the case of the agent vs. the marble?

The agent made its decision based on knowledge, reasoning, experience, the risks, the morals. A marble doesn’t have knowledge, humans do, even if we’re deterministic, we can make decisions, it’s just that the decision will be made no matter what. That doesn’t free us from the responsibility of our decisions.

Just because the agent would’ve never made a different choice, doesn’t mean these things don’t matter anymore, it’s wholly irrelevant to whether or not we should punish them.