I would think that the market plays more to what people want, while also providing what they need.
The Four Institutions
- Thread starter Satya
- Start date
I would think that the market plays more to what people want, while also providing what they need.
My values used to be predominantly church run, at maybe 50%. Secondly, I would have chosen state as the other 50%. Wall Street has never been one of my likings because of day trading, or even minute trading. To me, the Market should be a place where people can invest money into businesses to help them to grow. It seems like the market became more of a place to make a quick buck by buying low and selling high than actual investment into society. The Market thus became a breeding ground for a quick buck instead of a place for true investment. I would give the Market as you have it defined no power whatsoever.
As far as science goes, I feel it best run by the state's 50% or under their jurisdiction. However, given your definition as being the medicinal authority and their goal as health, I could rank them much higher. I do see science as meddling into other affairs in real life, thus granting them much less power. I have had too many negative feelings toward science, the way it is, because of their attitude toward the Church as you defined it. The market should be traded either once daily or once weekly or have some kind of restrictions based on how many transactions can be made and the rate they make them. I feel a large group of people could easily control the market with the way trading is set up within it. It has become its worst enemy in my opinion.
I have changed my values based on(please let me finish) observations within the church in some situations and would grant them much less power. The church is run by people, and the wrong people can have the wrong negative input into society. Same as with anything else, the wrong people in any situation can ruin the outcome. Science has most likely had many people that would help to change my view of their take in the power division, but not the market. Therefore, if the right people were in position to help implement the power and delegate the authority, I would possibly divide the three up equally. I would like the opportunity for change, though, as the people in power in each division change.
Last edited:
Iran is a theocracy not unlike the one you are describing. Women are beaten for defying their husbands and gays are hung in the streets. It doesn't seem quite like the ideal society. Christian theocracies haven't historically been much different. Only a handful of highly liberal Scandanavian countries have managed to pull it off, and even they have passed freedom of religion laws.
You are correct regarding Iran, but they have no checks and balances in their theocracy. I do not feel the "right" people would go around beating women and hanging gays. Their religion that runs their Church is different from mine. The one I described has an equal in state in theory. Given the right people, it has two other equals that could actually outweight the Church in decisions should they sway two thirds one third.
I feel Sharia Law is despicable and an atrocity to humankind.
I see where I am not connecting. In a theocracy, the State is run by someone from the Church.
In my choices, only Church would be governed by people from Church. State would not be governed by anyone from Church.Thus, you would have Church 50% and State without Church 50%. I stated I no longer feel that way because of people.
In my choice today, there would be Church one third, State one third(with NO Church as a part of it), and science one third. Church could only influence one third. Church gets out of line, State and Science overrules Church.
- Nov 12, 2008
- 14,153
- 1,334
- 0
- MBTI
- INFJ
- Enneagram
- 1w2 sx/so/sp
That sounds almost like splitting up countries into smaller areas. I highly doubt this would work at all.
I'm agreeable with this in contrast to four factions. The Market option always bothered me as their only impetus is for maximum profit at minimum loss. In the scenario quoted above, there are checks and balances between 'factions' which hold differing value sets - Church being spiritual, State being the body politic (the people), and Science being objectively detached.
With people making up Church, State, and Science, I do not see the division except in actual decision-making processes. I feel most likely each would be part of the others' functions in some way or another, influencing them in positive ways. There should not need to be division unless there is illness
or sickness(malfunctioning) within one of the groups. I see three as a perfect way of balancing things; each knowing the other two could outweigh it should they get out of line.
Side note, I was reading a book the other day about a gay guy describing being gay and a muslim as well as he used to live in the middle east. Anywho he was saying that it is very common for boys to lose their cherries ot each other and everyone just looks the other way. Even many straight boys would do that. But if you flaunt your gayness by dressing like a gay person from the west or especially the USA then they kill you. I found this pretty interesting cause Kurdish soldiers were always getting caught sucking each other off when I was overseas.
The story also went on about whore houses and such but I digress.
It was a book of a collection of articles, interviews, etc. for some magazine. It had yellow in the cover. Your guess is as good as mine.
Church said no to homosexual marriage. State overruled, Science didn't care. Church was angry, tried to sway State vote back to no homosexual marriage. Church failed. Church says State is evil.
Church said no to homosexual marriage. State overruled, Science didn't care. Church was angry, tried to sway State vote back to no homosexual marriage. Church failed. Church says State is evil.
Note you stated science didn't care. In a triad of power, would they abstain?
If it was a true triad and science had to vote, I expect science would be in favour of it.
What reason does science have to be against homosexual marraige? Pure homosexuality doesn't lead to procreation. Would science say that is a desireable trait to pass on? Not likely, so by allowing homosexuals to marry they become a "self-contained" issue. By banning homosexual marriage, you drastically increase the likelyhood of homosexuals procreating. (I seriously mean no offence to homosexuals - I'm only attempting to be objective here.)
But that's a side issue. Choosing to abstain from voting was how science voted. The church wasn't satisfied with that, and more bickering ensued. Notice that the church didn't appeal to science to vote in favour of banning homosexual marriage.
What I'm saying is that the church tried to use political power inappropriately. I don't think it would be a good idea to allow the church to hold political power, as much as I don't like saying that. It works in the ideal world, but not in the real world.
What reason does science have to be against homosexual marraige? Pure homosexuality doesn't lead to procreation. Would science say that is a desireable trait to pass on? Not likely, so by allowing homosexuals to marry they become a "self-contained" issue. By banning homosexual marriage, you drastically increase the likelyhood of homosexuals procreating. (I seriously mean no offence to homosexuals - I'm only attempting to be objective here.)
But that's a side issue. Choosing to abstain from voting was how science voted. The church wasn't satisfied with that, and more bickering ensued. Notice that the church didn't appeal to science to vote in favour of banning homosexual marriage.
What I'm saying is that the church tried to use political power inappropriately. I don't think it would be a good idea to allow the church to hold political power, as much as I don't like saying that. It works in the ideal world, but not in the real world.
In the real world, I think it very likely state would vote for it one administration and against it another; does that make it not a good idea for state to hold power? Just playing devil's advocate on that one....
Not offended, but you probably ought to look at what science actually says about homosexuality. Current research studies suggest that many animals, like humans, enjoy sexual relations that are not limited to reproduction. Dolphins and Bonobos, for example, are both well known to use sex as a "social tool to strengthen and maintain bonds." Ethnologists have long documented the exchanges of sex to promote group cohesion in social animals. Cementing social bondage is one of the most prominent theorized selective advantages of group selection theory. Experts in the evolution of sex such as John Maynard Smith advocate for the idea that the exchange of sexual favors helps congeal and localize the assortment of alleles in isolated population and therefore is potentially a very strong force in evolution. Homosexuality is likely a group selection trait, which means it is the result of alleles that have become fixed or spread in the human population because of the benefits they bestow on humans as a group, regardless of the alleles' effect on the fitness of individuals within the group.
Source: wiki
In short, restricting it to marriage or not doing so would have little effect on its prevalence in a human population.
If science were to comment on the issue, it would probably cite things like how gay teenagers are 7 times more likely to commit suicide than their straight peers due to the social attitudes held in society towards homosexuality, how homosexual parents have been observed to be just as capable as straight parents at raising children, and how countries that have legalized same sex marriage have seen a drop in STD/HIV rates of transmission as compared to countries that have not.
Last edited: