The single best way to spend Bill Gates’s money.
Posted: 10 February 2011 12:39 PM   [ Ignore ]  
Newbie
Rank
Total Posts:  5
Joined  2011-02-10

Our mission as I see it, is to get the ball rolling on a world government. How can massive amounts of money help us towards this end? We could buy a poor country and run it scientifically (This country could not be a democracy). What this would mean is that every single choice this government made would be made with the ultimate goal of improving the well being of humanity. How would this start us on a path towards a world government? When the people of the world see the overwhelming positive effects that this system of government has on our country and on the rest of the world, they will have to admit that a scientifically run government is better for humanity than democracy ever was. The people of the world would freely vote to give up their right to vote, in favor of having our country’s government run their countries as well.

It seems only reasonable to think that in order to get to the goal of having a world government, we need to be working from within a system that already has the correct laws and policies.

If the money is spent how it no doubt will be spent, by reinvesting in The United States and helping the poor, some good will be done. But it will not have any effect on people’s beliefs or on the way they vote. It will go largely unnoticed by humanity.

I am open to criticism, but only from people who already realize that Sam is correct about morality, there is no reason to have that discussion here.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 11 February 2011 11:18 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 1 ]  
Newbie
Rank
Total Posts:  10
Joined  2011-02-11
Ryan.Pollard - 10 February 2011 05:39 PM

We could buy a poor country and run it scientifically

What if there was a violent uprising because the people of that country didn’t appreciate being bought and used as guinea pigs without consent?  Uninvited ‘help’ is not always appreciated.  Some people might prefer to live poorly on their own terms rather than to live well on someone else’s.  Paradoxically, well-being might require sufficient freedom to allow for choices that do not lead to better well-being.

Also, just because I replied don’t assume that I agree with all of Harris’ theory.

 Signature 

There simply are no absolute values or goals.  It would be convenient and reassuring if there were a rock upon which we could anchor our values, but alas there is none.  The meeker among us create an imaginary rock they call god.  Those who are brave enough to value truth over false certainty sail forth, navigating by our own internal compass, as supernatural fairy tales wash away and fade in our trailing wake.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 12 February 2011 09:34 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 2 ]  
Newbie
Rank
Total Posts:  5
Joined  2011-02-10
Midwest Skeptic - 12 February 2011 04:18 AM

What if there was a violent uprising because the people of that country didn’t appreciate being bought and used as guinea pigs without consent?  Uninvited ‘help’ is not always appreciated.  Some people might prefer to live poorly on their own terms rather than to live well on someone else’s.

Noted, perhaps buying a large amount of previously uninhabited land and claiming it as a country might be a solution that is more conducive to well being. As it stands now their isn’t a single place on this earth that has laws that are rooted in well being. If this hypothetical country existed people who care about the well being of humanity could, for the first time, have a place to live where they actually support the laws and actions of their country.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 September 2011 04:18 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 3 ]  
Newbie
Rank
Total Posts:  38
Joined  2011-08-28

“Our”?


I think you are a troll.  No one is so stupid as to propose that we steal everything one person has in order to “buy a country”.  First off how do you plan to steal Bill Gates assets?  You realize that you’ll have to take on the police, and if you are a foreign invader the army. 


Also, how the hell can you “buy” a country.  No one owns a country.  The closest thing to owning a country is being a dictator.  I don’t think any dicatator would take you cash.  Exactly where would he move, and what would he buy, and how would he protect himself from having his assets confiscated.    Why would the people he originally oppressed accept your “ownership” of them?


Since you are willing to steal assets proportional to the size of a country then why not just invade the tiny country you wish to control.  I don’t think the inhabitants would be any less happy with you than if you bought it.    They have their own culture and will not appreciate a foreign devil like yourself running their lives.  They are not likely to care about science either.


How is your proposal any different than slavery on a mass scale?  You seem to think you can own people on a massive scale.
Who the hell cares about “one world government”? 


So I think you are some Christian troll out to make it look like atheists sit around trying to figure out how to take over the world.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 13 February 2013 01:12 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 4 ]  
Newbie
Rank
Total Posts:  5
Joined  2011-02-10

I’m sorry for this thread, I tend to make myself seem older than I am on the internet by the way I speak. I was young and quite ignorant at the time that I made my first post in this thread. I didn’t understand the way the world works very well in many respects at that time.

Also just to clear up one more thing I was making a reference to a then, recent blog post that Sam Harris made about Bill Gates donating a huge amount of money to something charitable (without actually referencing it directly) when I was talking about spending Bill Gates’s money.

I am not and have never been a troll.

Needless to say my original post and the post I made a few days later no longer reflect my beliefs, sorry for my former stupidity. I denounce my part in this thread.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 13 February 2013 08:31 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 5 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2821
Joined  2005-04-29

Your proposal and later retraction point out something interesting, Ryan. Well-being of conscious creatures is not a subject that is known about or understood on any level except for within historically generated contexts. It seems so simple yet it’s extremely elusive outside of a given context.

 Signature 

Philosophy may in no way interfere with the actual use of language; it can in the end only describe it. For it cannot give it any foundations either. It leaves everything as it is.
Ludwig Wittgenstein

Profile
 
 
   
 
 
RSS 2.0     Atom Feed