Is bee smarter than human?

[ivconic]

WM6
Not your country, dear Morgan, your country is beautiful.
System of all country is crap.
And we all (except maybe brave Greek) are crap, because we do not resist to such crapy systems.


Funny thing; you reminded me on that problem! If some organized group of people stands up for their rights and protest peacefully than they will achieve nothing - waste of time only. But if same group stands up and try something radical (to really make some difference) than system decree that group as terorist group. Why Greeks are different? Simply because they are tired of wasting time. As long as Greeks are the only one - we will achieve nothing against the system. If we want to beat the system we must organize on global plan. Tough and hardly possible....but not impossible.
....
And yes system in all countries is crap, i agree.
I was born and lived in almost perfect society - Socialism. Than "system" came here and destroyed everything. It is time for revenge - time to destroy system!

[ivconic]

HUNG:"....Many governments make laws to make treasure hunting illegal, so treasure hunters must be pirates to find treasure.
But when the treasure is found, then all the work becomes worthwhile.
The only problem is to find a way to keep the treasure you find...."


That is true. Same situation here in my country. That's why is better each day to find one gold coin than only in one day to find 100kg hoard, because you will have to watch your back from government and mafia at the same time (aren't those also the same?).

[ivconic]

J Player:
I think governments have made laws to make the government the owner of all valuable things in their juristiction since the first governments.
A good example is taxes. Most governments collect more taxes than they need to perform the job of keeping thier country orderly.

But for treasure, Spain has made laws to say they own all treasure not only in Spanish territory, but many other places far from Spain. The most fair treasure laws I know of are in the UK, where the treasure hunter can have the joy of finding his treasure, and then will be paid a fair price to sell the treasure to the government to put in a museum. I think this is good, because it encourages treasure hunting, and at the same time it preserves the treasures for their historical value to anyone who wants to see the actual artifacts from ancient civilizations.

Best wishes,

[ivconic]

I am 43/44 years old and one thing still is not clear to me at all;
why do we have to pay taxes at all? At least in present (Capitalism) situation, why? Earlier, in Socialism i understood taxes as support for maintaining social equality. But today....? I really don't know?
Ok...i know and i understand..but i do not agree! State gives me big NOTHING so why should i pay anything to it? Ok...forget me, i was born in Socialism and now i am living in very sick verson of musty Capitalism. Let's take USA citizen as much better example. Why USA citizens must pay taxes? What USA gives back to them? What? Everything you must pay for, from your pocket. Nothing is for free. You must work like a horse whole your life to barely survive. Your house is not really yours. Your car is not really yours. You must eat junk food. You must sit on nuclear bomb (nobody asked for you to agree). You must go to war each time "they" decide. If not you, than your children must go to war ...several 000 miles away from your home. Again nobody asked for you to agree. And over all you must pay taxes!? Why? What are you exactly paying for? To watch few rich bustards everyday perversity arround you? I am asking this because i am now in almost the same position, eversince "democracy" knocked on our doors here (without asking me if i want).
So...first step to changes is to stop paying hard earned money for NOTHING.

[ivconic]

Ok...let me put it this way;

if one citizen refuse to pay taxes, he goes to jail and state takes all his goods.
But...if 200-300 millions refuse to pay taxes this year...than what?
.....
That's my idea; to rise sence to majority and to make global change in one simple move. Impossible...? Maybe not!

[ivconic]

Fred:
For you the answer ivconic..

[ivconic]

Originally Posted by Fred
For you the answer ivconic:

Yes you are right!
Bees are smarter than human! I agree!

[ivconic]

"....to rise sence to majority and to make global change in one simple move. Impossible...? Maybe not!..."

Not impossible especially in this era - era of informations, era of internet, era of globalisation.
Internet is most powerfull "weapon" in history. Look at us now; several thousand miles away from each other, yet speaking directly and exchanging ideas and experiences.
Is it impossible to "synchronize" majority of people arround the world to do the same thing in same moment? I don't think so. I think it is possible.
It can start as a funny game and end up as serious thing that can make global change.
...

[ivconic]

What to ask from majority of human population?
Money? No! Personal datas? No! Much effort? No!
Enough will be to ask something funny and unusual which involves no effort at all, no personal risks, no money....
What than?
For example: "do not buy and drink Coca Cola for one week" would be quite enough for a start!
or
"do not buy gas and do not drive a car at least 3 days" - would be more than enough!
or
"do not turn on and watch tv today, instead go outdoor and walk in some park"...
or
"do not accept vaccine against "mexican" flue, because it is fake and lie"..
etc...etc...etc..

You see my point?


Beleive me or not...but if at least 50% od Coca Cola drinkers skip to drink it just for one week - Coca Cola will bust totally!
And if Coca Cola bust than USA government will not have enough money to start new war! Voila! (it is just picturesque example of main idea)

Can you see the point?
"Are you experienced!? (Jimmy Hendrix)"

[ivconic]

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!

[J_Player]

Originally Posted by ivconic

I am 43/44 years old and one thing still is not clear to me at all;
why do we have to pay taxes at all? At least in present (Capitalism) situation, why? Earlier, in Socialism i understood taxes as support for maintaining social equality. But today....? I really don't know?
Ok...i know and i understand..but i do not agree! State gives me big NOTHING so why should i pay anything to it? Ok...forget me, i was born in Socialism and now i am living in very sick verson of musty Capitalism. Let's take USA citizen as much better example. Why USA citizens must pay taxes? What USA gives back to them? What? Everything you must pay for, from your pocket. Nothing is for free. You must work like a horse whole your life to barely survive. Your house is not really yours. Your car is not really yours. You must eat junk food. You must sit on nuclear bomb (nobody asked for you to agree). You must go to war each time "they" decide. If not you, than your children must go to war ...several 000 miles away from your home. Again nobody asked for you to agree. And over all you must pay taxes!? Why? What are you exactly paying for? To watch few rich bustards everyday perversity arround you? I am asking this because i am now in almost the same position, eversince "democracy" knocked on our doors here (without asking me if i want).
So...first step to changes is to stop paying hard earned money for NOTHING.

Hi Ivconic,
I think people all over the world have questions of what they get out of their government, and which is the best government method. A question I often wondered is "what would happened if the government is removed, and people left to run the country on their own"?

At first I can see some big advantages. For example, there is no longer a need to spend 30 years or longer to own a home. It would seem a person could build a home and have it completely paid for within a few years. And once you buy a car, you would be the owner without needing to take it for inspections and yearly licences. You would not pay taxes. Keep all the money you earn and don't waste time figuring out how much to pay to the government. This would work with any government that was removed.

But wait...
After a few years your car would be no good because the roads are falling apart. Time to buy a tractor to go where you want. And something funny going on at the bank. Your money is no longer there. Ok, time to go back home. What!! Somebody Burglarized my house. It would have been nice if the government is still around to keep the basic things working.

So we see there are some things that it is good to have a government for.
The question is what things are important for the government to do?

In my opinion, I don't mind paying taxes for the things I described above and other basic things to any government that is ruling the place I live. The question comes when we look at things that some people don't think are necessary, or may be a waste of money.

Most Americans talk of the greatness of capitolism and a "Democratic Government" They have lots of examples to prove socialism is not good. But I think it really depends on how the government is conducted. For example, democracy started in Greece a long time ago. Their version of democracy was not very similar to the way democracy works in the USA. The govenrment of the early Greeks cannot be compared to the modern American government because they were two very different ways to apply democracy. The same is true of socialism. I have seen examples of how it works well, and some bad examples too. In fact I know people who live in socialist countries whose lifestyle is not much different than the lives of US citizens that have a carreer in the military. The US military appears to work very similar to some of the socialist countries from the perspective of the citizen. And I don't hear those Americans complaining about how awful life is in the military. They talk about the benefits they get that non-military people must take care of on thier own.

What is the best method of govenrnment? I don't know for sure. But I do know I don't like when a government makes decisions that most of the citizens don't want. I don't like the idea that people cannot work hard and get ahead. The reason for having a government is to protect a group of people from things that destroy the quality of life. Maybe governments are responsible for the reason we have developed civilizations, and don't need to worry about things like cave men did, and we can live past an average age of 25. But if you have the feeling that all your life is spent trying to survive, there doesn't seem to be much quality of life left.

The answer?
Revolution? That has been done when enough citizens are upset enough with their government. It is not fun, but it has resulted in a better government in some cases.

Evolution? The slow change in government laws and methods is what currently happens with established governments. For some, it isn't fast enough, or the changes are lop-sided so the laws favor certain classes of citizens.

What else is there?
I guess you could go to some remote place where no government was dealing with you. Of course it would remove you from your home and things you may not want to part with.

The only real advantage to democracy I can see is not in the way it is applied, but in the principle that it is a representative form of government. 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. If this isn't happening in a particular application of democracy, then it is not the principle of democracy that failed, it is the people who applied it.

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

Best wishes,
J_P

[joecoin]

Yes, the Internet, initially paid for by USA tax payers dollars. USA taxpayer also enjoys a wonderful system of roads built by government, pretty good court system with checks and balances, regulation of radio/TV frequencies (no overpowering signals), wonderful National and State parks, free libraries, free 12 years education (16 years in California), free food if you are poor enough, subsidised hosing, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security pension, Police, Fire and EMS services, garbage collection, museums and Sandia Laboratories.

Yes, there is a lot of waste of tax dollars. I believe that 50% of my taxes are wasted.

[ivconic]

What effort would be to persuade one small man not to be servant of globalism just for one week (more than enough time to crash the system)?

[ivconic]

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. Todays system is serving to minority against majority.
Where is solution? Where is exit (for us - small people)?

[ivconic]

Originally Posted by joecoin

Yes, the Internet, initially paid for by USA tax payers dollars. USA taxpayer also enjoys a wonderful system of roads built by government, pretty good court system with checks and balances, regulation of radio/TV frequencies (no overpowering signals), wonderful National and State parks, free libraries, free 12 years education (16 years in California), free food if you are poor enough, subsidised hosing, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security pension, Police, Fire and EMS services, garbage collection, museums and Sandia Laboratories.

Yes, there is a lot of waste of tax dollars. I believe that 50% of my taxes are wasted.

Uhhh...if not much more than 50%!!!

[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]

Originally Posted by ivconic

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]

Originally Posted by 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...

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]

Originally Posted by 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?

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]

Originally Posted by 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)...

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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