NationStates Jolt Archive

I know this sounds completely stupid, and I will be ridiculed for even suggesting something like this but...do you think countrys would be better off if they were made up of only/mostly people who genarally had the same feelings about how their country shuld be run?

Down with text speak...

Now honestly, unless we can muster a good technocracy democracy is the best option there is. Its not perfect, but then nothing is.

do you think countrys would be better off if they were made up of only people who genarally had the same feelings about how their country shuld be run?
A one-party system (as you are suggesting) tends to kinda be despotic over time. . .

Down with text speak...

Now honestly, unless we can muster a good technocracy democracy is the best option there is. Its not perfect, but then nothing is.

yeah I knew this would get some criticism, but hey it was just a thought

A one-party system (as you are suggesting) tends to kinda be despotic over time. . .


The idea system would probably be four parties, all of them similarly popular. Unfortunately, this rarely happens. You either end up with a one-party system (called dictatorships), or a two-party system, where the parties spend most of their time trying to successfully kill off the other party rather than listening to the people.

It has already been proven communism does not work. Even the Celts cannot agree with each other, just ask the Irish and Scottish. :fluffle:

yeah I knew this would get some criticism, but hey it was just a thought

Well you were hardly going to get support, i wasnt criticising, merely pionting out that democracy really is the best we've got at the moment, if you want critisism look below.

"omfg j00 commie nazi, my f4therz g0nn4 c0/\/\3 b3a7 j00 up."

Thank you.

The idea system would probably be four parties
They certainly would generate much more political diversity . . . but with four parties it might be good to switch to a "preferential vote" to elect officials

Well you were hardly going to get support, i wasnt criticising, merely pionting out that democracy really is the best we've got at the moment, if you want critisism look below.

"omfg j00 commie nazi, my f4therz g0nn4 c0/\/\3 b3a7 j00 up."

Thank you.

I didn't mean it like that.

I know this sounds completely stupid, and I will be ridiculed for even suggesting something like this but...do you think countrys would be better off if they were made up of only/mostly people who genarally had the same feelings about how their country shuld be run?

"Democracy arises out of the notion that those who are equal in any respect are equal in all respects; because men are equally free, they claim to be absolutely equal. "
Aristotle

"In a democracy the poor will have more power than the rich, because there are more of them, and the will of the majority is supreme. "
Aristotle

"Republics decline into democracies and democracies degenerate into despotisms. "
Aristotle

"Dictatorship naturally arises out of democracy, and the most aggravated form of tyranny and slavery out of the most extreme liberty. "
Plato

"Those who are too smart to engage in politics are punished by being governed by those who are dumber."
Plato

"The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal. "
Aristotle

Democracy - The Tyranny of the Majority. Democracy aims to weaken the mind of the individual, more so with the invention of the television, because the parties are constantly debating jargon to get elected while the real issues are delt with silently, without any imput from the society. We need a form of government which incorperates the freedom of democracy with the wisdom of an aristocracy, and the love of a monarch for his/her people and to provide a symbol of the government (like BB in 1984 except a real person). Hmmm... now, how to implement this?

I know this sounds completely stupid, and I will be ridiculed for even suggesting something like this but...do you think countrys would be better off if they were made up of only/mostly people who genarally had the same feelings about how their country shuld be run?
No. Organizations which lean preponderantly toward one style of management or culture or race or sex or any other sub-set of the populace at large tend to do less well than more inclusive organizations.

I know this sounds completely stupid, and I will be ridiculed for even suggesting something like this but...do you think countrys would be better off if they were made up of only/mostly people who genarally had the same feelings about how their country shuld be run?

It seems like Germany, Russia, China, and several other countries tried that for a while and it didn't seem to work out so well for the people.

The idea system would probably be four parties, all of them similarly popular. Unfortunately, this rarely happens. You either end up with a one-party system (called dictatorships), or a two-party system, where the parties spend most of their time trying to successfully kill off the other party rather than listening to the people.
When there is little consensus, as would be indicated by four "similarly popular" parties could, and often do periodically result in political gridlock.

It has already been proven communism does not work. Even the Celts cannot agree with each other, just ask the Irish and Scottish. :fluffle:

What does Communism have to do with democracy vs dictatorship?

I didn't mean it like that.

Am i ever going to be right here :D, that makes Chick angry.

Seriously... Technocracy is the way the truth and the light.

....or

there could be a nation wide poker game.Yeah, we could charge a $500 entrance fee. It would be texas hold 'em. Or maybe just a friendly game of strip poker. nothing wrong with that.

....or

there could be a nation wide poker game.Yeah, we could charge a $500 entrance fee. It would be texas hold 'em. Or maybe just a friendly game of strip poker. nothing wrong with that.
Before I'll ever agree to political strip poker, they're going to have to come up with some SERIOUSLY better looking politicians! :D

How's this for an image: strip poker with Hillary? ROFLMAO!

Am i ever going to be right here :D, that makes Chick angry.

Seriously... Technocracy is the way the truth and the light.

no youre right. I probably would hate that way (or I could just have several summer homes in other country's) . but then I look at how bad America is nowadays and their really should be some reformations of some kind

....or

there could be a nation wide poker game.Yeah, we could charge a $500 entrance fee. It would be texas hold 'em. Or maybe just a friendly game of strip poker. nothing wrong with that.

Except that im crap at poker, this all just sounds like ungodly indoctrination, any true follower of Chick would suggest... .... canasta instead.

Before I'll ever agree to political strip poker, they're going to have to come up with some SERIOUSLY better looking politicians! :D

How's this for an image: strip poker with Hillary? ROFLMAO!

yeah lol. like George Orwell always said: "All naked politicians are equal, but some naked politicians can be mentally damaging to see and therefore should live in a colony somewhere in northern Canada"

yeah lol. like George Orwell always said: "All naked politicians are equal, but some naked politicians can be mentally damaging to see and therefore should live in a colony somewhere in northern Canada"
ROFLMAO!!! I KNEW there was some reason I liked ole' George! :D

Except that im crap at poker, this all just sounds like ungodly indoctrination, any true follower of Chick would suggest... .... canasta instead.

isn't that the game that 70 y/o's play after they retire to florida?

Down with democracy? I know, right? When are those silly plebs going to realize that I know what's best for them and submit to my will and whims?

isn't that the game that 70 y/o's play after they retire to florida?
when I said that game, I was reffering to canasta, NOT strip poker. Senior Citizens playing strip poker in florida is not the image I was hoping to see.

isn't that the game that 70 y/o's play after they retire to florida?

Having never been to Florida or indeed about 47 states of America i wouldnt really know, but i have at least some competance at it, though i cant atm remember the rules or indeed anythign about it. This does not dampen my conviction, if the great Chick were here he'd support me.

when I said that game, I was reffering to canasta, NOT strip poker. Senior Citizens playing strip poker in florida is not the image I was hoping to see.

And i was refering to strip canasta, in fact ive gone off the idea. Lets just take a generous helping from the drug buffet and move on.

O.O

Having never been to Florida or indeed about 47 states of America i wouldnt really know, but i have at least some competance at it, though i cant atm remember the rules or indeed anythign about it. This does not dampen my conviction, if the great Chick were here he'd support me.
who is this great "chick" you refer to?

who is this great "chick" you refer to?
!!! Sinner, you have not seen the light, i'll rustle you up the link to the thread.

I know this sounds completely stupid, and I will be ridiculed for even suggesting something like this but...do you think countrys would be better off if they were made up of only/mostly people who genarally had the same feelings about how their country shuld be run?

Tell me, are you talking about the government of a country or about its people? In other words, do you actually mean, as everyone seems to have taken it, that it would be better if there were a united (totalitarian) government and hence no democracy, or do you actually mean that it would be nice if the population of a country were sufficiently homogeneous to agree with each other on most issues, thereby removing the need for democracy?

Given that I see democracy as a safety valve rather than an ideal, I'm rather inclined to agree with the latter!

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=387759

This will tell you all you need to know of Chick

Tell me, are you talking about the government of a country or about its people? In other words, do you actually mean, as everyone seems to have taken it, that it would be better if there were a united (totalitarian) government and hence no democracy, or do you actually mean that it would be nice if the population of a country were sufficiently homogeneous to agree with each other on most issues, thereby removing the need for democracy?

Given that I see democracy as a safety valve rather than an ideal, I'm rather inclined to agree with the latter!

umm..the second one

I know this sounds completely stupid, and I will be ridiculed for even suggesting something like this but...do you think countrys would be better off if they were made up of only/mostly people who genarally had the same feelings about how their country shuld be run?

And at the current moment, countries (other than despotism, dictatorships, and non-voting or non-representational goverments) tend to have goverments which the people like. Your question is vague, please restate it.

And technocracy is too expensive.

And technocracy is too expensive.

But what is expense to human happiness?

What does Communism have to do with democracy vs dictatorship?

I do think that democracy defeated the communist dictatorship. Am I wrong?

No, it needs to be MORE democratic. Get rid of the office of President, it dosen't seem to do anything except cause dictators. Take up a system which gives seats for total % of votes with a single parliament. Then you get a multi-party system as opposed to a 2 or 1 party one.
Here is how it works, instead of counties and so on you take total percentage of votes. If there are 100 seats in the US Senate then in the 2004 election Republicans get 51 seats, Democrats get 48 seats (Note that once the system had been in place longer more votes would be cast for third parties as it would no longer be "throwing your vote away"), each seat votes on an issue as US senate does now (I hope), hence the party with the most seats controls the government but it is quite frequently a minority and forced to make a coalition with another party. Since there is no President the leading party's head person is techinically in charge but the party can depose him if they feel he is not good enough.
Anyway it works very well in New Zealand

And at the current moment, countries (other than despotism, dictatorships, and non-voting or non-representational goverments) tend to have goverments which the people like. Your question is vague, please restate it.

And technocracy is too expensive.

Most people are idiots. For a start, approx. half of people have an IQ of less than 100. Most people need not have opinions regarding politics. Most people don't in fact care about polotics anymore because in a democracy, if you are in the minority, you have NO say whatsoever.

Technocracy is a very dangerous concept.

No, it needs to be MORE democratic. Get rid of the office of President, it dosen't seem to do anything except cause dictators. Take up a system which gives seats for total % of votes with a single parliament. Then you get a multi-party system as opposed to a 2 or 1 party one.
Here is how it works, instead of counties and so on you take total percentage of votes. If there are 100 seats in the US Senate then in the 2004 election Republicans get 51 seats, Democrats get 48 seats (Note that once the system had been in place longer more votes would be cast for third parties as it would no longer be "throwing your vote away"), each seat votes on an issue as US senate does now (I hope), hence the party with the most seats controls the government but it is quite frequently a minority and forced to make a coalition with another party. Since there is no President the leading party's head person is techinically in charge but the party can depose him if they feel he is not good enough.
Anyway it works very well in New Zealand

In a pure democracy, there are no leaders. A computer tallies the votes of the people on every piece of legislation.

Technocracy is a very dangerous concept.

Elaborate.

WHAT IS TECHNODEMOCRACY???? :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang:

WHAT IS TECHNODEMOCRACY???? :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang:
Very elloquant (damn i cant spell it)

technocracy can be found here, i think, i must admit i have never read this site but im going to have to assume it's accurate.

http://www.technocracy.ca/simp/begin.htm

Elaborate.

I don't know what the hell this radical fundamentalistic brand of christianity is all about, but this chick shit is a load of crap

I don't know what the hell this radical fundamentalistic brand of christianity is all about, but this chick shit is a load of crap

Could i just say technocracy has nothing to do with Chick, i merely frequently use his name to try and make him a complete joke in everyones eyes, in the same way i do Hitler and other terrible figures of history.

Could i just say technocracy has nothing to do with Chick, i merely frequently use his name to try and make him a complete joke in everyones eyes, in the same way i do Hitler and other terrible figures of history.

I didn't mean to say he had something to do with technocracy. I am still not even sure what either of them are

Elaborate.

Certainly. If scientists were in control, ethics fly out the window. Massive resources are thrown into research which would advance our scientific knowledge, but, unless the scientists took complete responsibility for the possable consequences of their work - which some do, but not all would, humanity becomes an organism and the individual ceases to exist. Culture dies. Technology and science must be regulated by philosophy or at least political jargon.

technocracy

n : a form of government in which scientists and technical experts are in control

&

democracy

n : the political orientation of those who favor government by the people or by their elected representatives.

THEREFORE, a "Techno-democracy" would be a gov't ruled by a group of techomancers (great word) who vote on various issues... basically, in my opinion, a step away from extreme liberty, which (again) in my opinion should be the absolute goal of all gov'ts.

technocracy

n : a form of government in which scientists and technical experts are in control

&

democracy

n : the political orientation of those who favor government by the people or by their elected representatives.

THEREFORE, a "Techno-democracy" would be a gov't ruled by a group of techomancers (great word) who vote on various issues... basically, in my opinion, a step away from extreme liberty, which (again) in my opinion should be the absolute goal of all gov'ts.

oh

Technomancer is indeed a great word, but the aim of technocracy is the freedom of the individual through the use and developement of technology. Which i feel is the best way to inform the common man rather than just some geeky matrix dream.

well it's been nice discussing a topic with you which in my opinion has been warped into something that I don't understand, but the PS2 beckons. lol. cya later

Technomancer is indeed a great word, but the aim of technocracy is the freedom of the individual through the use and developement of technology. Which i feel is the best way to inform the common man rather than just some geeky matrix dream.

Inform? I dislike that word. Most people I've met who have considered themselves 'informed' individuals are of the kind who know the price of everything and the value of nothing.

Inform? I dislike that word. Most people I've met who have considered themselves 'informed' individuals are of the kind who know the price of everything and the value of nothing.

Well then, enlighten. As we all know Buddhism is the true way to live your life :P.

Most people are idiots. For a start, approx. half of people have an IQ of less than 100.

Is that the category you fall into? Most people are not as smart as you?

Most people don't in fact care about polotics anymore because in a democracy, if you are in the minority, you have NO say whatsoever.

I do think the mirority does have a say in the debate, however in a democracy the majority rules. If it didn't it wouldn't be a democracy. Are you an advocate of minority rule?

Is that the category you fall into? Most people are not as smart as you?



I do think the mirority does have a say in the debate, however in a democracy the majority rules. If it didn't it wouldn't be a democracy. Are you an advocate of minority rule?

I am what I am. If others consider me to be intelligent or wise, that is up to them. If they consider me stupid, equally so. An IQ test shows little other than ability to sit IQ tests, I cited it to make a point. Thus, mine is irrelevant.

Yes, I am an advocate of minority rule. Many people for whom I have great repect in terms of intellect and wisdom think so also. If you vote for the party/politician/etc. which/who doesn't gain majority support, your opinion is forfeit.

Well then, enlighten. As we all know Buddhism is the true way to live your life :P.

Substitute the word 'educate' for 'inform' and I have no problems. Truth has no place outside the individual circumstance. For a buddhist, of course, buddhism is the true way to live; For a christian, christianity; etc. Except when meant in the sense of 'the opposite of pretense'.

Substitute the word 'educate' for 'inform' and I have no problems. Truth has no place outside the individual circumstance. For a buddhist, of course, buddhism is the true way to live; For a christian, christianity; etc. Except when meant in the sense of 'the opposite of pretense'.
You, of course, have a piont (or two :P)

You, of course, have a piont (or two :P)

:) It's just a pet hate of mine. Technocracy could work, better than democracy at any rate, but I fear it would easily loose the plot if not strictly regulated. We are growing more technologically powerful every year but we are yet young. After all, a little knowlegde can be a dangerous thing. (I quote my chemistry teaher. Mmm... Caesium in water. :D )

I've been reviewing the posts so far, and I've noticed a trend in the responses:Its a good idea in theory, but doing so would defeat the need for democracy. I have to admit that I agree with that, but what you must understan is that I didn't intend for you to interpret this as dividing people up based on what their feelings are about how democracy alone should work, but instead dividing people up based on what type of government they believe is best for them. As I see it, all of you have understood my question as regarding democracies alone. But in fact it regards all governments in existence, whether that means democratics, communists, socialists, fascists, totalitarianists, anarchists, monarchists, or what ever else there is.

I know this sounds completely stupid, and I will be ridiculed for even suggesting something like this but...do you think countrys would be better off if they were made up of only/mostly people who genarally had the same feelings about how their country shuld be run?
NO

that would be a "one party system" and it doesnt guarantee anything except that the needs of the group in power would be met.

anything that requires human beings to be high minded and selfless is doomed to failure.

I've been reviewing the posts so far, and I've noticed a trend in the responses:Its a good idea in theory, but doing so would defeat the need for democracy. I have to admit that I agree with that, but what you must understan is that I didn't intend for you to interpret this as dividing people up based on what their feelings are about how democracy alone should work, but instead dividing people up based on what type of government they believe is best for them. As I see it, all of you have understood my question as regarding democracies alone. But in fact it regards all governments in existence, whether that means democratics, communists, socialists, fascists, totalitarianists, anarchists, monarchists, or what ever else there is.

No, I understood you, even if no one else did. ;)

Democracy is not so much a system of government as a system for selecting the government. If people agree on the system of government by their nature, then democracy is superfluous, and the people will be happier for it.

This leads on to a suggestion: would it be true to say that, if everyone were free to move to the country whose system they were happiest with, that would solve everything? I think not, because prosperous countries would attract people out of proportion, but many of them would want to preserve their prosperity by being protectionist... but that's a totally different issue.

I've been reviewing the posts so far, and I've noticed a trend in the responses:Its a good idea in theory, but doing so would defeat the need for democracy. I have to admit that I agree with that, but what you must understan is that I didn't intend for you to interpret this as dividing people up based on what their feelings are about how democracy alone should work, but instead dividing people up based on what type of government they believe is best for them. As I see it, all of you have understood my question as regarding democracies alone. But in fact it regards all governments in existence, whether that means democratics, communists, socialists, fascists, totalitarianists, anarchists, monarchists, or what ever else there is.

A system that doesn't exist yet. All the ones that do have failed miserably in all but a few cases. Nazism could work. (If you remove the racism.)