Texas is still at it

Humans are social by nature though, we literally can't exist without some form of "society" The more proper question to be answered is what is civilization for then.

 

In that respect, maybe we should get politics out of our government.

.

 

Most definitely. Politicians use their shrewdness tact and cunning to get paid. You don't need shrewdness tact and cunning to run a garbage company.

 

It is plain, plain, plain to me that the reason for, not civilization but "enculturation", is to consolidate power for the leaders of the group. The group in turn looks to leadership to give them power in the world. While it is practice, it does not have to be so.

 

I've already stated that I believe BIG corporations control out nation. They do this in many ways, one of which is to bankroll both political parties and flood congress with their representatives called Lobbyists. Neither Democrats nor Republicans are immune to millions of $ in payments for Corporate desired legislation.

.

 

Most animals are social by nature, and if you observe life very closely you will find the same is true for insects and even plants in their own way. Any life form that is incapable of replication simply by cell division must have social interactions, at least on occasion.
An even better question would be "What is the purpose of life?"
Once you have answered that question conclusively, you might then begin to answer questions of society and civilization more appropriately.
Is organic life in the universe even a necessity?

 

Society : a body of individuals living as members of a community; community. (Random House Dictionary)

A society is a community, a community is a society

What is being asked is how that community should be run, on what lines, what should be its goal, who should be its beneficiaries and to what extent?

 

Well I have to agree with you on this post. Why though, when we find something we can agree on as being a problem, don't we combine forces to resolve it?

 

The model may change according to the size of the community, how intimately everyone is involved. The beneficiaries of community should be every member, no one excluded, to the extent that you participate.
What do we expect from this question. Are we to consider it with fresh eyes or do we consider that it must be some kind of continuation of the status quo because the inertia of present practice makes it difficult to accept change?
Above all education is the key to cultural modification.

 

Some prefer debate to communication.

 

I'm shocked.....and skeptical. From your previous posts I would think your reaction would be to blame this on the poor for making bad choices. But, if you have a rational solution, I'm all ears.

.

 

You know me so well. But, isn't debate a form of communication taught in universities and colleges around the world?

.

 

The only thing I didn't like about college debates was when you had to defend a position you did not agree with. That may be essential if you plan to go into politics, but not very useful to produce desirable results in any jobs I ever had.

 

That might come in handy if you worked as a BP spokesman now.

The rational for that is simple. If you can defend a position you don't agree with, you become more adept at defending your own opinions.

.

 

This is really the only way to win a debate.

 

In my work, where we had a common goal, it was the facts that mattered and they were most often easily accepted as being the same by each of us. I've always found that determining what the facts are to much more useful than winning the debate. Knowing what is true is much more useful than being recognized as the winner of the debate. At least this appears to be true in solving problems.

 

Politics and economics doesn't have "facts", it has opinions and schools of thought backed up by oral arguments, this isn't physics.

 

But there are facts, many of them, and without recognizing them as such the opinions that we allow to prevail only worsen and complicate the problems further. It might be time for us to try and separate the facts from the opinions, if any positive results are to be obtained.

 

Political theory is an abstract subject, therefore political "facts" can only be abstract; fact and opinion are indistinguishable.

.

 

I usually find that facts are proven, while opinions are not.
Is it not a fact that some have more than others? Some have jobs and some do not? Or am I to consider these only to be opinions?