Political Philosophy discussion

I was thinking about soft take off, where some country simply gains more and more technological advantage compared to rest of the world.
Not exactly what I'd call technological singularity though.
 
Technological singularity is where you're discovering new information at a rate faster than learning would normally be possible. Where your access to information is growing exponentially. It's kinda like a learning black hole and rapidly you know everything in a moment.

Maybe we mean something different by technological singularity and what you're referring to is simply exponential technological growth.
 
Technological singularity is where you're discovering new information at a rate faster than learning would normally be possible. Where your access to information is growing exponentially. It's kinda like a learning black hole and rapidly you know everything in a moment.

Maybe we mean something different by technological singularity and what you're referring to is simply exponential technological growth.
I guess then hard takeoff is asymptomatic growth, and soft takeoff would be faster than exponential growth, like getting two techs in turn, while others only gain one tech per turn.
 
Usually they say that Technological Singulariy starts when you have Superhuman AI, so AI starts to construct the next generation of AI, leading to a runaway effect. Of course, after designing them it still takes time to construct the new AI units, and that time cannot become infinitesimally short, so it doesn't go full singularity in the mathematical sense. But it could certainly get to a point where the doubling time of knowledge goes down to weeks, or perhaps days, instead of several years, like it is now.
 
Trans Agenda is much truer than that. George Soros really is a bastard, he's just not THE bastard. 9/11 was an inside job. So overall 2 out of 10 for the meme list, and all such attempts to discourage "conspiracy theories" that are plainly true.
 
9/11 was an inside job
Yeah I think when you impartially look at all the details on this it's pretty obvious, and almost hilariously so.
 
Does anyone know what's going on in Sweden? They passed the opposition's budget, which the PM was apparently fine with, but she resigned when her coalition partner objected. She was reinstated, so what happens to that budget now? If there's a scenario where a left-of-centre government has to abide by a right-of-centre budget, that's as cynical a fail of democracy (and in a Scandinavian utopia no less) as any I've heard of.
 
Does anyone know what's going on in Sweden? They passed the opposition's budget, which the PM was apparently fine with, but she resigned when her coalition partner objected. She was reinstated, so what happens to that budget now? If there's a scenario where a left-of-centre government has to abide by a right-of-centre budget, that's as cynical a fail of democracy (and in a Scandinavian utopia no less) as any I've heard of.
The budget as it was negotiated is a product of the election result, negotiated forth by elected representatives from each party, the right side is in majority in Sweden, but there is one big right side party none of the other right side parties will make a coalition executive branch with, which is why the left side gets to have the PM, as the left side parties are together bigger than the right side minus the untouchable party on the right.
When the environment/green party left the executive branch in protest to the negotiated budget, the executive branch went from bein in minority to being even more in minority, the PM resigned but was asked to come back, this resignation and return doesn't really hold much significance.
The left side executive branch would have had to use the right side budget even if the greens had stayed in their office and even if the PM never resigned/returned.

There's been quite a bit of political crisis in Sweden lately, but minority executive branches are not uncommon in Scandinavian countries, and it being possible at all is one of the strong sides of our democracies, a bit of discourse and drama among our representatives just shows that they are doing their jobs and signs of a healthy representative democracy. ^^

Italy is imo a better example of a democracy that historically fails, their government break down periodically for sports it seems, like something is wrong if they have political stability for too long.

P.S. Americans reading this must not be confused when I say right side in this context, this right side in Sweden is more akin to socialist on your spectrum..
 
The budget as it was negotiated is a product of the election result, negotiated forth by elected representatives from each party, the right side is in majority in Sweden, but there is one big right side party none of the other right side parties will make a coalition executive branch with, which is why the left side gets to have the PM, as the left side parties are together bigger than the right side minus the untouchable party on the right.
When the environment/green party left the executive branch in protest to the negotiated budget, the executive branch went from bein in minority to being even more in minority, the PM resigned but was asked to come back, this resignation and return doesn't really hold much significance.
The left side executive branch would have had to use the right side budget even if the greens had stayed in their office and even if the PM never resigned/returned.

There's been quite a bit of political crisis in Sweden lately, but minority executive branches are not uncommon in Scandinavian countries, and it being possible at all is one of the strong sides of our democracies, a bit of discourse and drama among our representatives just shows that they are doing their jobs and signs of a healthy representative democracy. ^^

Italy is imo a better example of a democracy that historically fails, their government break down periodically for sports it seems, like something is wrong if they have political stability for too long.

P.S. Americans reading this must not be confused when I say right side in this context, this right side in Sweden is more akin to socialist on your spectrum..
A progressive allowed to govern as long as she implements her opposition's kleptocrat agenda is every kind of cynical fail in my book.
 
Trans Agenda is much truer than that. George Soros really is a bastard, he's just not THE bastard. 9/11 was an inside job. So overall 2 out of 10 for the meme list, and all such attempts to discourage "conspiracy theories" that are plainly true.
Yeah, it misses some classic gems like 9/11
Also there are few missing fringe conspiracy theories.
Far right thinking, that Theory of Relativity is hoax, because Albert Einstein is Jewish.
End of the World conspiracy theories are missing too.

Also transagenda/LGBTagenda is something that far right enjoys to parrot - some stuff about culture war you hear is strawman from opposite extremes.

Generally Far Left and Far Right would gladly remove globalists and top 1% of richest people.
Both extremes hate current elites and select scientific/technological achievements.
Seems like its conspiracy that anarcho-primitivists would enjoy - raze enough hierarchy and civilization to return to prehistoric - medieval times.
Far left and far right pretty much disagree at one thing:
Far left wants perpetual childhood - mandatory pampering by state and enforced equality, far right want barbaric social darwinism, so its very hard to meet any needs, while wants are relatively cheap.

Whatever billionaires, cult/organized religion followers/leaders and conspiracy theorists are doing may be permanently derailed by technological singularity, or at least by consistently advancing tech. ;^)
 
Last edited:
A progressive allowed to govern as long as she implements her opposition's kleptocrat agenda is every kind of cynical fail in my book.
A budget decided by the majority of a nation is a fail in your opinion? You don't seem to understand too much about Scandinavian democracies.
Do you think it would be more democratic if the PM somehow had the power to force parliament (the parliament is the true representation of the people btw) to accept the budget presented by her minority party?
That would be authoritarian in my book.

Edit: I personally dislike the budget that won the day in Sweden, but the alternative would imo be just slightly better, so meh.
 
Last edited:
A budget decided by the majority of a nation is a fail in your opinion? You don't seem to understand too much about Scandinavian democracies.
Do you think it would be more democratic if the PM somehow had the power to force parliament (the parliament is the true representation of the people btw) to accept the budget presented by her minority party?
That would be authoritarian in my book.
A majority of Parliament is not a majority of the nation. If the regressive party really has majority support of the people (and I'm not sure this has ever happened anywhere), then it should appoint a PM. Why is Andersson pretending to be in charge, while doing the bidding of her adversaries?
 
A majority of Parliament is not a majority of the nation.
It is in Scandinavian countries, we don't really vote for who will be PM, we vote forth the parliament composition.
The party of the current PM in Sweden only won with 28,3%, so it would be entirely wrong for her party to dictate the state budget, the PM mostly only have the power to propose the direction of the ship (country), and parliament has to approve the proposal for it to happen.

wikipedia: "Andersson governs with a minority single-party government. When Andersson was confirmed by the Riksdag a second time on 29 November, it became the smallest Swedish government since 1979, relying on only 100 of 349 parliament members (29%)."

The environment/green party that left the executive branch had only 4.4% of the votes, so before they left it it only had 34.7% of the peoples votes.

P.S. We have a minority government in Norway right now too, although it is not quite as much in minority as with our Swedish Neighbour, our government rule with 39.8% of the people's votes. It too experienced a bit of drama and quarreling surrounding the state budget shortly after the election.
 
Last edited:
It is in Scandinavian countries, we don't really vote for who will be PM, we vote forth the parliament composition.
The party of the current PM in Sweden only won with 28,3%, so it would be entirely wrong for her party to dictate the state budget, the PM mostly only have the power to propose the direction of the ship (country), and parliament has to approve the proposal for it to happen.

wikipedia: "Andersson governs with a minority single-party government. When Andersson was confirmed by the Riksdag a second time on 29 November, it became the smallest Swedish government since 1979, relying on only 100 of 349 parliament members (29%)."

The environment/green party that left the executive branch had only 4.4% of the votes, so before they left it it only had 34.7% of the peoples votes.

P.S. We have a minority government in Norway right now too, although it is not quite as much in minority as with our Swedish Neighbour, our government rule with 39.8% of the people's votes. It too experienced a bit of drama and quarreling surrounding the state budget shortly after the election.
Andersson is not the PM. "Prime Minister" has to mean something, namely head of government. If not, abolish the role and make her the Speaker or give her some meaningless title.

Is there really credible polling that the people support this budget? Is it not the same case as everywhere else, that no party is willing to go as far left as the people want, and the people are prevented in various underhanded ways from obtaining candidates that will implement their will?
 
Andersson is not the PM. "Prime Minister" has to mean something, namely head of government. If not, abolish the role and make her the Speaker or give her some meaningless title.
It means head of executive branch, but even the head of the executive branch has to abide and respect the separation of power our democracy is based on. And the legislative branch has to approve the state budget.
I guess you are of the opinion that the president of the united state should get a meaningless title too as the US state budget has to be approved by congress.
Why is Andersson pretending to be in charge, while doing the bidding of her adversaries?
(sorry for jumping back to your previous post, but it felt relevant to my post as a whole)
This statement is not a serious one, she is in charge of the ministerial cabinet, of the executive branch, she is not the boss of the people, she is the servant of the people, so she has to abide with the majority of the peoples representatives in parliament. And there are some powers held by the executive branch that doesn't require legislature approval, especially during crisis where quick actions are needed. Are you really saying representative democracies like Sweden are not totalitarian enough for your taste? I don't think this is what you're really trying to express btw, but that is the unfortunate impression I get.
Is there really credible polling that the people support this budget? Is it not the same case as everywhere else, that no party is willing to go as far left as the people want, and the people are prevented in various underhanded ways from obtaining candidates that will implement their will?
The budget is a product of the election result, if the majority of Swedes cannot accept the budget compromise the representatives they voted forth has made then they will have to reconsider their vote, or found a new party if none of the parties represent their view well enough.

If your point is that replacing representative democracy with direct democracy will provide a state budget that reflects the population better, then that's your prerogative, but then I don't see why you would single Sweden out.
 
This whole thread is detached from reality....seriously detached...:rolleyes::cringe::grouphug:
 
Top Bottom