NationStates Jolt Archive

Over the years the American population has become disillusioned with politicians, who always seem to lean one way or the other too much. Their chosen party reeks of hypocrisy whether they be liberal or conservative.
I have seen in my country men an ideal, rather a set of ideals, which they hold near to their hearts. The line which defines “republican” and “democrat” is so thin at times, it should simply be thought of as a label. Neither party can be described as a “thinking mans organization.” They wish to indoctrinate their members with radical rhetoric, with no basis or roots in intellect or modern society.

Rather they wish to play on fear, mutual fear of one another, and scapegoats which they have created to pave their path to power. Like the Nazis of old who blamed the Jews for every ill, the conservatives blame “terrorists”, “freedom haters”, and those who they claim to be “immoral.” While liberals point their fingers at “racists”, “sexists”, and “bigots.” All of these statements, and accusations are hypocritical, the parties members by no means follow any of these values which they espouse. I have always firmly believed, the more radical a person or group is, the more hypocritical. Michael Moore, and Rush Limbaugh are living, breathing examples of this principle. A classic example are the Puritans, who wished to escape persecution from the Catholic church, proved to be more intolerant of other religions than their “oppressor.”

Extremist thought leads to cults, blood lust, wars, and death. That is why I wish to see a centrist party arise from this chaotic field of fanatics. Sensibility should no longer be divided into two camps, we should not have to settle for a fundamentalist or a bleeding heart liberal as our president. If we can eliminate extremist leanings once and for all, on both spectrums, we can ensure an eternal peace. All of the injustice caused by these two wretched beasts will no longer terrorize the American people.

You can point your finger at whoever you like, but when it comes down to it, we are all guilty of the decadence of our nation. To place the blame on an individual, or segment of the population is true Stalinist behavior. To have a scapegoat of any kind is Fascism, and ignorance. I understand governments need a common enemy to unite the populace, as the masses never seems to unite under anything positive or constructive, proven by history and countless psychological tests.

We need to make something new, without roots in any of the old ideals or notions. I am not speaking of anarchism, for that is the ideology of confused adolescents with little understanding of politics. What I have written is by no means idealistic, it is completely plausible, and a new third party is a viable solution to our current situation. Rather than speaking of the wicked world that we live in, and listing the countless problems, I prefer to write about the world that could be, what it will be, given time and effort. Don’t be afraid to stand up, join together, remember, united we are strong.

I am not speaking of anarchism, for that is the ideology of confused adolescents with little understanding of politics.
:mad:
Adolescent we all are not, nor do we all misunderstand politics.

:mad:
Adolescent we all are not, nor do we all misunderstand politics.

Obvisouly you have an adoloscent frame of mind, as you discarded the entire paper, and focused on that one sentence.

You are a radical, an extermist, no better than Hitler or Stalin.(or Bush for that matter)

Extremist thought leads to cults, blood lust, wars, and death. That is why I wish to see a centrist party arise from this chaotic field of fanatics. Sensibility should no longer be divided into two camps, we should not have to settle for a fundamentalist or a bleeding heart liberal as our president. If we can eliminate extremist leanings once and for all, on both spectrums, we can ensure an eternal peace. All of the injustice caused by these two wretched beasts will no longer terrorize the American people.

This sounds like an authoritarian load of crap. You blame the ills of society on a certain group, and then appeal to our fears of losing our well being.


We need to make something new, without roots in any of the old ideals or notions. I am not speaking of anarchism, for that is the ideology of confused adolescents with little understanding of politics. What I have written is by no means idealistic, it is completely plausible, and a new third party is a viable solution to our current situation. Rather than speaking of the wicked world that we live in, and listing the countless problems, I prefer to write about the world that could be, what it will be, given time and effort. Don’t be afraid to stand up, join together, remember, united we are strong.

You not only managed to completely degrade one valid system of government through a complete lack of understanding, but then you proceed to pile on empty rhetoric.

I am not even sure what you are proposing here.

Obvisouly you have an adoloscent frame of mind, as you discarded the entire paper, and focused on that one sentence.

You are a radical, an extermist, no better than Hitler or Stalin.(or Bush for that matter)
Or maybe that was the only part she disagreed with, and you made her into a scapegoat so that you could discard her beliefs without having to address them in a rational manner.

Obvisouly you have an adoloscent frame of mind, as you discarded the entire paper, and focused on that one sentence.
I did not "discrad the entire paper" as you claim, I just did not have anything to say about it that I would deem useful. If that is adolescent, then I don't know what isn't.
You are a radical, an extermist, no better than Hitler or Stalin.(or Bush for that matter)
Ooh, thanks for the insult.
:)

Obvisouly you have an adoloscent frame of mind, as you discarded the entire paper, and focused on that one sentence.

You are a radical, an extermist, no better than Hitler or Stalin.(or Bush for that matter)

That is the single most irrational jump of logic I have seen on NS, and that is saying a LOT.

This sounds like an authoritarian load of crap. You blame the ills of society on a certain group, and then appeal to our fears of losing our well being.




You not only managed to completely degrade one valid system of government through a complete lack of understanding, but then you proceed to pile on empty rhetoric.

I am not even sure what you are proposing here.


I don't take the word "authoritarian" as an insult. A soicety can be egilitarian and authoritarian at the same time. What group am I blaming the ills on? I am blaming it on every leaning.

What I am proposing is a moderate soicety.

That is the single most irrational jump of logic I have seen on NS, and that is saying a LOT.

I don't see where you are coming from. If your going to be an asshole, please leave. Soicety doesn't need people like yourself.

Eugenics, it's a beautiful thing, governmental selection.

I don't take the word "authoritarian" as an insult. A soicety can be egilitarian and authoritarian at the same time. What group am I blaming the ills on? I am blaming it on every leaning.

What I am proposing is a moderate soicety.
So, you think that the government shouldn't take a stance on anything? That sounds rather extreme to me. In fact, I might say it borders on anarchy, so that obviously isn't what you're suggesting.

What, specifically, are you suggesting?

I don't see where you are coming from. If your going to be an asshole, please leave. Soicety doesn't need people like yourself.

Eugenics, it's a beautiful thing, governmental selection.
I am confused by this statement.
By that, are you stating that your centrist system will endorse eugenics? Or are you simply expressing distaste for Vittos?

And, you might want to be a bit slower on the insults yourself if you are going to condemn another for doing so.

So, you think that the government shouldn't take a stance on anything? That sounds rather extreme to me. In fact, I might say it borders on anarchy, so that obviously isn't what you're suggesting.

What, specifically, are you suggesting?

A soicety in that combines ideals of the left and right wing. Death penalty, pro-choice, gun control, lower taxes, non-interventionist, etc.

Do you really think that OUR government acts on anything? Democracy is an extremly inefficient form of governing a large nation.

Democracy is an extremly inefficient form of governing a large nation.
What is your alternative proposal for government structure?

I am confused by this statement.
By that, are you stating that your centrist system will endorse eugenics? Or are you simply expressing distaste for Vittos?

And, you might want to be a bit slower on the insults yourself if you are going to condemn another for doing so.

Have you ever heard of "liberal eugenics?" If not look it up. Eugenicsism is a great thing, and we should implement it as swiftly as possible.

What is your alternative proposal for government structure?

Dictatorship

I think that instead of parties, each candidate should run on his own platform. :D
If you want to rule, make your own ideas of what is right, don't let a corrupt system tell you how to do it, and worse, force you into only 2 viewpoints.

A soicety in that combines ideals of the left and right wing. Death penalty, pro-choice, gun control, lower taxes, non-interventionist, etc.

Do you really think that OUR government acts on anything? Democracy is an extremly inefficient form of governing a large nation.
Well, that doesn't sound half bad, but it does sound 40% bad.

It's a good thing OUR government isn't a democracy, then.

I think that instead of parties, each candidate should run on his own platform. :D
If you want to rule, make your own ideas of what is right, don't let a corrupt system tell you how to do it, and worse, force you into only 2 viewpoints.

I agree with that statment. That is why I have combined authoritarian elements with the ideology.

Have you ever heard of "liberal eugenics?" If not look it up. Eugenicsism is a great thing, and we should implement it as swiftly as possible.
Ah, I had not heard the term "eugenics" used for that before. I now understand.

Well, that doesn't sound half bad, but it does sound 40% bad.

It's a good thing OUR government isn't a democracy, then.


Yes I know it techinically is not a democracy. But do you know how long it takes for a bill to become a law? Literally years, the congress never acts on everything. The gross ineffeciencies are sickening.

I don't take the word "authoritarian" as an insult. A soicety can be egilitarian and authoritarian at the same time. What group am I blaming the ills on? I am blaming it on every leaning.

What I am proposing is a moderate soicety.

What you want to do is limit thinking, and that is immoral. You have moderate views and you want to force others to have moderate views.

I don't see where you are coming from. If your going to be an asshole, please leave. Soicety doesn't need people like yourself.

Eugenics, it's a beautiful thing, governmental selection.

What is this about adolescent views? Espousing eugenics and typing out half-assed political viewpoints with no real point does not mask your lack of maturity.

And when NA stated that Anarchism is not an adolescent viewpoint, your calling her a radical in the vein of Hitler and Stalin was the single greatest jump in logic I have ever seen.

Stalin, btw, would have loved your "no extreme thoughts" thoughts on politics.

Dictatorship
Would the people have no say in what this dictator decided was right?

Yes I know it techinically is not a democracy. But do you know how long it takes for a bill to become a law? Literally years, the congress never acts on everything. The gross ineffeciencies are sickening.
You're sounding like an anarchist again. You really ought to get that checked out.

I am appalled at the negative reaction to this post!!! This is one of the most coherant and well thought out topics I have seen in some time! Must you question, dissect and attack everything that comes your way??

Blaming the ills of society, nay, the world, on extremism and inflammitory rhetoric seems quite reasonable to me. If everyone were rational and thoughtful in their lives, there would be peace and harmony.

I consider myself to be a centrist and a moderate. Every group has its extremists, I believe that is unavoidable. The two party system also has its benefits (keeping politics moderate and preventing radical fringe parties), but our two parties are much too strong. They have created a polarized, dualist society: left or right, republican or democrat. Rather than make a third party, I believe that the current parties need to be weakened. By limiting the ability of the party to support candidates financially, elected officials would no longer be required to toe the party line in order to guarantee election funds. Campaign finance reform holds the key to bringing in this new moderate way of thinking. Reduce the strength and influence of the parties and let congressmen think for themselves. Eventually, the media and the public will relax their deathgrip on dualism and embrace independent thinking.

Given that the government is always controlled by one party or the other, I cannot forsee either party reducing the influence of political parties in government. They have far too much to lose. Unfortunately, short of myself somehow becoming president (I can dream!) it seems unlikely that moderate independent thought is about to become the norm.

posting a manifesto on a jolt forum? now thats jus sad. Go take an Ak and go to Times Square with some of your friends and wave a red flag or something, shooting wildely in the air, then you'll get some attention. and who uses the word "nay" anymore, are you Jesus or something? What do you want? And what the hell does "Appaleded" mean anyway.

What you want to do is limit thinking, and that is immoral. You have moderate views and you want to force others to have moderate views.


Is it not just, for a man of genuis, to trangress moral law, if it will ultimately benifet soicety?

Is it not just, for a man of genuis, to trangress moral law, if it will ultimately benifet soicety?
That one's easy. No, it is not.

I am appalled at the negative reaction to this post!!! This is one of the most coherant and well thought out topics I have seen in some time! Must you question, dissect and attack everything that comes your way??
Well, yes, seeing as after questioning him/her, s/he is supporting a dictatorship. Questioning and dissecting are good, they are what allow us to learn about our environment and others around us.

Is it not just, for a man of genuis, to trangress moral law, if it will ultimately benifet soicety?

Genius? Says who? Who says your right? YOU! but no one else, or very few. forget the oligarchy dude, it wont work

I am appalled at the negative reaction to this post!!! This is one of the most coherant and well thought out topics I have seen in some time! Must you question, dissect and attack everything that comes your way??
I'm not attacking. I'm criticizing. It's a means of supporting the author, and it allows him to improve his ideas. I do agree with some of the things he said, and that's why I bother.

Wow, this guy (thread starter) is an idiot. Since when is Anarchism an "adolescent viewpoint"? Last time I checked, most Anarchists were educated adults with at least some grasp of politics, which you clearly lack.

What is this about adolescent views? Espousing eugenics and typing out half-assed political viewpoints with no real point does not mask your lack of maturity.

And when NA stated that Anarchism is not an adolescent viewpoint, your calling her a radical in the vein of Hitler and Stalin was the single greatest jump in logic I have ever seen.

Stalin, btw, would have loved your "no extreme thoughts" thoughts on politics.

I was surprised you havn't jumped on his comment to "just leave" yet, since you have aboutr 500 times the number of posts as him and are (given his entrance) much more respected.

Anarchism simply will not work.

We tried it back in the early days of Homo Sapiens. Human nature drove us to steal and kill and rape. Thus, we developed social organization and rules. One thing that has remained constant for human history (except in radical anarchist colonies) is that we have been governed by rules. Whether a legal, moral, or religious set of rules, they have structured our society for thousands of years.

Anarchy sucks. Stop blindly questioning authority. Its just as bad as blindly accepting it.

Everybody on both sides, tone down the insults a bit.
It would be a bit sad seeing somebody get a warning over this.

I'm not attacking. I'm criticizing. It's a means of supporting the author, and it allows him to improve his ideas. I do agree with some of the things he said, and that's why I bother.

Good. By the tone of some of the replies (not necessarily yours) I was inclined to think otherwise. Debate is healthy! Blind, hateful argument is not.

That one's easy. No, it is not.

YES IT IS. If mankind will benifet, then yes. As long as it doesn't cost lives, it is fine.

The suppersion of extermist thought could be the greatest thing since the invention of fire.

Whether a legal, moral, or religious set of rules, they have structured our society for thousands of years.
Anarchy does not forego morality.

YES IT IS. If mankind will benifet, then yes. As long as it doesn't cost lives, it is fine.

The suppersion of extermist thought could be the greatest thing since the invention of fire.
How are you planning to suppress it without losing lives?

Anarchism simply will not work.

We tried it back in the early days of Homo Sapiens. Human nature drove us to steal and kill and rape. Thus, we developed social organization and rules. One thing that has remained constant for human history (except in radical anarchist colonies) is that we have been governed by rules. Whether a legal, moral, or religious set of rules, they have structured our society for thousands of years.

Anarchy sucks. Stop blindly questioning authority. Its just as bad as blindly accepting it.

Well, you need to be educated in Anarchy and what exactly it is as a political viewpoint. I shall take that upon myself now.

No person (I believe) is completely an Anarchist, in that they want to return to thoes early days. Thoes are the Primitivists, a small minority of Anarchists. Most Anarchists believe that the government should be as small as possible and infringe on the individual as little as possible. Very rarely do Anarchists declair "lawlessness". There will always be laws, because conflict is an obvious and real part of human nature. But government is not, and should not exist to the extent it does today.

Everybody on both sides, tone down the insults a bit.
It would be a bit sad seeing somebody get a warning over this.

It would be very ironic, considering the topic is about moderate thought, and sensibillity.

Anarchy does not forego morality.

Or law, at least not completely. Or is my brand of Anarchy (Liberitarian Socialism) too weak for you? ;) :p

Perhaps you could enlighten me about the finer points of anarchy?

Off the top of my head, it's something like having no government. By which there is no means for preventing people from stealing, raping, etc.

I am appalled at the negative reaction to this post!!! This is one of the most coherant and well thought out topics I have seen in some time! Must you question, dissect and attack everything that comes your way??

Blaming the ills of society, nay, the world, on extremism and inflammitory rhetoric seems quite reasonable to me. If everyone were rational and thoughtful in their lives, there would be peace and harmony.

I consider myself to be a centrist and a moderate. Every group has its extremists, I believe that is unavoidable. The two party system also has its benefits (keeping politics moderate and preventing radical fringe parties), but our two parties are much too strong. They have created a polarized, dualist society: left or right, republican or democrat. Rather than make a third party, I believe that the current parties need to be weakened. By limiting the ability of the party to support candidates financially, elected officials would no longer be required to toe the party line in order to guarantee election funds. Campaign finance reform holds the key to bringing in this new moderate way of thinking. Reduce the strength and influence of the parties and let congressmen think for themselves. Eventually, the media and the public will relax their deathgrip on dualism and embrace independent thinking.

Given that the government is always controlled by one party or the other, I cannot forsee either party reducing the influence of political parties in government. They have far too much to lose. Unfortunately, short of myself somehow becoming president (I can dream!) it seems unlikely that moderate independent thought is about to become the norm.

Seeing as neither the democrat or republican party are anywhere near extreme, his "manifesto" does not address this problem.

Well, you need to be educated in Anarchy and what exactly it is as a political viewpoint. I shall take that upon myself now.

No person (I believe) is completely an Anarchist, in that they want to return to thoes early days. Thoes are the Primitivists, a small minority of Anarchists. Most Anarchists believe that the government should be as small as possible and infringe on the individual as little as possible. Very rarely do Anarchists declair "lawlessness". There will always be laws, because conflict is an obvious and real part of human nature. But government is not, and should not exist to the extent it does today.

Ah. From what I know, I would call that libertarianism. Small government, as few infringements on individual rights as possible. And laissez-faire capitalism too!

Yeah, this would be a word issue. You say "anarchy" and I think of lawlessness, but your idea of anarchy is the same as my idea of libertarianism.

hey look, its a fascist

It would be very ironic, considering the topic is about moderate thought, and sensibillity.

True.

YES IT IS. If mankind will benifet, then yes. As long as it doesn't cost lives, it is fine.

The suppersion of extermist thought could be the greatest thing since the invention of fire.
NO IT ISN'T. Nice argument, huh?

Do you honestly think that you can suppress extremists without costing lives? They're the ones you have to worry about oppressing.

YES IT IS. If mankind will benifet, then yes. As long as it doesn't cost lives, it is fine.

The suppersion of extermist thought could be the greatest thing since the invention of fire.

You do realize that this genius who breaks moral laws to change society is one of the extremists you so vehemently despise, correct?

Ah. From what I know, I would call that libertarianism. Small government, as few infringements on individual rights as possible. And laissez-faire capitalism too!

Yeah, this would be a word issue. You say "anarchy" and I think of lawlessness, but your idea of anarchy is the same as my idea of libertarianism.

Ok, that's what I thought. I'm not for complete anarchy, for the reason I mentioned: human nature will always cause any attempt at it to fail. P.S. I'm also somewhat collectivist, so keep capitalism away from me.

I was surprised you havn't jumped on his comment to "just leave" yet, since you have aboutr 500 times the number of posts as him and are (given his entrance) much more respected.

I brushed it off, there was no reason to respond as I am most certainly not going to just leave.

I brushed it off, there was no reason to respond as I am most certainly not going to just leave.

I see, your good. Stand up, brush it off.

Ok, that's what I thought. I'm not for complete anarchy, for the reason I mentioned: human nature will always cause any attempt at it to fail. P.S. I'm also somewhat collectivist, so keep capitalism away from me.

So your personal vision of anarchy would be like Libertarianism sans capitalism, right?

Ok, that's what I thought. I'm not for complete anarchy, for the reason I mentioned: human nature will always cause any attempt at it to fail. P.S. I'm also somewhat collectivist, so keep capitalism away from me.

There is a desire, I believe, among anarchists to use a libertarian style government to slowly condition people to act in a more communal behavior, where everyone generally works for the better of the community while still maintaining their liberty and rights.

It is sort of a willful communism.

Ok, that's what I thought. I'm not for complete anarchy, for the reason I mentioned: human nature will always cause any attempt at it to fail. P.S. I'm also somewhat collectivist, so keep capitalism away from me.
I suppose I should outline what I support.
I'm not one of those "run outside and throw a brick at a cop" "anarchists" that really just want an excuse to cause trouble. What I feel is that at some point we will be able to overcome the basic human nature of greed which is not quite as useful as it once may have been. However, we aren't able to do that at all now. It would be a very bad thing if the government was suddenly overthrown and taken down overnight. At the moment, I view government as a necessary evil. The policies I support are libertarian and socialist-leaning, although not extremely so.

Ah. From what I know, I would call that libertarianism. Small government, as few infringements on individual rights as possible. And laissez-faire capitalism too!

Yeah, this would be a word issue. You say "anarchy" and I think of lawlessness, but your idea of anarchy is the same as my idea of libertarianism.

Yeah Takuma, you aren't an anarchist.

Libertarians are hypocrites anyway, many of them support the Iraq war, yet they despise the taxes which pay for the war effort.

Yeah Takuma, you aren't an anarchist.

Libertarians are hypocrites anyway, many of them support the Iraq war, yet they despise the taxes which pay for the war effort.
Uh, no. Libertarians are non-interventionist. At least get your facts right if you're going to characterize a group.

EDIT: And even if they did support the war, they would support the taxes that paid for it. They would not support the taxes that pay for welfare, health care, corporate welfare, etc.

So anyway, regarding the party system and moderate thought...

I firmly believe campaign finance reform is the best thing that could happen to the US. I read somewhere that candidates' access to the media is worse in the US than in places like... Ukraine. There needs to be a way to be a competitor in an election without spending hundreds of millions of dollars in money from special interests!!

Only when elected officials stop making decisions for those who funded their campaigns and start making decisions based on what they believe is right and wrong (or god forbid the good of the country!) can we have a meaningful democracy. Many areas, including the environment, corporate welfare, foreign policy, tort reform, and perscription drugs, would see great improvements once the corporations and unions fade from their current position of political infuence.

Libertarians are hypocrites anyway, many of them support the Iraq war, yet they despise the taxes which pay for the war effort.
Hmm?
If you are referring to "big L" Libertarians, as in the US Libertarian Party, they are firmly anti-war. And despise taxes? I'm not sure if it's quite that strong, they simply want to eliminate unneeded government-funded programs.

Uh, no. Libertarians are non-interventionist. At least get your facts right if you're going to characterize a group.

If you've listened to Neil Bortz and his callers, then you would see what I'm talking about.

Correct, officially the libertarian party is isolationist. But the libertarians I have come into contact with support the war.

Uh, no. Libertarians are non-interventionist. At least get your facts right if you're going to characterize a group.

I think the libertarian school of thought does include isolationism.

That said, isolationism isn't all that great. Neither is unilateral action. We need a more powerful and meaningful UN to protect nations from international threats.

Nazis of old... pfft, you speak of it as they were in the middle ages. It was 60 years ago, not even an entire lifetime. And eugenics is a policy the NAZIS adopted, they made up their minds to kill Jews, Catholics, Gypsies, and Gays because they believed that they were blemishes in the gene pool and the cause of "society's" problems. Who the hell are you to determine who is a bad person in eugenisist standards? The Nazis were insane murderers, just like you would be if you had any power. Let's hope you never do, murderer.

So anyway, regarding the party system and moderate thought...

I firmly believe campaign finance reform is the best thing that could happen to the US. I read somewhere that candidates' access to the media is worse in the US than in places like... Ukraine. There needs to be a way to be a competitor in an election without spending hundreds of millions of dollars in money from special interests!!

Only when elected officials stop making decisions for those who funded their campaigns and start making decisions based on what they believe is right and wrong (or god forbid the good of the country!) can we have a meaningful democracy. Many areas, including the environment, corporate welfare, foreign policy, tort reform, and perscription drugs, would see great improvements once the corporations and unions fade from their current position of political infuence.

You would love the modern anarchists view of society.

But the libertarians I have come into contact with support the war.
Well, ask around here. You'll find plenty that aren't.

So anyway, regarding the party system and moderate thought...

I firmly believe campaign finance reform is the best thing that could happen to the US. I read somewhere that candidates' access to the media is worse in the US than in places like... Ukraine. There needs to be a way to be a competitor in an election without spending hundreds of millions of dollars in money from special interests!!

Only when elected officials stop making decisions for those who funded their campaigns and start making decisions based on what they believe is right and wrong (or god forbid the good of the country!) can we have a meaningful democracy. Many areas, including the environment, corporate welfare, foreign policy, tort reform, and perscription drugs, would see great improvements once the corporations and unions fade from their current position of political infuence.

Or abolish the entire corrupt system of "voting"

Oh come on, attacking someone who argues for less ideological fanaticism?

Eugenics is a very interesting topic.

Theoretically, extending Darwinian evolution to today's society, we are devolving. The weak are not dying, they are given a chance to reproduce. We help them. Genetic diseases are becoming more common (or perhaps simply more commonly diagnosed). Their flawed genetics are passed along and spread. It would be in the interest of long-term human survival to not allow them to reproduce.

That being said, it sounds rather horrible and immoral by our social standards. I certainly do not embrace this harsh policy toward those with inheritable diseases. I do recognize the science behind that point of view, but I don't know what we should do about it.

So your personal vision of anarchy would be like Libertarianism sans capitalism, right?

Yes, basically. True anarchy would be near impossible to sustain.

I suppose I should outline what I support.
I'm not one of those "run outside and throw a brick at a cop" "anarchists" that really just want an excuse to cause trouble. What I feel is that at some point we will be able to overcome the basic human nature of greed which is not quite as useful as it once may have been. However, we aren't able to do that at all now. It would be a very bad thing if the government was suddenly overthrown and taken down overnight. At the moment, I view government as a necessary evil. The policies I support are libertarian and socialist-leaning, although not extremely so.

I think this could happen, but it would take a long time for people to overcome one of the greatest of human feelings: the need to survive, which sometimes takes precident over logical behavior and is directly contrary to this idea. Unfortunatly, in a large group, it would be (as I said above) next to impossible to sustain. One person could ruin it all.

Nazis of old... pfft, you speak of it as they were in the middle ages. It was 60 years ago, not even an entire lifetime. And eugenics is a policy the NAZIS adopted, they made up their minds to kill Jews, Catholics, Gypsies, and Gays because they believed that they were blemishes in the gene pool and the cause of "society's" problems. Who the hell are you to determine who is a bad person in eugenisist standards? The Nazis were insane murderers, just like you would be if you had any power. Let's hope you never do, murderer.

Well my friend, what the Nazis did was racist, many of their actions were taken out of their hatred for other races. I would not call them eugenicists in the modern meaning of the word.

My plan includes the killing of the criminally insane, genetic enginerring to filter out detrimental traits(IE diabetes, alzheimers), and the killing of those with any sort of sociopathic tendencies.

You would love the modern anarchists view of society.

Anarchy is so diverse, and varies from person to person.

What did you have in mind that would appeal to me? I am interested.

I think this could happen, but it would take a long time for people to overcome one of the greatest of human feelings: the need to survive, which sometimes takes precident over logical behavior and is directly contrary to this idea. Unfortunatly, in a large group, it would be (as I said above) next to impossible to sustain. One person could ruin it all.
I think that methods through altering the state of human consciousness show promise, but now I'm getting into transhumanism, and that's a bit irrelevant right now.

Yeah Takuma, you aren't an anarchist.

Libertarians are hypocrites anyway, many of them support the Iraq war, yet they despise the taxes which pay for the war effort.

I do not support the Iraq war, nor am I a member of a specific Libertarian party because the ideals of the party (Canadian, anyway) does not meet my personal ideals. Oh, and please keep your blatant ignorance to a minimum while educated people talk.

Oh come on, attacking someone who argues for less ideological fanaticism?

I know it is strange, considering that's what these people do all day(bash one another for their political veiws.) I suppose they want to revel in their own ignorance. I must get to sleep. So I leave you with a song.

Revolution in their minds - the children start to march
Against the world in which they have to live
And all the hate that’s in their hearts
They’re tired of being pushed around
And told just what to do
They’ll fight the world until they’ve won
And love comes flowing through

Children of tomorrow live in the tears that fall today
Will the sun rise up tomorrow bringing peace in any way?
Must the world live in the shadow of atomic fear?
Can they win the fight for peace or will they disappear?

So you children of the world,
Listen to what I say
If you want a better place to live in
Spread the words today
Show the world that love is still alive
You must be brave
Or you children of today are
Children of the grave, yeah!

I think that methods through altering the state of human consciousness show promise, but now I'm getting into transhumanism, and that's a bit irrelevant right now.

Yes. A different debate for a different day!

My plan includes the killing of the criminally insane, genetic enginerring to filter out detrimental traits(IE diabetes, alzheimers), and the killing of those with any sort of sociopathic tendencies.
Oh, earlier you said no life would be lost. Now you're calling for the killing of those who are genetically inferior? I'm sorry, but that's fairly extreme...

I know it is strange, considering that's what these people do all day(bash one another for their political veiws.) I suppose they want to revel in their own ignorance. I must get to sleep. So I leave you with a song.

Revolution in their minds - the children start to march
Against the world in which they have to live
And all the hate that’s in their hearts
They’re tired of being pushed around
And told just what to do
They’ll fight the world until they’ve won
And love comes flowing through

Children of tomorrow live in the tears that fall today
Will the sun rise up tomorrow bringing peace in any way?
Must the world live in the shadow of atomic fear?
Can they win the fight for peace or will they disappear?

So you children of the world,
Listen to what I say
If you want a better place to live in
Spread the words today
Show the world that love is still alive
You must be brave
Or you children of today are
Children of the grave, yeah!

Black Sabbath - Children of the Grave

Great tune! I forget which album, however.

Yes, basically. True anarchy would be near impossible to sustain.



I think this could happen, but it would take a long time for people to overcome one of the greatest of human feelings: the need to survive, which sometimes takes precident over logical behavior and is directly contrary to this idea. Unfortunatly, in a large group, it would be (as I said above) next to impossible to sustain. One person could ruin it all.

I don't think human nature will change much in the forseeable future. We are no longer evolving, so it will not change in that sense. Evolution created human nature: those with better instincts for survival survived, while others faded away.

We cannot change human nature, but must instead create a system that works around our 'flaws'. For all the crap that the US gets, I believe our Western system of democracy comes closer to that utopian system than any other.

Oh come on, attacking someone who argues for less ideological fanaticism?
Where is the alleged "attacking"?

Oh, earlier you said no life would be lost. Now you're calling for the killing of those who are genetically inferior? I'm sorry, but that's fairly extreme...

Not to mention hypocritical. Your directly going against the ideals you set forth and have been criticizing others to maintain as true.

We cannot change human nature, but must instead create a system that works around our 'flaws'. For all the crap that the US gets, I believe our Western system of democracy comes closer to that utopian system than any other.
Now that's where I disagree. I believe that at some point we will be able to change human nature to function in a more rational manner.

I do agree that democracy is as close as it seems we could get to a utopian system at the moment, if there is a properly worded constitution.

Where is the alleged "attacking"?

Some of the posts were lacking in civility, respect and consideration. Not necessarily yours.

Some of the posts were lacking in civility, respect and consideration. Not necessarily yours.
Ah, looking back, I do notice those. I just realized I even made a comment about them earlier, and I had forgotten about it.

Whoops.

Now that's where I disagree. I believe that at some point we will be able to change human nature to function in a more rational manner.

I do agree that democracy is as close as it seems we could get to a utopian system at the moment, if there is a properly worded constitution.

Do you mean scientifically? I am a strong believer in science, and think that infinite knowledge is theoretically possible. In that sense, we might be able to 'engineer' our species to alter our instincts. But thats way complicated, and I don't think it's a good idea anyway. Human nature is part of our life. It challenges us, whether directly through curiosity and imagination, or indirectly by calling us to answer the problems in our world. The human awareness is a beautiful thing. I have no problem with leaving well enough alone. Evolution and/or God has done a fine job.

I don't think human nature will change much in the forseeable future. We are no longer evolving, so it will not change in that sense. Evolution created human nature: those with better instincts for survival survived, while others faded away.

We cannot change human nature, but must instead create a system that works around our 'flaws'. For all the crap that the US gets, I believe our Western system of democracy comes closer to that utopian system than any other.

Close, but not close enough.

My Utopia:

1. A single, small (only several-hunderd person) government with no right to intrude on people except to uphold law and to provide major social service (including emergency, health care and education, to name a few.) Taxes are kept to a mimimum or are non-existent, using trade/goods to be sold to foreign markets for money to power the services)
2. Laws kept to a minimal and secular.
3. Colelctivism (not full communism, but the idea of trade between people for goods and services, in adition to stable monitary units. Trade with other nations to get that which cannot be produced in the country, then traded to the people.) within small cities or towns of not more than 50 000 to 100 000 (absolute maximum).
4. Direct democracy within the towns, who's leaders then elect the members of the national government.

IT could work: it doesn't have all the "maybe we can change human nature" associated with full Communism or Anarchism, but it's libertarian and socialist enough to be a Utopia.

What do you think?

Do you mean scientifically? I am a strong believer in science, and think that infinite knowledge is theoretically possible. In that sense, we might be able to 'engineer' our species to alter our instincts. But thats way complicated, and I don't think it's a good idea anyway. Human nature is part of our life. It challenges us, whether directly through curiosity and imagination, or indirectly by calling us to answer the problems in our world. The human awareness is a beautiful thing. I have no problem with leaving well enough alone. Evolution and/or God has done a fine job.
I can see that that is a valid viewpoint. (eww, I just used "that" twice in a row. that isn't aesthetically pleasing to my eye) However, I feel that we could possibly achieve so much more...
I don't know. What I always fail to take into account is that this "so much more" that I long for is very different than what others, such as you, desire, and I have no right to impose my desire on others.
*sigh*
I can see why such violent disagreements happen between governments, and to me it seems it will only get worse...

I have to go, I'll be back on in two days. Have fun, and ponder my Utopia, please! :)

Close, but not close enough.

My Utopia:

1. A single, small (only several-hunderd person) government with no right to intrude on people except to uphold law and to provide major social service (including emergency, health care and education, to name a few.) Taxes are kept to a mimimum or are non-existent, using trade/goods to be sold to foreign markets for money to power the services)
2. Laws kept to a minimal and secular.
3. Colelctivism (not full communism, but the idea of trade between people for goods and services, in adition to stable monitary units. Trade with other nations to get that which cannot be produced in the country, then traded to the people.) within small cities or towns of not more than 50 000 to 100 000 (absolute maximum).
4. Direct democracy within the towns, who's leaders then elect the members of the national government.

IT could work: it doesn't have all the "maybe we can change human nature" associated with full Communism or Anarchism, but it's libertarian and socialist enough to be a Utopia.

What do you think?


The irony is too much. I was listening to NPR a couple of weeks ago, and heard Christine Todd Whitman (former director of EPA under GWB) describing part of the moderate Republican ideal. Something like 'people should solve their problems starting with themselves, then working through local government, state government, and finally federal government.'

This has some striking similarities to your utopia, and yet it is an ideal of the Republican Party!! A blow has been struck for moderate thought. You just found something in common with a (moderate) Republican!


Your vision sounds good. Given that we overcome the ethnic, religious, and historic differences that divide the world today, it's not a bad idea to pursue!

By the way, this thread is by far the best I have participated in!! The opening argument was excellent, but then he swerved off into some weird Nazi philosophies... Thanks to all of you! I love debate.

The irony is too much. I was listening to NPR a couple of weeks ago, and heard Christine Todd Whitman (former director of EPA under GWB) describing part of the moderate Republican ideal. Something like 'people should solve their problems starting with themselves, then working through local government, state government, and finally federal government.'

This has some striking similarities to your utopia, and yet it is an ideal of the Republican Party!! A blow has been struck for moderate thought. You just found something in common with a (moderate) Republican!

Your vision sounds good. Given that we overcome the ethnic, religious, and historic differences that divide the world today, it's not a bad idea to pursue!

Wow, that's actually surprising that I have things in common with a moderate Republican.

It would only be in individual countries at first, and protection (anti-racism, etc.) laws would be one of the classes still allowed, while trying to prevent loss of rights as much as possible.

If it is shown to work, it could become global, though that would have problems with the management.

Well, sorry but it is 11:31 and I have to go to sleep. Goodnight everyone!

P.S. w00t 500th post!

Do you mean scientifically? I am a strong believer in science, and think that infinite knowledge is theoretically possible. In that sense, we might be able to 'engineer' our species to alter our instincts. But thats way complicated, and I don't think it's a good idea anyway. Human nature is part of our life. It challenges us, whether directly through curiosity and imagination, or indirectly by calling us to answer the problems in our world. The human awareness is a beautiful thing. I have no problem with leaving well enough alone. Evolution and/or God has done a fine job.

I think NA is addressing consumerism, in a round about way.

Consumerism is the biggest problem in developed countries and is the central obstacle to anarchism. I think that is the behavior that most anarchists want to rid us of, and it is certainly not a basic human characteristic.

By the way, this thread is by far the best I have participated in!! The opening argument was excellent, but then he swerved off into some weird Nazi philosophies... Thanks to all of you! I love debate.

Debate is good. It's what true intelectuals do for fun! :p A friend once said that... :cool:

I think NA is addressing consumerism, in a round about way.

Consumerism is the biggest problem in developed countries and is the central obstacle to anarchism. I think that is the behavior that most anarchists want to rid us of, and it is certainly not a basic human characteristic.

Another philosophy I identify with is Rationalist thought. I believe it was Cicero said "Let your desires be ruled be reason", and I agree with him heartily. Rational consideration would put a swift end to consumerism. I am often disgusted by the glitzy, superficial aspects of America's consumer culture. Then again, if consumerism were to end it would REALLY wreck our economy....

see the problem here is how you are (1) accusing political elites of manipulation to the point of mollifying any rational political beliefs and then (2) proposing a centrist party. see is a one of the most visceral things i have heard in my life, a centrist is a person who's policies arise from accomodating the moderates of both sides of the spectrum; liberal and conservitive. Thus, you are calling for a populous which you implicitely claim to be 'manipulated' out of rational political thought, to provide policy dicates. why would you want to govern based on simply amaglamating the manipulated, intellectualy empty ideas of liberal and conservitive moderates?

I'm glad your trying to address the issue of demagoguery in america, but please...

Another philosophy I identify with is Rationalist thought. I believe it was Cicero said "Let your desires be ruled be reason", and I agree with him heartily. Rational consideration would put a swift end to consumerism. I am often disgusted by the glitzy, superficial aspects of America's consumer culture. Then again, if consumerism were to end it would REALLY wreck our economy....

It could strengthen the economy. It could turn out to be an effective downsizing.

By the way, this thread is by far the best I have participated in!! The opening argument was excellent, but then he swerved off into some weird Nazi philosophies... Thanks to all of you! I love debate.

I thought that his fascist thoughts were evident from the first post. If you will notice my response I did point out how stereotypically authoritarian it was.

I think that what he is trying to say is that the centrists in a political system are usually the moderators between the two sides and that they are usually not the ones are responsible for change and the ideas for change.

For a less wordy analogy, the centrists and moderators are the brakes, while the radicals are the motor. You need them both to drive, but without the motor you aren't going to move anywhere.

Well my friend, what the Nazis did was racist, many of their actions were taken out of their hatred for other races. I would not call them eugenicists in the modern meaning of the word.

My plan includes the killing of the criminally insane, genetic enginerring to filter out detrimental traits(IE diabetes, alzheimers), and the killing of those with any sort of sociopathic tendencies.

Albert Einstein was learning disabled. Stephen Hawking has a horrible neurological disease. If you ruled the world, these people wouldn't exist. Some of the brightest minds would be killed or not be born if you had your way. Because we all know a homogenized society like the one you propose is the way to go. Thanks for the uneventful, unexciting, uninspiring, stagnating change to the human condition.

In fact, I think that you're insane for not being able to see my logic. I think you should be "terminated" under your eugenics laws.

Edit: Oh, and by the way, sociopathic tendencies exist in most people, including you. We'll just destroy all the industries that require such people with such traits and see world economy shrivel and fun end. Thanks, buddy. You'll be a new Cromwell and a Polpot in one person. Danke, Stalin.

I thought that his fascist thoughts were evident from the first post.

same here

We need to make something new, without roots in any of the old ideals or notions. I am not speaking of anarchism, for that is the ideology of confused adolescents with little understanding of politics. What I have written is by no means idealistic, it is completely plausible, and a new third party is a viable solution to our current situation. Rather than speaking of the wicked world that we live in, and listing the countless problems, I prefer to write about the world that could be, what it will be, given time and effort. Don’t be afraid to stand up, join together, remember, united we are strong.

It will come, I will bring it...lmao.

I have the hindsight of the future.... ; )

Wow Scary thoughts. Eugenics.

Why can't we just adopt some form of Meritocracy? Then again, our schooling system is flawed.

I guess the measure of being 'Strong' like Dubocratic says, would also be flawed IMO.

I have to go, I'll be back on in two days. Have fun, and ponder my Utopia, please! :)

To create your utopia, literally millions would have to be killed. If anyone has ever read Huxely's masterpiece, that is the kind of Eugenics I am speaking of.

Wow Scary thoughts. Eugenics.

Why can't we just adopt some form of Meritocracy? Then again, our schooling system is flawed.

I guess the measure of being 'Strong' like Dubocratic says, would also be flawed IMO.

For christs sake eugenics does not equal genocide, it just means the mass production of human beings.

Men and Women are commodities, like your computer, or cows.

If we can eliminate extremist leanings once and for all, on both spectrums, we can ensure an eternal peace.
Oh come on, do you really believe this? I agree that centrist policies are usually best (see my political compass score in my sig), but eternal peace is a very lofty goal.

For christs sake eugenics does not equal genocide, it just means the mass production of human beings.

Men and Women are commodities, like your computer, or cows.

Oh, so you are proposing the degradation of human life.

As long as you are just advocating the elimination of the human experience, I am ok with it. :rolleyes:

Oh come on, do you really believe this? I agree that centrist policies are usually best (see my political compass score in my sig), but eternal peace is a very lofty goal.

Very few goals are "realistic," but if we wipe the extermist elements out completly, and descively, then we will have peace.

Read "Brave New World," that is how peace will be achieved once and for all.

Zak, any respectable source will tell you that Brave New World is a satire about an impossible and terrible utopia in which society has evolved into a nightmare. Why don't you quit your holier than thou attitude, stop trying to be the bringer of an impossible nightmare and check into reality.

For christs sake eugenics does not equal genocide, it just means the mass production of human beings.

Men and Women are commodities, like your computer, or cows.

Perhaps you should read the declaration of human rights and be grateful that you can say things like that, because in many other countries around the world, you would be shot for it. Oh yeah, you are your own worst enemy, because who do you think you would be? You wanted to kill the criminally insane? Killing millions of people is the worst crime of all, and you're insane not to see that. Good luck in death, perhaps you'll be happier then.

Edit: Oh, and by the way, peace can never exist because it is simply a transient state between war. Without conflict human beings stagnate and die. Perhaps you should read a history book. Either that, or just end this.

Very few goals are "realistic," but if we wipe the extermist elements out completly, and descively, then we will have peace.

Read "Brave New World," that is how peace will be achieved once and for all.

I think that onces society has to live up to it's own words, they'll find that they want to be more centrist. It's not hard to make up a system in which that would be invoked.

Very few goals are "realistic," but if we wipe the extermist elements out completly, and descively, then we will have peace.

Read "Brave New World," that is how peace will be achieved once and for all.
Whoa, you do know that Brave New World was about a dystopia, right?

EDIT:
I'm liking the "Wipe out the extremist elements" bit. Isn't killing people for their political beliefs rather extremist?

I'm liking the "Wipe out the extremist elements" bit. Isn't killing people for their political beliefs rather extremist?

the guy is a fascist. i called it from the first post. fascists often dress up in the clothes of a middle way to deal with the incompetent or evil groups that currently are destroying society. amazingly, this middle way involves dictatorship, which more accurately represents the will of the people and the good of the nation...