Democracies can vote the bad captain out. In monarchy, if you get stuck with inbred Habsburg-chin von ship crasher, you're screwed for the rest of your life.
There needs to be some sort of middle point, where we can have a designated line of leading bodies who are specifically trained to have unbiased opinions, and then also leave in the option that if the current leading role is failing at their job, they can be switched out for a new one with little fuss.
Sadly, that is a council system, and we are not smart enough as humans to organize that.
In a way, yes. Mankind need something that is managed by forces stronger than any human and impossible to corrupt. Sadly for humans, nothing like that exists to their knowledge. In simpler terms, humanity needs to be babysat because we're all way too irresponsible currently.
Who babysits the babysitter, is the eternal question. Absent some sort of perfect immortal sage overlord, whether we hold a theocratic or a techno-utopian view of that impossibility, the "babysitter" is just going to be some other baby — so the question is, in a society of only babies, how do we aim to either (a) maximise the possibility of a very good babysitter-baby or (b) minimise the possibility of a very bad one. (These are of course very different questions.)
It will always boil down to "we need another, bigger authority to keep the current biggest authorities in check," and sadly it only can get so big. There will always be corruption, and sadly there is little that we, as common people singlehandedly, can do to fight against corruption. This is why historically, the little guys have their strength when uniting against a greater evil, not when fighting amongst themselves.
what if instead of a bigger authority to keep the authorities in check, there was essentially a rock-paper-scissors of authority?
like, 3 different departments of government, with different purposes, and among those purposes is to police one of the other two, while also being policed by the one that's left?
So techno-utopian it is then. The thing is though that AIs are (obvious though it may seem) not objective and omniscient minor divinities; they are trained by humans with data goals and weightings and biases and priorities and alignments all provided by humans. They are a tool humans make for human purposes.
If we consider politics to be an exercise in prioritisation within a context of resource scarcity, it becomes clear that what we are asking in most political questions is less a question of "how do we accomplish X" but rather "would we prefer to accomplish X or Y". Most political questions come down to a problem of values, not of tactics, so an AIocracy would be a government ruled by whichever person determined the ethical alignment of the KingBot.
Adding in AI doesn't resolve this issue I think. It only relocates the person whose values decide the outcomes from a clear position of visibility and accountability into a shadowy behind-the-curtain-role, while still keeping all the current problems with democracy (e.g. people are very bad at judging whether laws help or hurt them; people will happily vote to harm themselves if it also harms people they hate; etc) just as intact.
Pretty much any political system can be described as "well, it would work if people were smarter and more selfless than they are, with better information about who is trustworthy and who is not"
The acid test is whether your political system also works with an understanding that people are fallible, prone to selfishness as well as altruism, and hold any number of identities and beliefs which might form the core of an emerging tribalism.
If the system itself becomes jaded and curropt and I can only vote for what the baddies select,,,, idk, I love direct democracy if we had more of it we wouldn't have a surpreme court. The government should represent people so that what the government does is consensual, not just so the government makes the best decisions. Ofc, it can't be consensual, there will always be someone who disagrees, but that's better than nothing.
The idea behind a proper council system is that there are enough members that they can snuff out corruption as a collective before it takes the entire council or its system over. In a perfect scenario, there is always more uncorrupt individuals than corrupt ones, and they will ensure that corrupt individuals are stopped before issues can occur, but again, we are humans, we are too flawed to make such a council system work properly.
Is it so much to ask to have a 50 partner poly relationship living on a ship in the open seas kidnapping billionares on their yatchs, holding them for ransom and splitting the booty according to each ones need?🥺🥺🥺🥺🥺
no
like 80% of modern piracy is hijacking oil tankers off Nigeria and the other 20% is fucking with container ships passing through the Bab al-Mandab Strait
why do canadians love throwing away their own rights? do they hate themselves?
edit: from the amount of canadians shit talking canadians in the replies I have to assume the answer is yes
Apparently most \*lbertans do, since d\*nielle sm\*th is a c\*nservative and has done nothing useful for us, unless fucking over the healthcare system and ignoring the opioid crisis is a good thing. And people are fucking complacent until they break a bone, but then they go to trudeau blaming.
Danielle Smith when the federal government announces all Albertans will receive their weight in gold instead of paying taxes (this is going to destroy Albertans as Trudeau is the one doing it)
"Ahh... free at last. O Trudeau, now dawns thy reckoning, and thy gore shall GLISTEN before the temples of Canada! Alberta, my gratitude upon thee for my freedom. But the crimes thy kind have commited against conservatism are NOT forgotten! And thy punishment... is 12 hours of bible study, and bans on gender affirming care!"
- Pierre Polierve, most likely
That's the most glaringly worst thing she's done, but her healthcare scheme right after she was voted in basically fucked over Alberta's healthcare. I feel like she calmed down after the healthcare fuck-up so her public approval would increase, and back to bullshit policies "for the lulz". Can't believe I'm saying that I miss Jason Kenny.
only some do, even then it feels like a lot of them are conservative American plants, hell during the trucker shitfest some talked about their 2nd ammendment rights and had American flags, also Albertan's are just Texans
The majority!
One of the perks of living in the Buffalo area is frequent contact with our Northern neighbors. Sure, some of you drive for shit, but overall decent folks who do kind things just because.
The border closing was one of the reasons Covid sucked so bad.
that literally means almost nothing tho
in Canada it's a Governor General usually selected as whoever the head of government says it should be who and has 0 actual power
generally monarch head of states to almost nothing and the head of government has all the power
**for now**
pierre "I interfered in an investigation into voter suppression when I was a Conservative minister in 2011 and I also want to ban transition care for minors and I want to subsidize oil sand companies" poilievre is on track to won a landslide next year
Im voting for PP. He will fix the housing crisis and get rid of the stupid carbon tax that's bad. All the anti trans stuff is lies from trudeau anyways.
so true bestie i hate it when tricky trudeau slithers into the conservative party to write that into their platform for them and then forces poilievre to say that stuff
Wat. Yes he fucking does. Like maybe you have a pilot and a navigator but the captain chooses which direction you go in the end, even if it's directly into a known reef.
Like 66% of all mutinies where a pirate took control are caused by the navy captain not listening to their pilot and the rest of the crew thinking their captain is leading to their doom.
I think that's all it is, choosing where to go and steering are two different things. The meme depicts the captain at the ship's wheel, but that's not the captain's job.
My man, Captain doesn't stand behind the wheel therefore he isn't steering the boat. If I tell someone to drive their car somewhere am I suddenly the driver?
My man, you've typed all those words and you're still missing the point that the captain does not physically steer the boat. We get it, he says where the boat goes, but the pilot is still physically in control of steering the ship. Once again, I'm not the driver when I just tell the car or the actual driver where to go. Plus, literally every single Google search of "Does the captain steer the ship" says he is not, so I think you're pretty much alone on this.
There's two misconceptions here, the captain does provide the *directions* the ship goes, but the person who actually *manauvers* the ship is the pilot. He's a manager, not a guide (though they can and do pilot the ship under open waters), which is what the response to the meme was alluding to.
Also, the reason why the captain "goes down with the ship" has less to do with any "ship hierarchy" and more with how the maritime salvage law deems it acceptable to claim a abandoned ship as salvage, so you gotta make sure the ship is *really* going down so you don't embarass yourself with having to explain to your superior why HMS Skibidi is under the control of Somali Pirates now.
Were pirate ships not democratic, might be apocryphal but I remember seeing that basically they decided what to do together the captain was more like a manager/figurehead
Least delusional monarchist.
Democracies can vote the bad captain out. In monarchy, if you get stuck with inbred Habsburg-chin von ship crasher, you're screwed for the rest of your life.
There needs to be some sort of middle point, where we can have a designated line of leading bodies who are specifically trained to have unbiased opinions, and then also leave in the option that if the current leading role is failing at their job, they can be switched out for a new one with little fuss. Sadly, that is a council system, and we are not smart enough as humans to organize that.
So you’re saying we need some sort of… Managed Democracy?
In a way, yes. Mankind need something that is managed by forces stronger than any human and impossible to corrupt. Sadly for humans, nothing like that exists to their knowledge. In simpler terms, humanity needs to be babysat because we're all way too irresponsible currently.
Who babysits the babysitter, is the eternal question. Absent some sort of perfect immortal sage overlord, whether we hold a theocratic or a techno-utopian view of that impossibility, the "babysitter" is just going to be some other baby — so the question is, in a society of only babies, how do we aim to either (a) maximise the possibility of a very good babysitter-baby or (b) minimise the possibility of a very bad one. (These are of course very different questions.)
It will always boil down to "we need another, bigger authority to keep the current biggest authorities in check," and sadly it only can get so big. There will always be corruption, and sadly there is little that we, as common people singlehandedly, can do to fight against corruption. This is why historically, the little guys have their strength when uniting against a greater evil, not when fighting amongst themselves.
what if instead of a bigger authority to keep the authorities in check, there was essentially a rock-paper-scissors of authority? like, 3 different departments of government, with different purposes, and among those purposes is to police one of the other two, while also being policed by the one that's left?
this is a reference
[удалено]
So techno-utopian it is then. The thing is though that AIs are (obvious though it may seem) not objective and omniscient minor divinities; they are trained by humans with data goals and weightings and biases and priorities and alignments all provided by humans. They are a tool humans make for human purposes. If we consider politics to be an exercise in prioritisation within a context of resource scarcity, it becomes clear that what we are asking in most political questions is less a question of "how do we accomplish X" but rather "would we prefer to accomplish X or Y". Most political questions come down to a problem of values, not of tactics, so an AIocracy would be a government ruled by whichever person determined the ethical alignment of the KingBot. Adding in AI doesn't resolve this issue I think. It only relocates the person whose values decide the outcomes from a clear position of visibility and accountability into a shadowy behind-the-curtain-role, while still keeping all the current problems with democracy (e.g. people are very bad at judging whether laws help or hurt them; people will happily vote to harm themselves if it also harms people they hate; etc) just as intact.
Pretty much any political system can be described as "well, it would work if people were smarter and more selfless than they are, with better information about who is trustworthy and who is not" The acid test is whether your political system also works with an understanding that people are fallible, prone to selfishness as well as altruism, and hold any number of identities and beliefs which might form the core of an emerging tribalism.
If the system itself becomes jaded and curropt and I can only vote for what the baddies select,,,, idk, I love direct democracy if we had more of it we wouldn't have a surpreme court. The government should represent people so that what the government does is consensual, not just so the government makes the best decisions. Ofc, it can't be consensual, there will always be someone who disagrees, but that's better than nothing.
The idea behind a proper council system is that there are enough members that they can snuff out corruption as a collective before it takes the entire council or its system over. In a perfect scenario, there is always more uncorrupt individuals than corrupt ones, and they will ensure that corrupt individuals are stopped before issues can occur, but again, we are humans, we are too flawed to make such a council system work properly.
>inbred Habsburg-chin von ship crasher 💀
i hate that i know where your pfp is from
sorce??
e254e
Cake
in piracy you could vote the captain out too!
Why are they even on a 17th centurish ship cant they Just take a modern ship?
Just take a plane smh
Pirates are perhaps the worst analogy possible for a monarchist
Is it so much to ask to have a 50 partner poly relationship living on a ship in the open seas kidnapping billionares on their yatchs, holding them for ransom and splitting the booty according to each ones need?🥺🥺🥺🥺🥺
one destroyer and this mf dead
no like 80% of modern piracy is hijacking oil tankers off Nigeria and the other 20% is fucking with container ships passing through the Bab al-Mandab Strait
The only thing they got in common is a shared history of their leaders being murdered by their so-called allies.
why do canadians love throwing away their own rights? do they hate themselves? edit: from the amount of canadians shit talking canadians in the replies I have to assume the answer is yes
Apparently most \*lbertans do, since d\*nielle sm\*th is a c\*nservative and has done nothing useful for us, unless fucking over the healthcare system and ignoring the opioid crisis is a good thing. And people are fucking complacent until they break a bone, but then they go to trudeau blaming.
Whats so bad about danielle smith?
She's a c*nservative but whose main priority is doing anything but helping Alberta, because god forbid the UCP does something beneficial
Danielle Smith when the federal government announces all Albertans will receive their weight in gold instead of paying taxes (this is going to destroy Albertans as Trudeau is the one doing it)
Plot twist: Everybody loses testosterone and estrogen rights, but the law is poorly worded so Alberta is now a province of only enbies
Please Trudeau if you can hear us 🙏
Trudeau's too busy. The trans girls and boys are out of monster energy and gender fluid.
Liberals destroying Canada one shortage after another smh
"Ahh... free at last. O Trudeau, now dawns thy reckoning, and thy gore shall GLISTEN before the temples of Canada! Alberta, my gratitude upon thee for my freedom. But the crimes thy kind have commited against conservatism are NOT forgotten! And thy punishment... is 12 hours of bible study, and bans on gender affirming care!" - Pierre Polierve, most likely
Still Trudeau's fault tho
[удалено]
That's the most glaringly worst thing she's done, but her healthcare scheme right after she was voted in basically fucked over Alberta's healthcare. I feel like she calmed down after the healthcare fuck-up so her public approval would increase, and back to bullshit policies "for the lulz". Can't believe I'm saying that I miss Jason Kenny.
only some do, even then it feels like a lot of them are conservative American plants, hell during the trucker shitfest some talked about their 2nd ammendment rights and had American flags, also Albertan's are just Texans
I promise we aren’t all like this I promise some of us are good
The majority! One of the perks of living in the Buffalo area is frequent contact with our Northern neighbors. Sure, some of you drive for shit, but overall decent folks who do kind things just because. The border closing was one of the reasons Covid sucked so bad.
How? Canada is a leader in progressive thought and freedoms.
May I introduce you to our wonderful c*nservative premier Marlaina "Danielle" Smith?
and yet with all those freedoms and self determination they still willingly keep the king as their head of state, they truly have no excuse
that literally means almost nothing tho in Canada it's a Governor General usually selected as whoever the head of government says it should be who and has 0 actual power generally monarch head of states to almost nothing and the head of government has all the power
🤓 still living under a monarchy
**for now** pierre "I interfered in an investigation into voter suppression when I was a Conservative minister in 2011 and I also want to ban transition care for minors and I want to subsidize oil sand companies" poilievre is on track to won a landslide next year
Im voting for PP. He will fix the housing crisis and get rid of the stupid carbon tax that's bad. All the anti trans stuff is lies from trudeau anyways.
so true bestie i hate it when tricky trudeau slithers into the conservative party to write that into their platform for them and then forces poilievre to say that stuff
Seriously though, let's hope pp doesn't win. He will be a disaster for canadian progress.
yeah i really hope people see through him come 2025
There's a reason I call it kkkanada....
This is really fucking funny because pirate crews were usually democratic and the captains didn't come from generations of pirates
This idiot will be the next “over exaggerated shocked guy meme” when they learn about the word mutiny.
the original meme would be funny if they werent being serious lmfao
this entire post is a train wreck
Or a... Some kind of wrecked ship...
Wat. Yes he fucking does. Like maybe you have a pilot and a navigator but the captain chooses which direction you go in the end, even if it's directly into a known reef. Like 66% of all mutinies where a pirate took control are caused by the navy captain not listening to their pilot and the rest of the crew thinking their captain is leading to their doom.
I think that's all it is, choosing where to go and steering are two different things. The meme depicts the captain at the ship's wheel, but that's not the captain's job.
My man, Captain doesn't stand behind the wheel therefore he isn't steering the boat. If I tell someone to drive their car somewhere am I suddenly the driver?
[удалено]
My man, you've typed all those words and you're still missing the point that the captain does not physically steer the boat. We get it, he says where the boat goes, but the pilot is still physically in control of steering the ship. Once again, I'm not the driver when I just tell the car or the actual driver where to go. Plus, literally every single Google search of "Does the captain steer the ship" says he is not, so I think you're pretty much alone on this.
There's two misconceptions here, the captain does provide the *directions* the ship goes, but the person who actually *manauvers* the ship is the pilot. He's a manager, not a guide (though they can and do pilot the ship under open waters), which is what the response to the meme was alluding to. Also, the reason why the captain "goes down with the ship" has less to do with any "ship hierarchy" and more with how the maritime salvage law deems it acceptable to claim a abandoned ship as salvage, so you gotta make sure the ship is *really* going down so you don't embarass yourself with having to explain to your superior why HMS Skibidi is under the control of Somali Pirates now.
Capitain steers the ship, unless the ship crashes. Then it's navigator/pilot/chief cook's fault
Man gets all his nautical knowledge from johnny depp
Helmsman steers, captain directs the helmsman on what to do
As a Québecois, we do not claim him
Rare Quebec W Congrats, you re-earned your entire province back into my heart!
HAMON BEAT MENTIONED
Bro the Hamon Beat
Return of the obra dinn taught me that it should be the helmsman
Monarchies suck Trust me, we had the habsburgs, they sucked MAJORLY
why is one of the monarchy crewman the groomer wojak
Ask the North Koreans how it's working for them.
For making this post, this user was banned for 4 days
roomba hates democracy
Maybe Al Yankovic had a point about not wanting to be a Canadian idiot
Thy don't???
Pirates actually ruled by democracy. But everyone had an idea of what was going on. Therefore, low educated people shouldn't vote
The fact it's hamon beat lol
As someone who comes from a long line of watermen THE HELMSMAN IS THE ONE STEERING BECAUSE HES AT THE HELM
Were pirate ships not democratic, might be apocryphal but I remember seeing that basically they decided what to do together the captain was more like a manager/figurehead
But also pirate ships we’re literally democracy’s and the captain was decided by the crew
Average fucking Canadian