NationStates Jolt Archive

There are several parties with the name "liberal" in them, into which are divided a large number of the "liberal" votes. I imagine the majority of those who identify themselves as "conservative" have voted for the conservative party.
Er, I stand corrected. There aren't many parties (just one?) with "liberal" in their titles, per se.

But still, the left side of the political spectrum is more finely divided than the right.

Except that the police force should [hopefully] provide the same service from person to person, without any variances or exceptions made based on how much they paid in or how much they're making now. Welfare and wealth redistribution programs would only be comparable if the rich received no benefit from a law enforcement body [since they obviously don't get any from welfare].


Just because the rich don't need welfare doesn't mean the poor don't. Giving welfare benefits to the rich would indeed make no sense, but that's no valid argument for saying that nobody should get any. People in crime-ridden areas will benefit more from the existence of the police than the rich who can afford to live in virtually crime-free areas, but that doesn't mean the poor should be taxed more heavily than the rich to fund the police force. Welfare is just as much a necessity as the police.


Still, even if your example were the case, that doesn't mean it's justified to force someone's resources be put to another use, purely on virtue of the fact that it can.

Not by virtue of the fact that it can: by virtue of the fact that it's needed. It boils down to a matter of priorities, and yes, I know, our sense of priorities is very different on this issue. But unless you intend to abolish taxation altogether, surely tax money should be used where it's needed most, even if it's for funding which not everybody happens to need.

*SNIP*
Point taken.

"The poverty line is the level of income below which one cannot afford to purchase all the resources one requires to live."

So you would maintain that anyone living below the poverty line, dies?

Or maybe what the US defines as "requires to live" is not actually what it is required to sustain life. I believe the latter.

And how, just by seeing a bunch of names, would you know puppets were being used? It's a nice idea but not only would a public vote undermine the democratic process of secret ballot, but it wouldnt actually work either.

It's usually easy to tell if someone creates a bunch of puppets in a short amount of time. You don't even have to be a moderator with IP check.

I'm not sure whats so great about the "secret" ballot anyway. If it's so secret how come we have the news reports displaying who voted for whom, where, in what state and district? Sure the exact names are not listed, but I don't know many people who actually try to keep their choice of vote a secret.

So mods can now act as censors (in the Ancient Roman sense) and effectively remove people from the electoral roll even though the mods are nothing to do with the management of the election? And noticing that some mods are candidates. Ooookkkaaayyy...


Checks and balances dont involve reading peoples' votes :/ I think you're a little confused :confused:

If the poll was public everyone would be able to see, not just the mods. And the mods would be able to tell if they check a nation if they had puppets that voted (meaning voted more than once) certainly you wouldn't want people voting more than once? hehe newbies! ;)

Anyway, as Melkor has said and I agree, it's a faux election I was just making an observation. I did not mean for so much to come of it given I clearly said I wasn't making any accusation.

Vote ESP: We think the freemasons did it.

If the poll was public everyone would be able to see, not just the mods. And the mods would be able to tell if they check a nation if they had puppets that voted (meaning voted more than once) certainly you wouldn't want people voting more than once? hehe newbies! ;)

Anyway, as Melkor has said and I agree, it's a faux election I was just making an observation. I did not mean for so much to come of it given I clearly said I wasn't making any accusation.
Sorry Steph. :( I got hotheaded and said mean things. I apologize.

Just because the rich don't need welfare doesn't mean the poor don't. Giving welfare benefits to the rich would indeed make no sense, but that's no valid argument for saying that nobody should get any. People in crime-ridden areas will benefit more from the existence of the police than the rich who can afford to live in virtually crime-free areas, but that doesn't mean the poor should be taxed more heavily than the rich to fund the police force. Welfare is just as much a necessity as the police.
Talk about missing the forest for the trees. My statement was not designed to say "Just because the rich don't need welfare doesn't mean the poor don't." What that statement served to do was to point out that your comparison of Welfare to Police services is an invalid one, therefore rendering your previous argument ["And if some don't want to pay taxes to ensure that others won't starve, then yes, they should be made to. Just as they're made to fund the police through taxes even if they benefit from it less than others."] worthless.

Not by virtue of the fact that it can: by virtue of the fact that it's needed. It boils down to a matter of priorities, and yes, I know, our sense of priorities is very different on this issue. But unless you intend to abolish taxation altogether, surely tax money should be used where it's needed most, even if it's for funding which not everybody happens to need.
Then who gets to decide just what constitutes "need?" What if the people in charge can't decide and end up changing it all the time, leaving the taxpayers hanging out to dry, more or less? I'm sorry, but I trust myself more than some random politician when it comes to determining just what real need is, and you should too.

Sorry Steph. :( I got hotheaded and said mean things. I apologize.

Totally accepted, no harm done. :)

Vote ESP. Because we're running out of catchy slogans and when we do we'll all die!

Vote ESP. Because we're running out of catchy slogans and when we do we'll all die!
Don't worry, O glorious leader, only just over another day until the end of the election. Then it's down to the serious business of silliness.
Vote ESP - or we'll cry and run to our mummies.

Don't worry, O glorious leader, only just over another day until the end of the election. Then it's down to the serious business of silliness.
Vote ESP - or we'll cry and run to our mummies.

Vote ESP. Because My daddy's bigger than your daddy!

If the poll was public everyone would be able to see, not just the mods. And the mods would be able to tell if they check a nation if they had puppets that voted (meaning voted more than once) certainly you wouldn't want people voting more than once? hehe newbies! ;)
Thanks for that. I like being patronised and then vaguely and inaccurately insulted. :rolleyes: Anyway, the problem is the principle - people shouldnt be able to see how others have voted if this is to mimick a RL electoral system (which is kind of the whole point) and unless mods are going to check every single vote (which I think is somewhat unlikely) it wont work anyway.

Anyway, as Melkor has said and I agree, it's a faux election I was just making an observation. I did not mean for so much to come of it given I clearly said I wasn't making any accusation.
Ok, and I was disagreeing with your observation... what's wrong with that?

It's usually easy to tell if someone creates a bunch of puppets in a short amount of time. You don't even have to be a moderator with IP check.
...what? How do you know if someone's making laods of puppets. That doesnt make any sense.

I'm not sure whats so great about the "secret" ballot anyway. If it's so secret how come we have the news reports displaying who voted for whom, where, in what state and district? Sure the exact names are not listed, but I don't know many people who actually try to keep their choice of vote a secret.
Well I dont know / particularly care about the US system, but as you say, names are not disclosed, so it is a secret ballot. The purpose of a secret ballot is to allow anyone to vote for whoever they want without having to worry what others will think of them / prior to that (IRL) being attacked. Personally I dont want my vote published on principle. Im sure you can guess who I voted for, and I'll tell you if you ask, but that's my choice. At least if we want this to resemble a RL election anyway.

...what? How do you know if someone's making laods of puppets. That doesnt make any sense.

Praetonia - There is no need to get all upset over this, it's just a General roleplay election. It means nothing in the grand scheme of things.

Praetonia - There is no need to get all upset over this, it's just a General roleplay election. It means nothing in the grand scheme of things.

Nope.... which is why some people eg. MELKOR are taking it rather too seriously.... *shakes head*

Hey, I really want a seat in the NS parliament. It would be the highlight of my political career to date - which has consisted solely of being a member of the ESP.

Praetonia - There is no need to get all upset over this, it's just a General roleplay election. It means nothing in the grand scheme of things.
Im confused. Proposing suggestions is ok, but disagreeing with them means Im ZOMG taking it too far...? What?

If you think the election is meaningless then you're free to leave this thread whenever you want. Sheesh.

Nope.... which is why some people eg. MELKOR are taking it rather too seriously.... *shakes head*

Well the election means nothing in the grand scheme of things, however what I see Melkor doing is discussing real life issues that he believes in, that's never pointless and is what the General forum is all about. This faux election gives people a chance to discuss different POV, the election means nothing, that doesn't mean what people are saying means nothing, imo.

Praetonia, much of the doubt here seems to be stemming from the vact that the NSCP vote count not only assumes that everyone in Blu-tac's region has voted [since that's where most of the campaigning seems to be taking place], but it also assumes that there are thirty or forty Conservatives who support the platform that have not only not posted in the NSCP manifesto thread, but also have not posted anywhere else on the forum to speak of. In fairness, many of them may be forumites who avoid politics and economics in favor of different topics. Given the structure of the forum, it is probably possible to see such an outspoken demographic.

Not only that, but the last time we held an election there were nearly twice as many votes by the end and very few people were calling for the formation of a Conservative body; if there were, most of them probably decided either to vote for the Classic Liberals or no one. Many of us are having a difficult time swallowing such a large, completely outspoken Conservative 'majority' on this site. Some may remain clandestine yes, but given the nature of most Conservative conventional wisdom, a lot of the topics in General are far too loaded for a Conservative to resist.

I'm even going to go so far as to come out and say that, all assumptions aside, the NSCP vote is bullshit. There's really only a few possibilities, and none of them are very likely: Either the conservatives are a split of the Reason Party and the NSCL party votes from last time [doubtful, as the ones who have deigned to speak have been very critical of our social policy], they're the result of a massive off-forum campaign [also doubtful, since out of "92" votes, we'd probably have seen more NSCP representation in this thread] or they're largely a fabrication. The final assumption, being weighted down by the fewest assumptions, is probably the correct one.

That's not to say other parties probably haven't done it too me], but I just figured I'd point that out. I've had a hard time believing the NSCP performance here, moreso than anyone else save perhaps myself. Last time I didn't see the lead after about the first fifteen minutes, and I actually expected a worse performance this time, hence the minibar proposition.

Well the election means nothing in the grand scheme of things, however what I see Melkor doing is discussing real life issues that he believes in, that's never pointless and is what the General forum is all about. This faux election gives people a chance to discuss different POV, the election means nothing, that doesn't mean what people are saying means nothing, imo.
Fair enough, but poor old Melkor seems to find parties such as the ESP "irritating" as he put it, which slightly uncalled for ... In fact it ruined our party conference as we were all too busy sobbing. However, I do think there is more to be said for being the daft alternative than just being another one of those many communist parties we seem to have spawned who just argue over trivial apsects of policy for pages and pages.

...what? How do you know if someone's making laods of puppets. That doesnt make any sense.

There are plenty of ways to tell if you're looking. I won't list them here but suffice it to say there are indicators; ask the region invaders/defenders as they have had to develop such skills.

And I for one would be suspicious of a bunch of newly created nations that all seem to vote for a particular party in NS General of all places.

Let me put it this way, if I said, "I'm going to create dozens of puppet NS's today and have them all vote for Reason Party," would anyone here object? Or be in a position to object, let alone prevent it? I don't think so. In fact I'm tempted to do just that, just cuz I can! ;)

Well I dont know / particularly care about the US system, but as you say, names are not disclosed, so it is a secret ballot. The purpose of a secret ballot is to allow anyone to vote for whoever they want without having to worry what others will think of them / prior to that (IRL) being attacked.

Well, its not "disclosed" if its a public poll, just available. Anyway, why should a ballot be secret when party affiliation, birthdate and vast amounts of other information isn't? Just doesn't make sense, I guess so people can't stand there and say "Bob! You idiot! How come you voted for X party!?"

But really that sort of behavior should already be prevented by this being General forum, with moderation.

Im confused. Proposing suggestions is ok, but disagreeing with them means Im ZOMG taking it too far...? What?

If you think the election is meaningless then you're free to leave this thread whenever you want. Sheesh.

Have a muffin *shares confectionary*

Hey, I really want a seat in the NS parliament. It would be the highlight of my political career to date - which has consisted solely of being a member of the ESP.
Yup ... but we're down to two seats and we actually had four earlier...

Have a muffin *shares confectionary*


Yup ... but we're down to two seats and we actually had four earlier...
Two and a half seats. And Tribes (he who is slightly more unhinged than the rest) has already said he'll have the fraction...
There'd need to be 200 more votes, with us not getting any, to lose that fraction.

Two and a half seats. And Tribes (he who is slightly more unhinged than the rest) has already said he'll have the fraction...
There'd need to be 200 more votes, with us not getting any, to lose that fraction.

excelllent *schemes*

voted NBIP

I'm even going to go so far as to come out and say that, all assumptions aside, the NSCP vote is bullshit. There's really only a few possibilities, and none of them are very likely: Either the conservatives are a split of the Reason Party and the NSCL party votes from last time [doubtful, as the ones who have deigned to speak have been very critical of our social policy], they're the result of a massive off-forum campaign [also doubtful, since out of "92" votes, we'd probably have seen more NSCP representation in this thread] or they're largely a fabrication. The final assumption, being weighted down by the fewest assumptions, is probably the correct one.


Congrats, you just fell into the "assumptions pit".

Congrats, you just fell into the "assumptions pit".

In fairness to Melkor, he's been around this game for a long time, in fact he and another mod were the two first mods on nationstates. He's seen just about every trick in the book. Mods know stuff that other "regular" players don't know, because they have access to all the back-end stuff that non-mods never see. So, if anything I would say given Melkor's background it's a highly educated guess. I stress the educated part.

I like the Emphatically Silly Manifesto. XD

Congrats, you just fell into the "assumptions pit".
Actually, if you'll notice, the outcome I chose was the one that required the fewest assumptions [one]. All the others required several, and some of them are fairly large ones, like the idea that there has been an outgrowth of 92 [oh look at that, now it's 94] active Conservatives this time as opposed to about 6 or 8 a few months ago.

If, for example, the NationStates link showed up at some Conservative, pseudofascist type blog and/or news site and that's where they all came from, then I obviously don't know that. So far, however, I'm merely trying to make an educated guess.

A part of me hopes that the votes are legitimate and that the people will actually start to show themselves in various other places so I can rassle with 'em. Im getting tired of listening to the same arguments from the left, so it would certainly be refershing to se some boneheadery from the right to even it ot.

I'm even going to go so far as to come out and say that, all assumptions aside, the NSCP vote is bullshit. There's really only a few possibilities, and none of them are very likely: Either the conservatives are a split of the Reason Party and the NSCL party votes from last time [doubtful, as the ones who have deigned to speak have been very critical of our social policy], they're the result of a massive off-forum campaign [also doubtful, since out of "92" votes, we'd probably have seen more NSCP representation in this thread] or they're largely a fabrication. The final assumption, being weighted down by the fewest assumptions, is probably the correct one.

I could say exactly the same thing about you, I haven't seen many people saying "I'm voting reason party", but still you seem to be about the same number of votes as us. and haven't you realised that whenever you start coming out with little theories, we seem to get more votes and yours stop?

I don't know why we're winning, maybe its because of my campaigning, maybe its because theres so many left parties and only one right one, maybe there is a little bit of cheating, but believe me , i don't agree with them, and i seriously hope there hasn't been, because if there hasn't been, the conservatives are coming out on top through purely legitimate means.

I could say exactly the same thing about you, I haven't seen many people saying "I'm voting reason party", but still you seem to be about the same number of votes as us.
Did you read the next paragraph? Read my post again. Actually fuck it, I'll copy paste what I said so you can take that boot out of your mouth:

That's not to say other parties probably haven't done it too [I've noticed a few jumps here and there--hell, someone might even be doing it for me], but I just figured I'd point that out. I've had a hard time believing the NSCP performance here, moreso than anyone else save perhaps myself. Last time I didn't see the lead after about the first fifteen minutes, and I actually expected a worse performance this time, hence the minibar proposition.

and haven't you realised that whenever you start coming out with little theories, we seem to get more votes and yours stop?
Actually, this is the first time the topic has been discussed in earnest, as it grows more curious by the minute.

EDIT: I took out a part that had some vague threat about finding multiple users from Blu-tac's terminal, but upon further investigation it appears to be a cached IP [like an AOL proxy] that can and often does contain a radical collection of various user names from the region/country/planet or what have you.

I like the Emphatically Silly Manifesto. XD
Thankyou. Unfortunately Arridia only posted the very first draft of our manifesto on this thread... its slightly longer now. Why not join our party and also simulanously join the fun.

This Week's Prize vegetable is the marrow

Actually, if you'll notice, the outcome I chose was the one that required the fewest assumptions [one]. All the others required several, and some of them are fairly large ones, like the idea that there has been an outgrowth of 92 [oh look at that, now it's 94] active Conservatives this time as opposed to about 6 or 8 a few months ago.

If, for example, the NationStates link showed up at some Conservative, pseudofascist type blog and/or news site and that's where they all came from, then I obviously don't know that. So far, however, I'm merely trying to make an educated guess.

A part of me hopes that the votes are legitimate and that the people will actually start to show themselves in various other places so I can rassle with 'em. Im getting tired of listening to the same arguments from the left, so it would certainly be refershing to se some boneheadery from the right to even it ot.
How about this assumption? There are alot more conservative players than you think, but they dont take flamebait, or get radical because they don't want to be bombarded by all the libereals? I know I for one have skipped many an argument because it just wouldn't be "worth it"
(actually, that assumption kinda mimmicks what happened with the 2004 election. Remember the "Exit Poll" fiasco?)

How about this assumption? There are alot more conservative players than you think, but they dont take flamebait, or get radical because they don't want to be bombarded by all the libereals? I know I for one have skipped many an argument because it just wouldn't be "worth it"

The same could be said for liberals.. I know I read and then shut many threads I could argue, but I, over time have lost interest in the same arguments from the same people all the time.

The same could be said for liberals.. I know I read and then shut many threads I could argue, but I, over time have lost interest in the same arguments from the same people all the time.
LOL did ya just get that feeling like you'd never make it to bed if you posted anything? :D

http://img194.echo.cx/img194/5504/ratattack7zk.jpg[/

Look, the fact is, there is nothing to prevent or discourage or discover voter fraud in these elections. Except blind trust!

Not that the people of NS general aren't generally trustworthy.

Anyway, I'll be back with a hundred puppets to PWN this election. ;)

How about this assumption? There are alot more conservative players than you think, but they dont take flamebait, or get radical because they don't want to be bombarded by all the libereals? I know I for one have skipped many an argument because it just wouldn't be "worth it"
Right, and your join date is August 2005. Your story adds up, since you weren't around last election. I'm not talking about you and I'm not denying the fact people avoid arguments precisely as you describe. If you'll notice, I at least gave you that much in my previous posts.

Even if there has been a radical jump in the number of Conservatives showing up recently, it's still a noteworthy phenomenon, one which a lot of people will have some trouble understanding, given the history of the site.

Do you want social democracy with republican values then there only one choice The SDRP-the real alternative

Did you read the next paragraph? Read my post again. Actually fuck it, I'll copy paste what I said so you can take that boot out of your mouth.
Firstly, I have no boot in my mouth...

No, I've noticed you seem to get more votes when you're signed on.Thats because, when I'm signed on I'm campaigning, thats something that's very hard to do when I'm offline you know.

I've also noticed a few other things about the number of users at your terminal that you probably forgot I could find out.

Shared terminal, and I knew you'd come out with that argument at some point.

You know what we need? We need a jar of blue ink to dip all our fingers into! That'll teach them puppets! HEHEHE

LOL did ya just get that feeling like you'd never make it to bed if you posted anything? :D

Not the feeling as much as it's happened too often over the almost 3 years I've been around here... I think I've lost my need/want to be right in favour of sleep!. *LOL*

The SDRP are going to run in the next election and i urge anyone who wants change and leadership to jon with us

Vote SDRP

The SDRP are going to run in the next election and i urge anyone who wants change and leadership to jon with us

Vote SDRP
Jon with us?

Don't vote for people who can't spell!

http://img294.echo.cx/img294/7928/img550rm.jpg

The SDRP are going to ruin the next election and i urge anyone who wants dictatorship and stale haircuts to vote for us

Vote SDRP

Oh... ok then.... *skips off*

The ESP: Buy one political party, get one free. Us....

Jon with us?

Don't vote for people who can't spell!

http://img294.echo.cx/img294/7928/img550rm.jpg

Moleland? Are you still up for what we discussed earlier?

Moleland? Are you still up for what we discussed earlier?

Indeedo.

Check your telegrams in 20 seconds.

Firstly, I have no boot in my mouth...
Except that you more or less accused me of behavior I had admitted was a possibility before you even opened your mouth, in the very next paragraph no less. I don't know about you, but I can still see the sole and some shoelaces sticking out.

Thats because, when I'm signed on I'm campaigning, thats something that's very hard to do when I'm offline you know.
That would be easier to beleive if campaigning in and of itself guaranntees votes. I've been doing my share of behind the scenes campaigning, and unless you happen to know offhand of 93 other conservatives that have been online and willing to vote at your whim, it would be very difficult to accrue these votes at the rate which you have been. It's possible, I suppose, but even if it is true it's going to raise a few eyebrows. This would probably be the first time in NS history we've had 90-some odd Conservatives just up and pop out of the woodwork.

Shared terminal, and I knew you'd come out with that argument at some point.
I posted an edit at around the same time you posted this; I missed that your IP readout appeared to be a cached address of some sort [probably a network], which means a bunch of hits are possible.

http://img39.echo.cx/img39/3366/openborders4lc.jpg

Indeedo.

Check your telegrams in 20 seconds.

Shall we go ahead and announce it then? my party seem pleased with it...

Shall we go ahead and announce it then? my party seem pleased with it...

Check your telegrams first

That would be easier to beleive if campaigning in and of itself guaranntees votes. I've been doing my share of behind the scenes campaigning, and unless you happen to know offhand of 93 other conservatives that have been online and willing to vote at your whim, it would be very difficult to accrue these votes at the rate which you have been. It's possible, I suppose, but even if it is true it's going to raise a few eyebrows. This would probably be the first time in NS history we've had 90-some odd Conservatives just up and pop out of the woodwork.



well no, i don't know all of them, but bear in mind I have been campaigning in my home region, the Global Right Alliance, with their permission of course, and I've posted a few messages in the feeder regions... so the chances are a fair few are from there.

Thankyou. Unfortunately Arridia only posted the very first draft of our manifesto on this thread... its slightly longer now. Why not join our party and also simulanously join the fun.


That's because you never asked me to update it. You can't expect me to run around checking every new post to every party thread. ;)

The SDRP are going to run in the next election and i urge anyone who wants change and leadership to jon with us

Vote SDRP

Does your party meet the criteria to stand in an election?

That's because you never asked me to update it. You can't expect me to run around checking every new post to every party thread. ;)
Sorry *hangs head*
We kinda lost it too.... but its on our party thread ....

The fact that nobody established a 'Myrth Party' whilst I was busy have better things to do displeases me.

http://img106.echo.cx/img106/4793/mobra5xj.jpg

Check your telegrams first

Ok have done...

well no, i don't know all of them, but bear in mind I have been campaigning in my home region, the Global Right Alliance, with their permission of course, and I've posted a few messages in the feeder regions... so the chances are a fair few are from there.
I had thought most of it seemed to be taking place in the Elite Conservative Circuit, but in fairness I don't know who-all else is doing what in what other regions, since I haven't been motivated enough to find out. The moves from that region have been pretty tight, so I don't know who went where and when or how big of an effort this is.

Still, like I said, it's always going to baffle people a little bit that we apparently have near a hundred Conservatives that would be arsed to do this. As a general rule, most of them either steer clear of this forum, or they simply shun most political discussion or what have you. The remaining, nonconservative consituency is probably going to remain a bit hostile regardless, as they will perceive the off-fourm votes as not really being representative of the will of the forum's majority, which this election was designed to represent. PLEASE READ THIS NEXT PART

That's not to say that regional campaigning shouldn't be allowed, because there is no fair [and more importantly, no rational] way to see to it that the votes in question are purely those of the [i]General Forum, which has always struck me as being it's primary purpose. Perhaps it would be productive to clear that up. I could be mistaken, ans "NS General Election" is wonderfully ambiguous if you think about it.

Still, I guess I can't complain with how this is turning out. I don't suppose the Conservatives and I will differ too hugely on economic principle, and while we might have a chance at getting that through, the NSCP's Social platform will never get off the ground in a Parliament like this. Perhaps this is a blessing in disguise, if things work out just right.

Ok have done...

Good:-D

The fact that nobody established a 'Myrth Party' whilst I was busy have better things to do displeases me.

Maybe you should be more omnipotent...

http://img194.echo.cx/img194/5504/ratattack7zk.jpg

For one thing, that's a slippery slope argument and is, as one might expect, ultimately an emotionalist appeal. This is the find of shit I'm talking about: "Transgendered people might not get jobs in a free society so lets spend your tax dollars making sure they do" is not an edict worth enforcing or even listening to, really. My wallet shouldn't suffer because other people might happen to be ignorant or racist/sexist or what-have-you.

Furthermore, your assertation that one can "drop dead if you are not liked by the mainstream society" is complete bunk: I place no premium on things that are "liked by mainstream society" and I don't condemn everything that isn't accepted by them. If anything, the Leftist parties are far more interested in what's acceptable to 'mainstream society' than I will ever be. I'm trying to protect people from the dangerous, mindless horde that is 'mainstream society,' I'm not trying to subject anything and everything to its whim. Methinks someone doesn't have any idea what she's talking about.


Its not an emotionalist appeal, it’s a humanist appeal. Simple question, do you give a shit when a transgender is starving to death or he or she cannot get the medical help needed because no hospitals would admit a transgender patient?

Your answer: Oooooh my poor wallet shouldnt have to suffer, but its totally okay for humans to suffer becuase money is more important than a human life. After all, its every person for him or herself, i mean there is NO SOCIAL aspect at all when it comes to how much money we make or what kind of positions we hold in this society. No, we are totally independent entity existing in this cold hearted world of rationality.


Reasonable? Maybe. Disgusting? Absolutely.

It seems that the conservatives have gone from having 1 seat to nearly 5 seats since the last election. They don't even have Eutrusca on board this time, either.

Its not an emotionalist appeal, it?s a humanist appeal. Simple question, do you give a shit when a transgender is starving to death or he or she cannot get the medical help needed because no hospitals would admit a transgender patient?
Simply put? No. I couldn't possibly care less.

Your answer: Oooooh my poor wallet shouldnt have to suffer, but its totally okay for humans to suffer becuase money is more important than a human life.
What are you, six? Don't answer your own questions. My answer is more along the lines of "I dont care because i'm not a starving transgendered person." This is something of a preposterous example, anyway. Being starved and transgendered is not the general state of things; and it's not the place from which to base your metaphysics.

And money is not more important than human life, as it couldn't exist without it. Rather, money is an extension of the time I devote to providing services to others. Money, inasmuch as it represents upspent labor, is thus a ticket of said time. Therefore it remains the only [i]physical measure of the productiveness of my life or yours; and that can only mean it's my business to do with as I please. Any attempts to seperate me from making my own spending decisions is tantamount to dictating the values towards which I spend my life to work for. If anything, levied taxes and wealth redistribution imply that life has a subordinate role to money more than rational ethics ever will.


After all, its every person for him or herself, i mean there is NO SOCIAL aspect at all when it comes to how much money we make or what kind of positions we hold in this society. No, we are totally independent entity existing in this cold hearted world of rationality.


Reasonable? Maybe. Disgusting? Absolutely.
Frankly, I'd be discouraged at anything less from you. The way I see it, the more heckling I get from mystics, the better.

It seems that the conservatives have gone from having 1 seat to nearly 5 seats since the last election. They don't even have Eutrusca on board this time, either.

We didn't stand at the last election...

Simply put? No. I couldn't possibly care less.


You know, as sad as that sounds, I wholeheartedly agree. If my entire family was well fed, had retirement savings, had nice houses, and all had vehicles that were safe and reliable, I'd care about the poor "transgendered" people who need my help. But when the government tries to tell me I should give my money to perfect strangers before I even get a chance to use it to help MY family, thats when I start to get mad.

As Melkor stated, money is an extension of your worth to society in terms of productivity. Simply put, ITS YOUR MONEY. You earn it, you spend it.

It's doubly sad that me being a white male makes it even harder to get help than your transgendered friend. But I don't ask for handouts. All I ask is that the government lets me do my best for my family before they ask for handouts to others.

We didn't stand at the last election...

Eutrusca had a somewhat conservative party that got about 5% of the vote if I remember correctly.

The fact that the conservative faction wasn't even represented in the last election is even more strange.

Simply put? No. I couldn't possibly care less.



this is over. You pose a danger to my health because you makes me want to vomit repeatedly.

Did you even read the rest?

Nope. It would not be rational for me to do so because you makes me violently sick to my stomach.

I rest my case.

The problem I have with socialist or communist ideas is that they tend to lower the rich and middle class to poverty level, instead of raising the head of the impoverished, and hold back economic progress. Someone has to have a personal investment in the capital in the economy, or the economy doesn't grow. My economic professor compared it to a group of fishermen with a boat on a desert island. If one or a few people are given true ownership of his boat, they will maximize the boat's productivity and the fishing. If the boat is owned by the labor force, the labor force will protect the interests of the labor force over production. If the boat is owned by the people, production on the boat will be reduced to opportunity cost, which means that the workforce would be as well without the boat as with it.

This is an oversimplification perhaps, but there is little room for improvement in an economy where the capital of a country is owned by a government who manages of the basis of political convenience over what is best for that nation's capital (and if the system is tied up in bureaucracy, and the decision-making power is spread out, it becomes a million times harder to utilize the capital of one's country at all). You can say that people are more important than capital, but if you can tell me how a person survives without capital, I'll be happy to listen.

There are ways to make some policies made in the interests of the poor work, but none of them would be useful against a person who was really determined to be poor, or a person who made terrible life choices. I believe the future of the world lies in social and economic choice and knowledge, and that poverty can be helped by increasing both.

The problem I have with socialist or communist ideas is that they tend to lower the rich and middle class to poverty level, instead of raising the head of the impoverished, and hold back economic progress.

You haven't actually read the UDCP manifesto, have you?

What do you mean production on the boat will be reduced to opportunity cost?

I am definitely not a socialist; I don’t know why people would brand me as such simply because I object to cold hearted rationality. I think countries like Switzerland has a good sense of national priorities. There will be people who will be determine to be poor, but there are so many extraneous variable that it would be unfair to say that all poor people are poor because they are lazy.

I also do not like the idea of taking humanity out of the whole economic equation. I like having good social laws that will benefits people who need it the most. Its not right to not help out people who are being discriminated against in employments. Its not right that a student from a rich family has a higher chance to succeed in life than a poor student. Social inequality beings at birth, no baby is more inherently lazy than another baby but the fact is some babies have more life chances than other simple because of their social/economic backgrounds. Its entirely unacceptable to not consider those factors when deciding public policies.

What do you mean production on the boat will be reduced to opportunity cost?

I am definitely not a socialist; I don’t know why people would brand me as such simply because I object to cold hearted rationality. I think countries like Switzerland has a good sense of national priorities. There will be people who will be determine to be poor, but there are so many extraneous variable that it would be unfair to say that all poor people are poor because they are lazy.

I also do not like the idea of taking humanity out of the whole economic equation. I like having good social laws that will benefits people who need it the most. Its not right to not help out people who are being discriminated against in employments. Its not right that a student from a rich family has a higher chance to succeed in life than a poor student. Social inequality beings at birth, no baby is more inherently lazy than another baby but the fact is some babies have more life chances than other simple because of their social/economic backgrounds. Its entirely unacceptable to not consider those factors when deciding public policies.
Hey, guess what? THATS LIFE! Sometimes it sucks. Get a helmet. I think its horrible that it happens too. BUT I'm not gonna cut down my own monetary worth when I'm struggling myself!

I'm not gonna cut down my own monetary worth when I'm struggling myself!
people are stronger when they work together.

Yay, we've hit 50 votes... at last!

9%... How did we sink this low? We were over 15% earlier...

Hey, guess what? THATS LIFE! Sometimes it sucks. Get a helmet. I think its horrible that it happens too. BUT I'm not gonna cut down my own monetary worth when I'm struggling myself!


Thats life. But at the same time, we are already making inroads on black people , women and gay people. More blacks are earning higher incomes and we even see a *raise* in their intelligence when measured against white people. Women are of course more independent than ever because they are making their own money. Theres plenty of social laws and human right laws that we are doing right now that is making people's lives better.

You haven't actually read the UDCP manifesto, have you?

I little of it, actually. My point wasn't whether the policies of the UDCP MEAN to lower policies (I highly doubt those of real communist nations do), but that's the end economic result of general communist ideas, and I believe the end result of your country would be the same.

What do you mean production on the boat will be reduced to opportunity cost?

Perhaps it would be better to give a different example:

Capitalism:

If an individual builds a factory seeking a profit he will hire as many workers as will maximize the potential of his plant, because the more profitable the production of the plant, the more return on his investment he makes. He can negotiate a price with his labor force, but if he is allowed to hire and fire his workers at will, he will be able to have enough workers to maximize the contribution to the economy (and therefore himself as a part of the economy) that he can.

Labor force ownership:

The problem with every member of the labor force owning an equal share in the factory is every time they hire someone, they have to divide the profits of the factory further and further. As the marginal costs diminish to maximization of production (this is the law of diminishing returns) the average profit starts to go down, and therefore the hires at the company cannot maximize profit without a pay cut (and who wants that?) so the factory cannot reach its full potential. Plus it is very hard to get people to cut their pay to invest in new capital to keep the factory going. (A good example of this is the massively disastrous Hugo plant of Yugoslavia).

Communism:

Assuming working at the factory gives people some kind of benefit, people run the factory, and the factory is constantly hiring new workers to make sure everyone gets their fair share. Eventually, the factory reaches maximum productivity, and goes past. People end up sitting around a lot. But everyone in society wants the added benefit of working at the factory, so they keep hiring. They will only stop hiring when it's clear that there is no added benefit to working at the factory, versus working elsewhere (opportunity cost). The result is a tremendous waste of capital and energy. And, again, there is little desire to take pay cuts for potential future benefit. You have a lot of people doing less work, instead of putting pressure on the capital owners (the government) to innovate.

I might also point out that if you don't have unemployment, there is no vocal minority to demand the system to innovate. High unemployment is a sign of an economy that is under-producing. Under a government guarantee of employment, people only start complaining when the entire system starts to fall apart and everyone starts starving, and by then it is too late to do anything.

By the way, exactly how are communist countries supposed to work as a democracy? Democracies are at least in part based on the ability of the people to utilize capital and technology to put out their message in opposition to the establishment. You would essentially need to either have a government-subsidized opposition newspaper (and why would you subsidize those radical capitalists?) or at least some form of capitalism would need to exist.

By the way, I wasn't calling anyone a socialist. I'm merely stating the problems with a government or labor run economy, versus capitalism. This doesn't mean that I oppose ways to help the poor, or that capitalism is the be all and end all (although it is pretty much as far as the maximization of economic growth is concerned) or that I oppose labor unions, or anything of the kind. I am simply stating the economic truth. Maybe there are some sacrifices you can make to economics to help those in the present, but a complete devotion to a socialist strategy won't work.

Its not right that a student from a rich family has a higher chance to succeed in life than a poor student. Social inequality beings at birth, no baby is more inherently lazy than another baby but the fact is some babies have more life chances than other simple because of their social/economic backgrounds. Its entirely unacceptable to not consider those factors when deciding public policies.

I really don't know how you would try to rectify this "inequity." Society is built around the family, and it would be a tremendous disservice to all family members if we completely cut off children from their parents, which is pretty much what you would have to do, since the mere knowledge that your parents are rich or poor would give a student from a rich family a higher chance to succeed than a poor family. I agree with you on discrimination, but there's no way I can go along with the idea that a person from a poor family could ever be on a level playing field with a rich family. You can give options to poor parents, but if those parents are bad parents, you can bet the child will suffer. That's just life, but the alternative is truly horrible.

1. "Act as if the maxim of thy action were to become by thy will a universal law of nature.
Then why doesn't compassion, why doesn't welfare for those who have nothing, enter the equation? Why only property rights?
Maybe I misunderstand Kant, but doesn't this basically say that you should treat others the same way you would like to be treated yourself?

2. "Act that you use humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, always at the same time as an end, never merely as a means."
So you should be honest in the way you act, do nice things because they are nice, not because you'll gain at the end of it.
Again, one could draw parallels with welfare and compassionate policies, couldn't one?

Hume might say that there is no reasoning for morality and ethics at all, that we do things because we feel like it, and only afterwards use our brains to justify it. Either way: Why is a "right to property" different from a "right to education", or a "right to healthcare"?
Aren't they all simply subjective ideas on how we think the world ought to be - with reality beong different?

I really don't know how you would try to rectify this "inequity." Society is built around the family, and it would be a tremendous disservice to all family members if we completely cut off children from their parents, which is pretty much what you would have to do, since the mere knowledge that your parents are rich or poor would give a student from a rich family a higher chance to succeed than a poor family. I agree with you on discrimination, but there's no way I can go along with the idea that a person from a poor family could ever be on a level playing field with a rich family. You can give options to poor parents, but if those parents are bad parents, you can bet the child will suffer. That's just life, but the alternative is truly horrible.

I am not suggestiong that we should get rid of social inequality completely nor was i suggest that children should be completely cut off from their parents. I am sick of you trying to make me look like an extreamist and put words into my mouth. I voted for the democratic socialist , not the communist party.

Sorry, that was never my intention. I was merely taking your argument to what in my opinion was its logical conclusion. I don't think that you are an extreemist (that word is so subjective anyway). I was just pointing out a pragmatic flaw in the ideal you were pointing out. And my first post wasn't aimed at you in the first place, but merely laying out the economic flaws in communism/socialism.

I Know I'M part of the ESP, and after a college pub crawl I'm REALLY wasted, but I'd like to ask each party what their stance on the economy is. Ta (please ingonore my drunken typing)

Sorry, that was never my intention. I was merely taking your argument to what in my opinion was its logical conclusion. I don't think that you are an extreemist (that word is so subjective anyway). I was just pointing out a pragmatic flaw in the ideal you were pointing out. And my first post wasn't aimed at you in the first place, but merely laying out the economic flaws in communism/socialism.


my ideal is to have more social equality. You are attacking people who want to get rid of social inequality altogether.

Vote for Freedom, Vote for Your Conscience, Vote for Liberty!

and also...

Vote for the Emphatically Silly Party

Paid for by A-PAC

No seriously what is each party's stance on the global economy? (by igonre i meant igonore the obvious mistakes - I's like you to answer my original question

In future these elctions should operate on a quota preferential method, enabling preferences to be directed so that someone who doesn't deserve to be elected gets elected over someone who does on some kind of 'rounding' or other faccile electoral method, i.e quota for a seat should be Total votes TV/NOP+1 or 535 / 26, i.e 20.5 votes to obtain quota on first round.

In future these elctions should operate on a quota preferential method, enabling preferences to be directed so that someone who doesn't deserve to be elected gets elected over someone who does on some kind of 'rounding' or other faccile electoral method, i.e quota for a seat should be Total votes TV/NOP+1 or 535 / 26, i.e 20.5 votes to obtain quota on first round.
That would only complicate this even more...continue. :)

It seems that the conservatives have gone from having 1 seat to nearly 5 seats since the last election. They don't even have Eutrusca on board this time, either.
There was no conservative party last time, though I’m sure my party was mistaken for one because we had Republicans in our name. In actuality, our party was about limiting the vote to the wise to preserve the freedom of the many. As the only remaining member, I decided not to stand, seeing as Melkor’s party essentially is about the same thing, with him being the wise.

I didn’t notice Eutrusca in that election, but I think he probably would have companied for the Party of Whatever Works, a centrist party.

There was no conservative party last time, though I’m sure my party was mistaken for one because we had Republicans in our name. In actuality, our party was about limiting the vote to the wise to preserve the freedom of the many. As the only remaining member, I decided not to stand, seeing as Melkor’s party essentially is about the same thing, with him being the wise.

I didn’t notice Eutrusca in that election, but I think he probably would have companied for the Party of Whatever Works, a centrist party.
He started that party, IIRC.

He started that party, IIRC.
Well, that clears that one up.

http://img265.imageshack.us/img265/2983/brain5pj.png

http://www.geocities.com/halfduplex2001/NSCONS1.gif

Don't forget the cookies! :D

Vote for THE DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST PARTY!
because everyone matters.

***

DON'T VOTE FOR THE "SILLY" PARTIES!!!

Voting for the "silly" parties will result in weaker minority goverments!

Please vote smart.

Paid Ad by TCR

my ideal is to have more social equality. You are attacking people who want to get rid of social inequality altogether.

I am not attacking anybody, for any reason. I am merely pointing out pragmatic objections to the idea of complete social equality. I do think we are shooting past each other a little though.

First to 100! In your face NSCP!

Now, I will advertise for most of the parties, my last gesture.

The Emphatically Silly Party, why the hell not?

There's no reason not to vote for the Reason Party.

NS Classic Liberals, Freedom with Style.

The DSP, Solidarity, Equality, Socialism

I say there, old boy, why don't you vote for the New British Imperialist Party?

The NS Conservative Party, Freedom Requires Responsibility

Paid for by A-PAC

*bump

There was no conservative party last time, though I’m sure my party was mistaken for one because we had Republicans in our name. In actuality, our party was about limiting the vote to the wise to preserve the freedom of the many. As the only remaining member, I decided not to stand, seeing as Melkor’s party essentially is about the same thing, with him being the wise.

I didn’t notice Eutrusca in that election, but I think he probably would have companied for the Party of Whatever Works, a centrist party.

He started that party, then it was dissolved again before this second election.

*bump again

Keep voting people ;)

Now, I will advertise for most of the parties, my last gesture.

The Emphatically Silly Party, why the hell not?

There's no reason not to vote for the Reason Party.

NS Classic Liberals, Freedom with Style.

The DSP, Solidarity, Equality, Socialism

I say there, old boy, why don't you vote for the New British Imperialist Party?

The NS Conservative Party, Freedom Requires Responsibility

Paid for by A-PAC

You missed MOBRA out.... :(

Watch, for we have the Flying Hamster of Doom!!!!

http://70.85.81.229/3630/189/pip/10063474qf-vi.jpeg

VOTE MOBRA

And escape from this flying death!

Under twelve hours left, and there are still questions to be answered.
For example, will Melkor get that coveted fifth seat? Will the Conservatives make a late charge? Will MOBRA or the RTP get the wooden spoon? Will the ESP maintain their magnificent 4th position? And, perhaps most importantly, will there be a custard pie attack at the opening of the NS Parliament?

VOTE DSP!
you know it makes sense.

VOTE ESP!
you know it doesn't makes sense.

Fixed.

argghh

i don't support;
Extra Sensory Perception
Electronic Sound Protection
Environmentally Safe Products
or any acronyms that are Extrenous, Superflous or Pointless
:p

argghh

i don't support;
Extra Sensory Perception
Electronic Sound Protection
Environmentally Safe Products
or any acronyms that are Extrenous, Superphlous or Pointless
:p
Superfluous.
:eek: The DSP doesn't support Environmentally Safe Products :eek:
Think you just lost the green vote there :p

Superfluous.
:eek: The DSP doesn't support Environmentally Safe Products :eek:
Think you just lost the green vote there :p

it's the acronym i don't support, not the products. i just couldn't think of any more things that esp is an abreviation of.

i was pretty sure i'd spelt superfluous wrong. thanks for clearing that up.

vote dem.soc. because the other members are more intelligent than i am

Looking back you spelt extraneous wrong as well...
:eek: The DSP can't even spell! And they don't support environmentally safe products! :p

http://www.geocities.com/halfduplex2001/NSCONS2.gif

Last day, people. Don't forget to vote, or I'll send Puff Daddy to your house!

Last day, people. Don't forget to vote, or I'll send Puff Daddy to your house!

I have no worries (though Puff Daddy doesn't exist anymore ;)). I casted my vote for the Reason Party, and so should you, or else I'll send Melkor to your house! :p

Vote NS Conservative Party before it's too late!

http://www.geocities.com/halfduplex2001/NSCONS2.gif

I have no worries (though Puff Daddy doesn't exist anymore ;)). I casted my vote for the Reason Party, and so should you, or else I'll send Melkor to your house! :p

Hehe, no worries, I already voted for The Reason Party. :)

Hehe, no worries, I already voted for The Reason Party. :)

You sellout

http://img240.echo.cx/img240/2406/marxfonz2to.jpg

You sellout

How so? I am for fiscal responsibility and for social freedoms.. seems the Reason Party fit nicely into what I believe.

New British Imperialist Party
Party Political Broadcast Brought to you by the NS BBC

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v387/Praetonia/NBIP.png

Do YOU believe that EVERY schoolchild in the realm should be entitled to TEA as part of his school dinners?

Do YOU believe that Britannia should rule the waves?

Do YOU hate the bloody weather?

Do YOU want to be ruled by overweight, cigar-smoking aristocrats who end every sentence with the words "Wot, wot!"?

IF SO - ANSWER THE CALL:

VOTE NBIP - You Know it Makes Sense

[size=5]VOTE NBIP - You Know it Makes Sense

You nicked our slogan. *pokes with banana* *hands out free peaches to all who want to join the ESP and random people also...*

How so? I am for fiscal responsibility and for social freedoms.. seems the Reason Party fit nicely into what I believe.

pft. whatever.

http://img85.imageshack.us/img85/7895/rtpantifa8ha.jpg
http://img164.echo.cx/img164/1472/greetings6pp.jpg

http://www.udcp.org/Graphics/Posters/UDCP%204.jpg

ok its one of my worst posters, but you get the idea (haha now i'm on the new page!!)

How so? I am for fiscal responsibility and for social freedoms.. seems the Reason Party fit nicely into what I believe.

I'd be curious to hear your definition of "social freedoms", then...

http://www.udcp.org/Graphics/Posters/UDCP%204.jpg

ok its one of my worst posters, but you get the idea (haha now i'm on the new page!!)

yep, capitalism has worked better than socialism and communism so far.... why are all communist countries failing or failed

USSR = communism fell
Cuba = In a dire state
China = Overcrowded and in a mess, and China isn't even technically communist...

You nicked our slogan. *pokes with banana* *hands out free peaches to all who want to join the ESP and random people also...*
What?! We've been using it since the first page sah! In addition, it's a fundamentally British phrase.

I'd be curious to hear your definition of "social freedoms", then...

Basically the government has no right to tell me how to live MY life. As long as I'm not hurting anyone, it should not be the job of a government to dictate morality to me or anyone.

I define 'freedom' as a moral proclamation sanctioning man's action within a social context. "Social Freedom" is something of a redundancy, albeit a necessary one in today's ideological chaos.

yep, capitalism has worked better than socialism and communism so far.... why are all communist countries failing or failed

USSR = communism fell
Cuba = In a dire state
China = Overcrowded and in a mess, and China isn't even technically communist...
none of them were technically, or practically, communist. a common misconception amongst the uninformed.

if i were proposing state-capitalism or totalitarianism, your post would stand.

yep, capitalism has worked better than socialism and communism so far.... why are all communist countries failing or failed

USSR = communism fell
Cuba = In a dire state
China = Overcrowded and in a mess, and China isn't even technically communist...
NOT COMMUNIST STATES. Look at the UDCP's mainfesto, then look at how those countries are run. Not many similarities, eh? :rolleyes:

none of them were technically, or practically, communist. a common misconception amongst the uninformed.

if i were proposing state-capitalism or totalitarianism, your post would stand.
Yeah, but these states were invariably what happened when people who read [and more importantly believed] Marx and Engels came to power. They quickly came to realize that the disintegration of personal value wasn't possible, and as such they had to turn to authoritarian measures in order make the best show of it.

The reason none of them were Communist is because' it's impossible the [i]be Communist. A Communist society is [some] leftists' version of Heaven, and it's just as fictional.

none of them were technically, or practically, communist. a common misconception amongst the uninformed.

if i were proposing state-capitalism or totalitarianism, your post would stand.

why do they call themselves communist?

Besides, communism is a pipe dream created by left wing extremists,

and how can communists call themselves democratic, for a communist state to work, there would have to be no opposition to it, and that would mean there would be no point to democratic elections.

and how can communists call themselves democratic, for a communist state to work, there would have to be no opposition to it, and that would mean there would be no point to democratic elections.

In just a few words, you've managed to reveal your ignorance in oh-so-many ways...

In just a few words, you've managed to reveal your ignorance in oh-so-many ways...

would you mind explaining this... unless you say there can be resistors, but you would have to quell them with violence, which is removing their key right to free speech.

Or are you just saying that because you do not have an answer and you are hoping i will shut up and leave you alone, so that you won't have to answer awkward questions and lose votes.

In just a few words, you've managed to reveal your ignorance in oh-so-many ways...

I tend to agree with your assessment of Blu-tac, even though I don't support a communist society, I at least understand it.

Alright people, lets not let this get any worse. We have our differences and we all know it, say nothing of who is or isn't prepared to debate why until they're blue in the face. Save it for Parliament.

I have no worries (though Puff Daddy doesn't exist anymore ;)). I casted my vote for the Reason Party, and so should you, or else I'll send Melkor to your house! :p
No need, I voted Reason 2 days ago! I like his "screw you if you don't like it" attitude. :D

Blu-tac is right... in a way. A Communist state is one in which there is no government structure and everyone lives in peace and harmony, tilling the land together and bartering for goods. If this were ever to even come clsoe to happening (its probably impossible for it actually to happen in its entirity) there would have to be some external body preventing social classes from emerging, or "bits" of the society breaking off and forming capitalist areas. Essentially, people just arent built for Communism, as Lenin's experiences with War Communism in the 20s showed, and the only way it can come close to happening is to force it on people, inevitably with guns and terror tactics.

No need, I voted Reason 2 days ago! I like his "screw you if you don't like it" attitude. :D

Hehe, see we were arguing yesterday, yet we still both voted for the same party..lol ;)

Yeah, but these states were invariably what happened when people who read [and more importantly believed] Marx and Engels came to power. They quickly came to realize that the disintegration of personal value [i.e. the abolition of property rights] wasn't possible, and as such they had to turn to authoritarian measures in order make the best show of it.

absolutley - quite true... the world is not ready for communism just yet. and thats why we are a progressive/evolutionary communist party, rather than a revolutionary party - we've thought about it and we know this. our goals are long-term via an intermediary or transitional increasingly socialist state, as stated in our manifesto.

we do not stand for tyranny, oppression, for totalitarianism or corrupt state-capitalism, we stand for freedom and equality and, by our own estimation, should not be linked with any previous "communist" nation's actions. VOTE UDCP

Hehe, see we were arguing yesterday, yet we still both voted for the same party..lol ;)
That's what I love about my constituents.

But as a side note, I do feel somewhat obligated to condemn my following, as it seems I have gathered one, in defiance of all conventional wisdom. Being that I'm not very fond of large numbers of people in most cases, I'm going to have to harangue them a bit after the election, as I hope one would come to expect from someone with my philosophy. I don't know whether to be happy or disgusted that I'm winning. For the moment, I'll stick with happy, since I like it better. Happy's good for the ego.

Hehe, see we were arguing yesterday, yet we still both voted for the same party..lol ;)
*starts singing*
"It's a world of laughter
A world of tears
It's a world of hopes
And a world of fears
There's so much that we share
That it's time we're aware
It's a small world after all "

That's what I love about my constituents.

But as a side note, I do feel somewhat obligated to condemn my following, as it seems I have gathered one, in defiance of all conventional wisdom. Being that I'm not very fond of large numbers of people in most cases, I'm going to have to harangue them a bit after the election, as I hope one would come to expect from someone with my philosophy. I don't know whether to be happy or disgusted that I'm winning. For the moment, I'll stick with happy, since I like it better. Happy's good for the ego.
Well, ya could just look at it this way. Your party sucks too, just not as much as the others! AND your party sucks ALL ALONE. Feel better? :D

~EDIT~ j/k none of the parties suck.

Blu-tac is right... in a way. A Communist state is one in which there is no government structure and everyone lives in peace and harmony, tilling the land together and bartering for goods. If this were ever to even come clsoe to happening (its probably impossible for it actually to happen in its entirity) there would have to be some external body preventing social classes from emerging, or "bits" of the society breaking off and forming capitalist areas.

Uh, right.

"Isn't this great? We've finally established a communist utopia. It's perfect...we're all truly equal, and everyone has a great quality of life. Things have never been better, right George?"

"Nah, it sucks. I'm going to go start my own society. You should come, Fred!"

"Uh, why would I do that? I have everything I need here, and life is good. What are you planning to do, anyway?"

"Well...I'll be your "boss"...and i'll pay you to make stuff for me. Of course, your living standard won't be quite what it is now. I'll have to take the surplus, and use it to pay more people to make more stuff for me...and eventually i'll be the king of the world, or something."

"Oooh, that sounds grand! Sign me up!"

Uh, right.

"Isn't this great? We've finally established a communist utopia. It's perfect...we're all truly equal, and everyone has a great quality of life. Things have never been better, right George?"

"Nah, it sucks. I'm going to go start my own society. You should come, Fred!"

"Uh, why would I do that? I have everything I need here, and life is good. What are you planning to do, anyway?"

"Well...I'll be your "boss"...and i'll pay you to make stuff for me. Of course, your living standard won't be quite what it is now. I'll have to take the surplus, and use it to pay more people to make more stuff for me...and eventually i'll be the king of the world, or something."

"Oooh, that sounds grand! Sign me up!"

OR

GUY 1"Hey Bob, this is great, we have a communist utopia!"

GUY 2 "Yeah, I'm gonna go play Playstation"

GUY 1 "Huh? You can't"

GUY 2 "Because we don't have a Sony Corporation. You'll have to go play with sticks"

GUY 1 "DUDE, that sucks! It sucks so bad, It's giving me a headache! Wheres the Aspirin?

GUY 2 "Aspirin? Whats that?" "Go see the witch doctor, he'll pray for you or something. I gotta go, time to work the feilds and split it with people who aren't as hard of a worker as I am.

GUY 1 "Well, I'm gonna just ride my bike to the next democratis town. HEY, WHO KNOWS HOW TO MAKE A BIKE?"

This could go on for hours.

Uh, right.

"Isn't this great? We've finally established a communist utopia. It's perfect...we're all truly equal, and everyone has a great quality of life. Things have never been better, right George?"

"Nah, it sucks. I'm going to go start my own society. You should come, Fred!"

"Uh, why would I do that? I have everything I need here, and life is good. What are you planning to do, anyway?"

"Well...I'll be your "boss"...and i'll pay you to make stuff for me. Of course, your living standard won't be quite what it is now. I'll have to take the surplus, and use it to pay more people to make more stuff for me...and eventually i'll be the king of the world, or something."

"Oooh, that sounds grand! Sign me up!"

No, in fact most workers would be better off with capitalism, skilled workers get paid around twice as much as lesser skilled workers nowadays, and lead quite happy lives, their average income would drop to about the same as the lesser skilled worker for harder jobs, and would it really work as heart surgeons get the same as dustbinmen? I think not.

also, would people really work if they got the same standard of living either way?

absolutley - quite true... the world is not ready for communism just yet. and thats why we are a progressive/evolutionary communist party, rather than a revolutionary party - we've thought about it and we know this. our goals are long-term via an intermediary or transitional increasingly socialist state, as stated in our manifesto.

we do not stand for tyranny, oppression, for totalitarianism or corrupt state-capitalism, we stand for freedom and equality and, by our own estimation, should not be linked with any previous "communist" nation's actions. VOTE UDCP
Given this most recent statement, I find little basis for the angry post Ariddia wrote a few pages back bashing the DSP. The two parties likely share the same positions on every issue that will be brought up before parliament, especially given that the gradualist approach of the UDCP would seem to indicate a "nay" vote on a proposal to immediately ban private property. Given the showing of the leftist parties, we need to work together in order to create economic policies favorable to our ends. I doubt social policy will be an issue, given that Reason and NSCL would likely be on our side.

In other words, attacking each other is fratricidal. Given that this is a parliamentary system, "splitting the vote" isn't an issue, but hurting each others' vote count is.

Thus, I'd like people to vote DSP. But I feel no need to attack or criticize anyone for voting UDCP or RTP.

Did anyone else just notice the Conservatives get about 7 votes in the last 5 or so minutes? :eek:

Did anyone else just notice the Conservatives get about 7 votes in the last 5 or so minutes? :eek:

yes, since I started my tirade against communists.

OR

GUY 1"Hey Bob, this is great, we have a communist utopia!"

GUY 2 "Yeah, I'm gonna go play Playstation"

GUY 1 "Huh? You can't"

GUY 2 "Because we don't have a Sony Corporation. You'll have to go play with sticks"

GUY 1 "DUDE, that sucks! It sucks so bad, It's giving me a headache! Wheres the Aspirin?

GUY 2 "Aspirin? Whats that?" "Go see the witch doctor, he'll pray for you or something. I gotta go, time to work the feilds and split it with people who aren't as hard of a worker as I am.

GUY 1 "Well, I'm gonna just ride my bike to the next democratis town. HEY, WHO KNOWS HOW TO MAKE A BIKE?"

Yeah, funny. What makes you think that it's impossible to have video games, painkillers, or wheeled transportation in a communist society? That numbers amongst the most ridiculous things i've ever heard.

Did anyone else just notice the Conservatives get about 7 votes in the last 5 or so minutes? :eek:

Yup, been keeping an eye on them for days..and well, of course Blu-tac is online. :rolleyes:

Uh, right.

"Isn't this great? We've finally established a communist utopia. It's perfect...we're all truly equal, and everyone has a great quality of life. Things have never been better, right George?"

"Nah, it sucks. I'm going to go start my own society. You should come, Fred!"

"Uh, why would I do that? I have everything I need here, and life is good. What are you planning to do, anyway?"

"Well...I'll be your "boss"...and i'll pay you to make stuff for me. Of course, your living standard won't be quite what it is now. I'll have to take the surplus, and use it to pay more people to make more stuff for me...and eventually i'll be the king of the world, or something."

"Oooh, that sounds grand! Sign me up!"
lol. Just lol.

Anyway... well yes, some will like it, but others will not. I personally dont think that a society in which I do nothing except help others in subsistence farming is particularly utopian, nor do I think that any society in which I cannot advance, nor can I do anything to improve my quality of life to be particularly utopia. Nor, for that matter, do I believe that such a society would have a quality of life anywhere near my own, as a Briton.

Basically, you're looking at a simplistic view of a complex situation, without looking at any of the surrounding history or economics, and you've come to an equally simplistic and utterly incorrect conclusion. There will always be people who want to better themselves and their own conditions (most people infact, but some would, of course, view a Communist society as a utopia). Call me un-PC, but I dont want to live in an "equal" society, I want to live in a society where those who work hard and are intelligent get to the top, and those who dont work hard and arent intelligent sink to the bottom. As do many other people. For as long as these people exist (and they always will - and at the moment make up the majority) Communism will not work unless it is enforced.

Take War Communism, for example. All farmers had to give up all their surplus food and could only keep that which they needed. This is nice, fair and helping society, right? Well not really. The farmers put all the work in, and now will get nothing extra for it. What did they do? They burnt the food they didnt need, or they hid it, or sold it illegally to others. Why? Because most people fundamentally do not want be equal, they want control over their lives and the conditions of their lives, and for as long as there are people who want to progress, both society and their own conditions, there will be resistance to any Communist "ideal", and so for it to exist it would have to be enforced/

No, in fact most workers would be better off with capitalism, skilled workers get paid around twice as much as lesser skilled workers nowadays, and lead quite happy lives,

Really? Since when did sweatshop labour become a thing of the past? When did the third-world become wealthy?

Furthermore; who is to say that workers in a communist society are all unskilled?

their average income would drop to about the same as the lesser skilled worker for harder jobs, and would it really work as heart surgeons get the same as dustbinmen? I think not.

Irrelevant. There is no money in a communist society - and besides, difficulty is subjective. Someone may find a lesser challenge in being a doctor than a lumberjack. "From each according to his ability"

also, would people really work if they got the same standard of living either way?

Yes, because it's a societal responsibility to help maintain that standard of living. If you go out camping with a group of friends, do you sit around and refuse to cook, clean, put up tents, etc?

and people that do harder jobs get the same amount as people who do easier ones? like my example was the doctor and the dustbinman.

Face the facts, most people will go into a worse quality of life than they already have and will not support communism because they will come out worse under a communist regime.

Melkor - This is BS and YOU know it. You also know what I'm talking about.. look at the numbers. :headbang:

did you read the bit about the people not working, because they'll get the same either way?

and people that do harder jobs get the same amount as people who do easier ones? like my example was the doctor and the dustbinman.

Uh...yes...I did, and I also responded to it.


Irrelevant. There is no money in a communist society - and besides, difficulty is subjective. Someone may find a lesser challenge in being a doctor than a lumberjack. "From each according to his ability"



Yes, because it's a societal responsibility to help maintain that standard of living. If you go out camping with a group of friends, do you sit around and refuse to cook, clean, put up tents, etc?

Reply coming for you, Prae.

Well, puppet voting isn't technically a violation of site policy, so it would be kind of silly for me to try and investigate it. But yes, it is certainly happening.

Puppet voting just isnt cricket, wot wot! I mean - if you cant win an election without resorting to dastardly dirty tricks then you may as well not bally well turn up, wotwot!

Reply coming for you, Prae.
K.

In just a few words, you've managed to reveal your ignorance in oh-so-many ways...

He means that you will lose a great deal of your political rights. While all government policy will be arrived at democratically, there is an extremely spectrum on what policies can be voted on.

Under a capitalist system, socialist measures can be democratically voted on, under a communist system, capitalist measures cannot be democratically voted on.

Well, puppet voting isn't technically a violation of site policy, so it would be kind of silly for me to try and investigate it. But yes, it is certainly happening.

I've said it before and I will say it again, The NS Conservative Party does not approve of puppet voting.

http://img154.echo.cx/img154/5192/arms4pc.jpg

VOTE RTP

I've said it before and I will say it again, The NS Conservative Party does not approve of puppet voting.
That's fine, I'm not even saying you know about it or are responsible for it, even.

But it is certainly happening, and on a fairly regular and very predictable basis.

http://img154.echo.cx/img154/5192/arms4pc.jpg

VOTE RTP
Yey! Let's give random people guns. What fun, old boy, eh?

I've said it before and I will say it again, The NS Conservative Party does not approve of puppet voting.

That seems odd given that over the last three days that I've been watching this thread it only happens when you are online. I guess it's just a cowinkidink.

God I love IRC. Ahead again!

Yey! Let's give random people guns. What fun, old boy, eh?

Not random people, revolutionary workers

God I love IRC. Ahead again!
Wish I knew how to use IRC *mope mope mope*

Wish I knew how to use IRC *mope mope mope*
It's not too hard. I can tell you how to do it if you'd like.

It's not too hard. I can tell you how to do it if you'd like.
w00t! tell me tell me tell me

Given this most recent statement, I find little basis for the angry post Ariddia wrote a few pages back bashing the DSP. The two parties likely share the same positions on every issue that will be brought up before parliament, especially given that the gradualist approach of the UDCP would seem to indicate a "nay" vote on a proposal to immediately ban private property. Given the showing of the leftist parties, we need to work together in order to create economic policies favorable to our ends. I doubt social policy will be an issue, given that Reason and NSCL would likely be on our side.

In other words, attacking each other is fratricidal. Given that this is a parliamentary system, "splitting the vote" isn't an issue, but hurting each others' vote count is.

well i don't know why aridd would attack you, as far as i'm concerned we're buddy parties - as i've said before if i weren't firmly in the UDCP i'd be a DSP member :) its kind of like you're the short term - and we agree on that - but we take it further into the long term... so i totally agree we should be working together for our common goals.

however...

the gradualist approach of the UDCP would seem to indicate a "nay" vote on a proposal to immediately ban private property.
yes, in RL it would. but because this is a virtual internet forum with a ficticious Parliament, we can skip out the short term and just go straight for the anarcho-communist jugular :D


lol

Anyway... well yes, some will like it, but others will not. I personally dont think that a society in which I do nothing except help others in subsistence farming is particularly utopian, nor do I think that any society in which I cannot advance, nor can I do anything to improve my quality of life to be particularly utopia. Nor, for that matter, do I believe that such a society would have a quality of life anywhere near my own, as a Briton.

-snip-

There will always be people who want to better themselves and their own conditions (most people infact, but some would, of course, view a Communist society as a utopia). Call me un-PC, but I dont want to live in an "equal" society
and what is to stop someone from improving their quality of life under communism? especially under a moneyless-society of communism? if improving one's quality of life is nothing more than buying a marginally better this, or a faster that, then you have been truly taken in by the consumerist trap, my friend.
what is to stop someone under communism from helping others - helping all - improve the quality of their lives? that is a central premise behind the ideal, as it happens. by improving all we improve our own - quite the opposite to the capitalist method of 'me first, eventually everyone will be better off', which only leads to inequality, oppression and suffering.

I want to live in a society where those who work hard and are intelligent get to the top, and those who dont work hard and arent intelligent sink to the bottom
well what are you doing living in this society then? i think its you who have an oversimplistic view of the world, not us.
thats what the "equality" thing is all about (or mostly at least): this capitalist world is not fair in the way you've just described. what of all the rich people who just inherited daddy's money? they can send their kids to a better school and hence have a better start in life - do they need to work hard or even be intelligent to suceed and better their quality of life? no. the reverse is true for poor people, and more.

so if it was indeed as simple as 'those who deserve it (by working hard & being intelligent, as you say), get it' then this would be a utopia. but its not that simple.

lol. Just lol.

Anyway... well yes, some will like it, but others will not. I personally dont think that a society in which I do nothing except help others in subsistence farming is particularly utopian, nor do I think that any society in which I cannot advance, nor can I do anything to improve my quality of life to be particularly utopia. Nor, for that matter, do I believe that such a society would have a quality of life anywhere near my own, as a Briton.

Why can't we keep an industrial society with communism? That was the whole point behind Marx.

*some* anarchist thinkers did believe a substinence agricultural "peasant" utopia would be ideal, but I do not. Like most people, I like my creature comforts. I'll keep the industry, thankyou very much.

Furthermore, there is no reason you can't work to improve your quality of life. The difference is, you work to improve everyone's quality of life as well. Cooperation, not competition.

Basically, you're looking at a simplistic view of a complex situation, without looking at any of the surrounding history or economics, and you've come to an equally simplistic and utterly incorrect conclusion. There will always be people who want to better themselves and their own conditions (most people infact, but some would, of course, view a Communist society as a utopia). [quote]Call me un-PC, but I dont want to live in an "equal" society, I want to live in a society where those who work hard and are intelligent get to the top, and those who dont work hard and arent intelligent sink to the bottom.

Doesn't describe modern capitalism, either. You can have brains and work hard all of your life and still remain dirt poor.

Take War Communism, for example. All farmers had to give up all their surplus food and could only keep that which they needed. This is nice, fair and helping society, right? Well not really. The farmers put all the work in, and now will get nothing extra for it. What did they do? They burnt the food they didnt need, or they hid it, or sold it illegally to others. Why? Because most people fundamentally do not want be equal, they want control over their lives and the conditions of their lives, and for as long as there are people who want to progress, both society and their own conditions, there will be resistance to any Communist "ideal", and so for it to exist it would have to be enforced/

Peasants, not workers. The peasants weren't involved in the revolution, and unfortunately did not understand what was being done - and even more unfortunately, the Bolsheviks didn't understand what they were doing to them. Most were illiterate, and i doubt very many even had heard of Marx or anarchists like Bakunin, etc. I completely understand what they did. If I had been farming all my life on my own patch of land, selling what i can every year to scrape some sort of meager existence out of life...and somebody turned up and told me that everything my life stood for now belonged to them, i'd be pissed off too.

That's why industrial development needs to come before communism. You can't have a revolution which most of the population isn't involved in or has any idea about...obviously.

Now if the peasants were educated, and voluntarily collectivised, it would be a different story.

w00t! tell me tell me tell me
I'll TG ya so as not to screw up the thread.

I'll TG ya so as not to screw up the thread.
cheers
*hugs randian*

That seems odd given that over the last three days that I've been watching this thread it only happens when you are online. I guess it's just a cowinkidink.

have you ever stopped to think that the time when i am on is the time when I am getting my message accross? The time when people can see me debating, and make up their mind that they are going to vote for us? Cus thats very hard to do when I'm offline, have you ever tried it?

And also, have you thought that there are so many left-wing parties there are even variations of the same ideology, there is one right wing party, so they are forced to vote for us. if there was one left and one right party, i think i can tell who'd win that.

Even at sea you are not safe!!!!

http://www.arf.ru/Misc/weasels.JPG

Vote MOBRA!!!!!!

Well, puppet voting isn't technically a violation of site policy, so it would be kind of silly for me to try and investigate it. But yes, it is certainly happening.

Bah! Well I can't vouch for anyone else, but i'm not, and I certainly think whoever is deserves a swift kick in the groin. :mad:

God I love IRC. Ahead again!

BAH again! *mutters*

"I'm a Mod. Go and vote for me. I command you." "Yes Melkor!"

:p

I'm going to bed; will read replies tomorrow.

VOTE UDCP

Even at sea you are not safe!!!!

Vote MOBRA!!!!!!

lol...where the hell do you dig that crap up?

lol...where the hell do you dig that crap up?

What do you mean 'crap'

It's part of the massing Mobra army!!!!!

have you ever stopped to think that the time when i am on is the time when I am getting my message accross? The time when people can see me debating, and make up their mind that they are going to vote for us? Cus thats very hard to do when I'm offline, have you ever tried it?

Well, sure I suppose I can't totally say I know anything for a fact. What I do know is when I started on NS back in early 2003 I was very involved in the UN forum and the NS UN as far as lobbying for support of resolutions and such. I know I was quite popular back then, heck they even made me a moderator. I can also tell you that for every one person I got to support a resolution 50 said no, or simply didn't reply. I see your start date as 2005, I just can't imagine that you are able to get more support than I was able to and I'm a chick and not a bad looking one either. But meh, someone is using puppets to up your numbers, maybe it's you, maybe it's not. But I personally have little doubt that it's happening.

BAH again! *mutters*

"I'm a Mod. Go and vote for me. I command you." "Yes Melkor!"

:p
come on IRC... i'm sure we can convince em... or kill em all, whatever works best :P

come on IRC... i'm sure we can convince em... or kill em all, whatever works best :P
Hey, PM, haven't annoyed you for a while.

Hey, PM, haven't annoyed you for a while.
:mad: *gets annoyed*

happy now?

Very :D

NS Conservative Party

You know we're the right choice

well i don't know why aridd would attack you, as far as i'm concerned we're buddy parties - as i've said before if i weren't firmly in the UDCP i'd be a DSP member :) its kind of like you're the short term - and we agree on that - but we take it further into the long term... so i totally agree we should be working together for our common goals.



Yeah, sorry about that. Some DSP member was bashing the UDCP repeatedly by saying we were splitting the left vote and helping the Conservatives. So I replied.

We have indeed got common goals and indeals on a number of points, and maybe we can see about preparing joint proposals for Parliament, so we can at least pass a few laws that we can both agree on.

He means that you will lose a great deal of your political rights. While all government policy will be arrived at democratically, there is an extremely spectrum on what policies can be voted on.

Under a capitalist system, socialist measures can be democratically voted on, under a communist system, capitalist measures cannot be democratically voted on.

Ah. Well, that's not really a problem, since we're evolutionary communists, not revolutionary ones. People wouldn't want to vote for capitalist measures anyway.

Ah. Well, that's not really a problem, since we're evolutionary communists, not revolutionary ones. People wouldn't want to vote for capitalist measures anyway.

Doesn't matter. It's still a capitalist state, still being run by capitalists.

Ah. Well, that's not really a problem, since we're evolutionary communists, not revolutionary ones. People wouldn't want to vote for capitalist measures anyway.

Can you explain to me when and how society makes the transition from government enforced socialism to non-governmental communism?

I am seriously looking for yours or Marx's explanation here, because socialism requires huge pervasive government, and communism is anarchic.

Doesn't matter. It's still a capitalist state, still being run by capitalists.

I agree with DHomme!

As long as the system is capitalist, the wealthy and powerful will use government policy to further their own goals and stay in power, regardless if it is a socialist policy.

However, revolutionary communism requires the installation of an authoritarian hierarchy to lead the revolution and mold the society post-revolution. And that authoritarian will only need a future revolution to oust it.

I'm telling you, communism is findamentally flawed, it is not possible because there will always be people who disagree with it, at least in a capitalist society they won't upset things for everyone. in a communist society they will. and a communist society will lead to a highly effective black market, it just can't work because there will be losers under any system, but there will be more under a communist one.

and what is to stop someone from improving their quality of life under communism?
Because if people are allowed to improve their lives then peoples' lives will improve at different rates, and some peoples' lvies will worsen, and it will no longer be euqal or even Communist.

especially under a moneyless-society of communism?
Because without money no one is able to purchase the requisite tools, nor are they able to purchase the requisite services. Some "communists" say 'Fine, we'll just barter." Well... ok... but that isnt Communist, it's just capitalism using goods as currency rather than paper money or coins.

if improving one's quality of life is nothing more than buying a marginally better this, or a faster that, then you have been truly taken in by the consumerist trap, my friend.
Yes, Ive been taken in by the vicious evil consumerist lies that my life is better with central heating or a computer. Oh wait...

what is to stop someone under communism from helping others - helping all - improve the quality of their lives? that is a central premise behind the ideal, as it happens. by improving all we improve our own - quite the opposite to the capitalist method of 'me first, eventually everyone will be better off', which only leads to inequality, oppression and suffering.
How, precisely, would a stateless society improve without the free market mechanism? Please do tell me, because I actually dont understand.

well what are you doing living in this society then? i think its you who have an oversimplistic view of the world, not us.
Yes... me and all the other ecomomics and history students... wait a minute...

thats what the "equality" thing is all about (or mostly at least): this capitalist world is not fair in the way you've just described.
No it isnt, but it's closer than a society where all resources are redistributed, which is essentially what Communism is (you've read Marx, right?).

what of all the rich people who just inherited daddy's money? they can send their kids to a better school and hence have a better start in life - do they need to work hard or even be intelligent to suceed and better their quality of life?
Yes. They may not need to do those things to survive, but they certainly need to do these things to get a good job and increase their wealth, or even keep it level. Most "stupid" "rich kids" waste all of their money. I know, I've met some of them. I also quite like the idea that the wealth I amass in my life through my hard work can go on to benefit others, ie. my family.

the reverse is true for poor people, and more.
Oh of course - the poor have to work to get out of their situation, which is by no means hard in a society like Britain's. If they choose not to, and bunk off school or whatever, then I really have no sympathy for them.

so if it was indeed as simple as 'those who deserve it (by working hard & being intelligent, as you say), get it' then this would be a utopia. but its not that simple.
Oh of course, but capitalism is closer to that than socialism / communism (by its very definition) is even capable of being.

Why can't we keep an industrial society with communism? That was the whole point behind Marx.
Because an industrial society needs to be managed. A factory worker cannot also run the factory, nor can he also make his own food and maintain his own transport. Other people need to do these things, and what if they dont want to? Are you going to force them? As it is, skilled labour (like mechanics) is paid a premium. Unskilled labour (like farm workers) is not. This is what keeps the system working. Under a communist system (without a state) this is not possible and under a socialist system (with wealth "redistribution" and state ownership of factories) factories are either driven out of business by taxation, or become fundamentally inefficient because of centralised management.

In addition, someone has to clean the factory or it will get dirty, and someone has to manage it to keep it responding to changing cirumcstances. Clearly the latter is a better job, even if it has the same pay. So why would anyone want to do the former? Are you going to force them? It just doesnt make sense.

*some* anarchist thinkers did believe a substinence agricultural "peasant" utopia would be ideal, but I do not. Like most people, I like my creature comforts. I'll keep the industry, thankyou very much.
Then you're a champagne socialist, and you dont live in the real world.

Furthermore, there is no reason you can't work to improve your quality of life. The difference is, you work to improve everyone's quality of life as well. Cooperation, not competition.
As I have said, if you are able to improve your quality of life then the society becomes fundamentally unfair. Without a free market system or a controlling central government (which Communism doesnt allow for, and which, as we have seen in RL, even the most committed communists tend to turn into military dictatorships) it isnt possible to manage "blanket progress".

Doesn't describe modern capitalism, either. You can have brains and work hard all of your life and still remain dirt poor.
As a general rule, that doesnt happen. It may be harder if you're poor, and you may not get as far, but it's perfectly possible to go to college from a poor background, and then onto a good, well paid job. I know people who have done this, and the system allows for it. Communism / socialism, on the other hand, by its very definition does not allow anyone, regardless of their inherent virtues, to rise above any other.

Peasants, not workers.
I didnt say peasants, I said "farmers".

The peasants weren't involved in the revolution, and unfortunately did not understand what was being done -
Oh they understood perfectly when the Bolsheviks came along, stole all their food and shot anyone caught hiding any or resisting. You're taking the standard "they dont know what's good for them" view of a tyrant - if anyone doesnt support you you assume they were just deluded and so they dont matter.

and even more unfortunately, the Bolsheviks didn't understand what they were doing to them. Most were illiterate, and i doubt very many even had heard of Marx or anarchists like Bakunin, etc. I completely understand what they did.
The Bolsheviks set up massive propaganda programmes and literacy courses so they could expose the peasants to their propaganda too. The peasants understood, but they didnt want Communism, but they were on the receiving end of it.

That's why industrial development needs to come before communism. You can't have a revolution which most of the population isn't involved in or has any idea about...obviously.
As I have said, without a government or a free market mechanism, an industrial society falls apart. With a central all-controlling Government it justs becomes massively inefficient.

Now if the peasants were educated, and voluntarily collectivised, it would be a different story.
Oh of course - any ideology will work if everyone agrees with you all of the time, but they dont. Even educated sailors at the Kronsdadt naval base who supported the Bolshevik revolution rebelled against War Communism. Communism can only come close to "working" if it happens at the barrel of a gun, and it then slowly tears apart society until it eventually becomes one of subsistence farming, because nothing else can be supported in a communist state.

I want to live in a society where those who work hard and are intelligent get to the top, and those who dont work hard and arent intelligent sink to the bottom.Um... why is intelligence something to be rewarded now? Any rationale, or did you just pick a random characteristic to idolise?

Um... why is intelligence something to be rewarded now? Any rationale, or did you just pick a random characteristic to idolise?

Because most intelligent people have to work hard to get their intelligence, and if you work harder you should get more and if you are lazy you should get less....

and intelligent and hard working people are generally more useful than fat slobs who do nothing but leech of the state and have never had a days work in their life, and such should be rewarded for it.

http://www.geocities.com/halfduplex2001/NSCONS3.gif

Um... why is intelligence something to be rewarded now? Any rationale, or did you just pick a random characteristic to idolise?
Intelligent people can do the greatest good for society, and so they should be at the top. Unintelligent people cannot, and so they should not. Mind that I qualified it by saying "and hardwork". Clearly intelligent people shouldnt be put at the top purely through virtue of their birth characteristics - people who have been given power without having to work for it generally abuse it - and less intelligent people who work hard to get there should also be able to get to the very top too. I see no greater virtues by which you can sort people than intelligence and hardwork. In a socialist society you would be made "equal" purely because you were born, which will not only create an extremely inefficient (and therefore poor) society, but it will also be fundamentally unfair.

Because most intelligent people have to work hard to get their intelligence, and if you work harder you should get more and if you are lazy you should get less....
But surely this classical form of society means that the 'lazy people'are exploited by the 'smart' people, which leads to social inequality.

Mobra is the only party to offer social equality.

But surely this classical form of societymeans that the 'lazypeople'are exploited by the 'smart' people, which leads to socail inequality.

Mobra is the only party to offer social equality.
As I said, I dont actually want "equality".

I agree with DHomme!

As long as the system is capitalist, the wealthy and powerful will use government policy to further their own goals and stay in power, regardless if it is a socialist policy.

However, revolutionary communism requires the installation of an authoritarian hierarchy to lead the revolution and mold the society post-revolution. And that authoritarian will only need a future revolution to oust it.

You're a closet trot, arent you?

But surely this classical form of society means that the 'lazy people'are exploited by the 'smart' people, which leads to social inequality.

Mobra is the only party to offer social equality.

yes but if the people didn't want to be exploited then they should stop leeching of the state and get a proper job... notice i said lazy... which is different to dumb, i know some people can't help being dumb... but lazy people can help being lazy.

As I said, I dont actually want "equality".
boo!!!!

Down with the evil surfacers!!!!!


http://img194.echo.cx/img194/5504/ratattack7zk.jpg

You're a closet trot, arent you?

My inner-commie is just itching to shoot up some country club.

boo!!!!

Down with the evil surfacers!!!!!
How is allowing someone equal treatment at others' expense without them having to work or doing anything for it in any way fair?

http://www.geocities.com/halfduplex2001/NSCONS3.gif

Not you! :D

But surely this classical form of society means that the 'lazy people'are exploited by the 'smart' people, which leads to social inequality.

Mobra is the only party to offer social equality.

Equality through communism, or equality through rodents devouring the human race? That is a tough choice.

Do the rats share the carcasses equally amongst themselves?

How is allowing someone equal treatment at others' expense without them having to work or doing anything for it in any way fair?

I didn't say lazy people should be supported by the hard-working/smart.

I was saying the lazy shouldn't be exploited by the smart/hard-working

Equality through communism, or equality through rodents devouring the human race? That is a tough choice.

Do the rats share the carcasses equally amongst themselves?

Not everyone gets eaten....

http://img294.echo.cx/img294/7928/img550rm.jpg

I didn't say lazy people should be supported by the hard-working/smart.

I was saying the lazy shouldn't be exploited by the smart/hard-working

the lazy can't be exploited by the hard-working because they don't work for them!

As I said, I dont actually want "equality".

Shame on you

the lazy can't be exploited by the hard-working because they don't work for them!

That's not what I meant.

That's not what I meant.

what did you mean then?

I didn't say lazy people should be supported by the hard-working/smart.

I was saying the lazy shouldn't be exploited by the smart/hard-working
Define "exploited".

Shame on you
lol.

what did you mean then?

I meant that the 'smart' factory owners etc shouldn't exploit them, and the 'hard-working' man shouldn't have to support them in benfits etc.

I meant that the 'smart' factory owners etc shouldn't exploit them, and the 'hard-working' man shouldn't have to support them in benfits etc.

how are the factory owners going to exploit them? they lie in bed till about 1pm, they don't exactly have jobs you know..

Define "exploited".

The oxford dictionary defines it as, 'To be used to another's ends; to be taken advantage of.'

lol.

It wasn't that funny...

how are the factory owners going to exploit them? they lie in bed till about 1pm, they don't exactly have jobs you know..

A good point.

Sorry, i got my arguements mixed up.

1)The 'Unskilled, but hard working man' shouldn't be exploited.

2)The 'lazy git'shouldn't be supported by others.

A good point.

Sorry, i got my arguements mixed up.

1)The 'Unskilled, but hard working man' shouldn't be exploited.

2)The 'lazy git'shouldn't be supported by others.

well i suppose i agree with that.

Because if people are allowed to improve their lives then peoples' lives will improve at different rates, and some peoples' lvies will worsen, and it will no longer be euqal or even Communist.
more equal than under capitalism.
and thats what government is for (yes marxist communism is supposed to be stateless, but the UDCP aren't marxist)
besides, you fail to take into account community, and/or helping each other (as below)

Because without money no one is able to purchase the requisite tools, nor are they able to purchase the requisite services. Some "communists" say 'Fine, we'll just barter." Well... ok... but that isnt Communist, it's just capitalism using goods as currency rather than paper money or coins.
you can't think beyond the ultra-short term world of money and 'purchasing'... nor have you understood our manifesto correctly.
each citizen puts in their life's worth of labour. everyone else does this, too. thus everyone is entitled to the fruits of everyone else's labour - simple as that. a long term, more open view. we're not talking about 'bartering' either, but giving one-another the tools, and whatever else, they need. why? because, in the long run, you can, and will, be able to do the same.


Yes, Ive been taken in by the vicious evil consumerist lies that my life is better with central heating or a computer. Oh wait...
well you're taking it too far. like kanabia says, there is no reason why industry must stop, why innovation must stop. innovation won't be driven by the desire for profit, but for desire to benefit all. i'm sorry if thats hard to comprehend.
besides, capitalism has got us this far, well done it. now its time for socialism to take over.


How, precisely, would a stateless society improve without the free market mechanism? Please do tell me, because I actually dont understand.
the UDCP works on the premise of communitarianism - on the basis of small scale communities helping each other out, sharing resources, forming low-key local governments (with the aid of technology if you read our manifesto), and working to better the community as a whole. just think of those crazy Ahmish (SP?) communities in the states who help each other out when a new house needs to be built - that kind of thing.
now, imagine that happening all accross the globe, in however many tens of thousands of communities, all brought together through technology for governance, safety and to provide (what can only be called) a market.

No it isnt, but it's closer than a society where all resources are redistributed, which is essentially what Communism is (you've read Marx, right?).
i fail to see how a system corrupted by those with power and money - able to keep their power/wealth, and make more, far, far more easily than the poor can - is more fair than one where all is equal.
and yes i have read marx, but continuous forcible redistribution is not what we're about (i'll say it again: we're not marxists, we just use the elements that strike us as best).
we're about setting up a free and equal society where greed and inequality are no longer an issue. however, with humanity's current mindset (human nature) this is far from possible. we work for a future when it will be.


Yes. They may not need to do those things to survive, but they certainly need to do these things to get a good job and increase their wealth, or even keep it level. Most "stupid" "rich kids" waste all of their money. I know, I've met some of them. I also quite like the idea that the wealth I amass in my life through my hard work can go on to benefit others, ie. my family.
while other people do need those things, and more, just to survive. hence the inequality, hence the unfairness of some being born up there, and others (more) being born down there.
its a lottery who you are born to, whether you are born rich or poor. the most fair thing to do is have everyone born equal.


Oh of course - the poor have to work to get out of their situation, which is by no means hard in a society like Britain's. If they choose not to, and bunk off school or whatever, then I really have no sympathy for them.
it is hard when those with wealth & power hold all the cards, or the keys, or whatever analogy you want to use. once you're poor its very hard to get un-poor, once you're rich its very easy to stay rich (and keep the poor where they are).
hence the inequality, hence the unfairness.


Oh of course, but capitalism is closer to that than socialism / communism (by its very definition) is even capable of being.
indeed it should be. however it is far from a meritocracy, and as such - because of its problems - it becomes a form of dystopia. hence socialism is preferable.


Because an industrial society needs to be managed.
industrial society as we know it, under capitalism, must be managed, with those above to be obeyed and those below to obey... however this is not the only way of arranging industry. the cottage industries of the early industrial revolution worked pretty well as small, family units working in a community.
it may be less efficient than worker-alienating factory production (where the owner steals from the worker's pocket of course), but who needs efficiency when you have already everything you need? we maximise happiness and freedom, not just economic growth.

btw, have you ever stopped to consider that the level of economic growth that capitalism brings and strives for is wholly unsustainable? what will happen to capitalism in the future when the resources run dry and there is nothing left to exploit?
any economics student knows that there is sustainable growth and unsustainable growth, and that the latter has higher growth rates per se. the latter is also caused, at least in part, by capitalism's relentless drive for efficiency. its cheaper and more efficient to just expel waste products into rivers and into the air than it is to process it and dispose of it properly - or, even, recycle it.


VOTE UDCP

well i suppose i agree with that.

Good.

It means you escape the Hamster of Doom.

Good.

It means you escape the Hamster of Doom.

but i'm the leader of the conservative party.....

but i'm the leader of the conservative party.....

i didn't say you escape total destruction. It just means i won't destroy you just yet :)

you can't think beyond the ultra-short term world of money and 'purchasing'... nor have you understood our manifesto correctly.
each citizen puts in their life's worth of labour. everyone else does this, too. thus everyone is entitled to the fruits of everyone else's labour - simple as that. a long term, more open view. we're not talking about 'bartering' either, but giving one-another the tools, and whatever else, they need. why? because, in the long run, you can, and will, be able to do the same.


but will people really do this, because they will probably be dead before the so called "rewards" start coming through...

and with this, you only get what you need, not what you want, which will be a huge step down for most people, and then you have protests on your hand, and if you're truly democratic, will you stop them protesting?

but will people really do this, because they will probably be dead before the so called "rewards" start coming through...

and with this, you only get what you need, not what you want, which will be a huge step down for most people, and then you have protests on your hand, and if you're truly democratic, will you stop them protesting?

I generally agree with Pure Metals sentiments.


In answer to your question.

Yes, we will let them protest...

but they waste their time, because there will be no one to portest to/at.

I generally agree with Pure Metals sentiments.


In answer to your question.

Yes, we will let them protest...

but they waste their time, because there will be no one to portest to/at.

in which case a black market will be formed and it will just become "underground capitalism", but capitalism will still be there, there will still be sellers, there will still be buyers, it just means there will be a change of currency from money to other goods.

VOTE NS CONSERVATIVE PARTY IN THIS DECISIVE LAST HOUR

http://img170.echo.cx/img170/5286/capw4eh.jpg

NBIP

LAND OF HOPE AND GLORY!

Come brave citizens and friends and support the great patriotic cause, reclaim the empire, celebrate Britannia, drink real tea, and converse in cliched tones!

Ask both what society can do for you, and what you can do for society!

Vote UDCP!

more equal than under capitalism.
You dont understand. I dont think that equality is necessarily a good thing, but what you are claiming is possible under a Communist system is actually not because it would lead to a capitalist system.

and thats what government is for (yes marxist communism is supposed to be stateless, but the UDCP aren't marxist)
Then you're socialist, not communist, and whenever the "massive state" approach has been treid it becomes hugely inefficient and corrupt.

besides, you fail to take into account community, and/or helping each other (as below)
That works on a street or village level, not on a national level.

you can't think beyond the ultra-short term world of money and 'purchasing'...
Socialists really do make me laugh. What are you using now to type this? A computer maybe? What do you live in? A house perhaps? Where do you get your food from... etc... although it's 'trendy' to knock "materialism", stuff makes peoples lives better. Stuff like medicine, heating and shelter.

nor have you understood our manifesto correctly.
I havent read your manifesto, but you're communists right? Ok, thats all I need to know. Believe it or not, but I dont care particularly about your made up party, Im arguing against communism as a whole.

each citizen puts in their life's worth of labour. everyone else does this, too. thus everyone is entitled to the fruits of everyone else's labour - simple as that.
Even though some will work harder than others? And regardless of what they actually do. Do you mean everyone gets whatever they want for free? I think you can see how that wouldnt work. What else are you suggesting? We have some form of "currency" that people get from working? Like a "wage", maybe? Hmmm... sounds familiar.

a long term, more open view. we're not talking about 'bartering' either, but giving one-another the tools, and whatever else, they need. why? because, in the long run, you can, and will, be able to do the same.
That doesnt make sense. If someone has a job, how do they have the time to do stuff for other people as well? And are they allowed to refuse? What is lots and lots of people demanded things? Does this mean that if someone doesnt know a carpenter, they dont get any furniture? Ultimately what you're proposing is just an extremely inefficient and moronic form of capitalism.

well you're taking it too far. like kanabia says, there is no reason why industry must stop, why innovation must stop.
And as I said (and as you appear to be ignoring) a stateless society cannot manage industry, and communism is a stateless industry. You have read Marx, havent you? :roll: If, as I suspect, you are not communsits but socialists, then you have a capitalist system but one centrally controlled, making it horribly inefficient.

innovation won't be driven by the desire for profit, but for desire to benefit all.
Well let's look at why computers are so widespread - making computers and selling them makes money. If there is no money involved (and hence no possible way of recouping the massive costs involved in developing a new CPU, for example) then they simply will not be built. In fact (under your proposals) the only way such a thing could be built would be if the vast bureaucracy of the government decided to invest resources in it, which is extremely unlikely as they wont have any garauntee of any kind of return, ideological or otherwise, on their diversion of funds.

i'm sorry if thats hard to comprehend.
Yeah thanks for that. Let's keep the stupid little sniping comments to a minimum please. Im trying to debate serious issues, not engage in some immature slagging match.

besides, capitalism has got us this far, well done it. now its time for socialism to take over.
You've still failed to explain how a socialist society would be able to advance at all, let alone show how it's a more progressive system than capitalism. If you look at the states with massive state-control of industry (the USSR for example) they are generally poor and far behind technologically.

the UDCP works on the premise of communitarianism - on the basis of small scale communities helping each other out,
Wait a minute. You want a large state that owns all industry... and you want to segment the world into lots of tiny communities...?

Anyway, small scale communities dont have the resources to support industry, or technological advancements or research.

sharing resources, forming low-key local governments (with the aid of technology if you read our manifesto),
Technology which they cant sustain, because they're too small to have enough resources or enough trained people to maintain them.

and working to better the community as a whole. just think of those crazy Ahmish (SP?) communities in the states
The Amish peoples still use horse and carts. So much for your technology arguments. In fact, most of your arguments seem to be made up of vague, unsubstantiated assertions and buzz-words.

who help each other out when a new house needs to be built - that kind of thing.
Even though the vast majority of them will have no experience building houses and all of them will have other jobs they have to do...? Thanks, but no thanks. I'd rather get a job, make some money and pay some actual professional builders who have some clue what the hell they're doing and arent trying to do another job at the same time.

now, imagine that happening all accross the globe, in however many tens of thousands of communities,
Yes, it would be awful. The world would be so damn segmented that no one would be able to do anything that required any kind of effort. Communism =/= making thousands more pointless little demi-countries.

all brought together through technology for governance, safety and to provide (what can only be called) a market.
What the hell? Listen to yourself! What does that even mean...?


i fail to see how a system corrupted by those with power and money
Evidence of this corruption? I have plenty of evidence of corruption in Cuba and the USSR which, by your UDAP (or whatever)'s definition of communism are both communist. ;)
- able to keep their power/
Thatcher, Clinton, etc... are all out of office now. The democratic capitalist nations do not allow people to consolidate power. The Soviet premiers, IIRC, were all leaders for life.

wealth
Enron, anyone? Corrupt companies go out of business.

, and make more, far, far more easily than the poor can - is more fair than one where all is equal.
It's more fair because those who are intelligent and work hard can found businesses and make money, or work for these businesses (believe it or not, this isnt the 19th century, and you arent either the big, evil boss or a poor oppressed little worker) in high skilled positions that pay well.

and yes i have read marx, but continuous forcible redistribution is not what we're about (i'll say it again: we're not marxists, we just use the elements that strike us as best).
we're about setting up a free and equal society where greed and inequality are no longer an issue. however, with humanity's current mindset (human nature) this is far from possible. we work for a future when it will be.
Awww, that's nice. Well my society is already free, and I would much rather live in one that is fair than one that is equal.

while other people do need those things, and more, just to survive. hence the inequality, hence the unfairness of some being born up there, and others (more) being born down there.
The vast majority of people are born in the middle. They could go either way, and do. In a Communist society (by its very definition) you cannot become better or worse off than anyone else. This may be "equal" but it is unfair, as those who work hard get no more reward than those who are lazy.

its a lottery who you are born to, whether you are born rich or poor. the most fair thing to do is have everyone born equal.
ROFL, no it isnt. The frontrunner for the Tory leadership in Britain came from a state school and working class background, and he could well be Prime Minister in a few years. The lazy stay poor, because they are lazy, not because they are poor.

it is hard when those with wealth & power hold all the cards, or the keys, or whatever analogy you want to use. once you're poor its very hard to get un-poor, once you're rich its very easy to stay rich (and keep the poor where they are).
lol. Thats one of the stupidest paragraphs Ive ever read. If you're poor and you work hard at school and go on to university and get a good job, you have as good a chance as anyone else, and I know plenty of people who have done so. The rich do not want to keep the poor down where they are - they have no interests in doing so, and most people who say that do it because they want to fight some stupid non-existant class war. The poor only have problems getting out of their situation if they are badly educated, which in a society like Britain is not necessarily the case.

hence the inequality, hence the unfairness.
Inequality, maybe, unfair... not so much. It's much, much less fair living in a society where you can never progress beyond the mediocre, and if you try to advance the system pulls you back down to the standard level.

indeed it should be. however it is far from a meritocracy, and as such - because of its problems - it becomes a form of dystopia. hence socialism is preferable.
lol. The average standard of living in Britain and America is better than that of practically any other nation. Just because there are some people who are unfairly poor does not mean that the entire system is a ZOMFG evil dystpoia of d00m. I dont see why you should punish the majority just so that they can be pulled down to the level of the unfairly disadvantaged minority.

industrial society as we know it, under capitalism, must be managed, with those above to be obeyed and those below to obey...
Yes, but in Communism there is no state. Do you know what communism is?

however this is not the only way of arranging industry. the cottage industries of the early industrial revolution worked pretty well as small, family units working in a community.
And the cottage industries were so horribly inefficient that you had to be extremely wealth to be able to afford what today even the poorest have access to.

it may be less efficient than worker-alienating factory production (where the owner steals from the worker's pocket of course),
How does the current system alienate workers? They work, they get paid, they spend money, they get stuff. This sounds perfectly fair to me. Not at all like theft, especially as, um, nothing is taken from the worker and, um, the worker voluntarily works in the factory.

but who needs efficiency when you have already everything you need? we maximise happiness and freedom, not just economic growth.
I dont understand. How would everyone have "everything they need" if industrial production is so inefficient that it cant produce enough for everyone, as the cottage industries could not? You realise that there is some kind of end point to economic growth, yes? And that that is a quality of living that allows you to afford a computer to argue with me about how ungrateful you are over t'internet? You should study economics.

btw, have you ever stopped to consider that the level of economic growth that capitalism brings and strives for is wholly unsustainable? what will happen to capitalism in the future when the resources run dry and there is nothing left to exploit?
As resources become more scarce, prices will go up and other methods of production, which are being developed as we speak, will become viable. You see? The capitalist system is self-restraining.

any economics student knows that there is sustainable growth and unsustainable growth, and that the latter has higher growth rates per se.
Yes, but as I said, capitalism is self restraining.

the latter is also caused, at least in part, by capitalism's relentless drive for efficiency.
ROFLMAO. You realise that efficiency = less waste = more can be done with fewer resources = more sustainable, yes?

its cheaper and more efficient to just expel waste products into rivers and into the air than it is to process it and dispose of it properly - or, even, recycle it.
But this is illegal, because it kills people, hence costs cannot be cut in this way.

A Broadcast from the NS Conservative Party

Communism cannot work, it can in theory, yet in practice it will fall apart, people will not always do what you want them to, and just one person in a communist society disobeying will mean havoc for the whole society. This is not so under capitalism. Also in capitalism, the hard-working get more than the lazy, so if you put in the efffort, you reap the rewards, that is why i support capitalism, although it may not seem fairer on the outlook, when you study it, it really is the best option.

ROFL, no it isnt. The frontrunner for the Tory leadership in Britain came from a state school and working class background, and he could well be Prime Minister in a few years. The lazy stay poor, because they are lazy, not because they are poor.

I agree, I come from a single parent household in a bad area of the UK, one of the poorest in the country, I think stoke on trent classes as 4th overall, but look at me, i'm in a private school, on a scholarship, i couldn't afford it otherwise, but because of my intelligence i have got into one of the top 100 schools in the UK, and do you think i got that being lazy, no, i got it by working hard, by studying, and all that from a poor background and a single mother... somehow i think not...

A Broadcast from the NS Conservative Party

Communism cannot work, it can in theory, yet in practice it will fall apart, people will not always do what you want them to, and just one person in a communist society disobeying will mean havoc for the whole society. This is not so under capitalism. Also in capitalism, the hard-working get more than the lazy, so if you put in the efffort, you reap the rewards, that is why i support capitalism, although it may not seem fairer on the outlook, when you study it, it really is the best option.

My esteemed electorate, why vote for simple, unfettered capitlism in comparison to the antiquated, jingoistic capitalism we can proffer. We at the NBIP , a cadre of utterly benign and frightfully capable fellows, combine impeccable political reasoning with an imperialistic prediliction, refined etiquette, extensive knowledge of tea and all related matters, and the full restored illustrious triumph of the Britsih Empire. Huzzah!

http://img25.imageshack.us/img25/1660/rtpmensh7iq.jpg

Praetonia: oh god thats a long post... i'll reply later or tomorrow when i'm not trying to watch a movie ;)



edit: while i'm here VOTE UDCP!

No, Vote NS Conservative Party

I consider myself a conservative, which is why I joined the NS Conservative Party. Speaking for myself and not the party as a whole, I believe that conservatism is made up of the following social, political, and fiscal tenets.

Social:
* We must learn from our heritage, or we will repeat our mistakes.
* The Traditional family is the most important social unit and is fundamental to the survival of our society.

Political:
* The least government is the best government.
* The only valid functions of Federal government are to provide for the common defense and to regulate interstate trade.
* Anything more than this leads to tyranny and must be resisted.
* The sovereignty of the State is sacrosanct because it was purchased with the blood of her children.
* Treaties and trade agreements that violate that sovereignty are anathema and those who support them are treasonous.

Fiscal:
* The individual has first rights to the fruits of his own labor.
* Just as we all must live within our means, so must the government.
* It is immoral for the government to confiscate the wealth of its citizens in order to redistribute it, no matter what the reason.

The NS Conservative Party is therefore my obvious choice.

...But good luck to everyone in this final hour!

http://www.geocities.com/halfduplex2001/NSCONS1.gif

Vote Conservative

* We must learn from our heritage, or we will repeat our mistakes.


To what degree, in your opinion, does that apply to people of mixed heritage? (Such as myself, and such as most people in Western countries actually).


* The Traditional family is the most important social unit and is fundamental to the survival of our society.


How so?


* The only valid functions of Federal government are to provide for the common defense and to regulate interstate trade.

Ah, you're an American, then. You are aware that not every country has a federal government, aren't you? (Russia, the US, Australia, Nigeria, Micronesia and a few others have, but not most).


* Anything more than this leads to tyranny and must be resisted.

How so?


* The sovereignty of the State is sacrosanct because it was purchased with the blood of her children.

Meaning, then, logically, that you oppose war and any intrusion upon the sovereignty of foreign nations?


* The individual has first rights to the fruits of his own labor.


Meaning, logically, that you oppose capitalism, which disposseses the worker of the fruits of his own labour?


...But good luck to everyone in this final hour!


Thank you!

Vote conservative. LOL :)

I voted conservative...lemme in the party pweeeze :)

It is gonna be very very close

To what degree, in your opinion, does that apply to people of mixed heritage? (Such as myself, and such as most people in Western countries actually).! All heritages have their unique values which add to the whole of society.. I too am of mixed heritage. I take pride in all aspects of my heritage, and apply them as part of my life experience.


Quote:
* The Traditional family is the most important social unit and is fundamental to the survival of our society.

How so?! To propagate the human race, parents of both sexes are at least needed at inception. Having the influence of both parents in the growth years is important, but at least one of the birth parents would be the next preferable. Next adoption to a traditional couple.



Quote:
* The only valid functions of Federal government are to provide for the common defense and to regulate interstate trade.

Ah, you're an American, then. You are aware that not every country has a federal government, aren't you? (Russia, the US, Australia, Nigeria, Micronesia and a few others have, but not most).! True I am american, but whether federal, monarchy or what-have you, it is important that government be controlled by those it governs, don't you agree?



Quote:
* Anything more than this leads to tyranny and must be resisted.

How so?! The more power given to the government, the less remains for the people. Pretty simple concept really.



Quote:
* The sovereignty of the State is sacrosanct because it was purchased with the blood of her children.

Meaning, then, logically, that you oppose war and any intrusion upon the sovereignty of foreign nations?! No. Meaning that we must respect those who die for us in conflict.



Quote:
* The individual has first rights to the fruits of his own labor.

Meaning, logically, that you oppose capitalism, which disposseses the worker of the fruits of his own labour? No, since the capitalist system is the only one in which a person truly has the opportunity to benefit to the fullest extent of his labors.



Thank you!

...You are welcome!

Conservative Party Wins!

It's going to be hard to divide the seats up fairly. 4 2 1 2 2 5 5 1 2 would leave 1 seat spare.

That's it! It's finished.

I'll announce the seats in just a few minutes.

Should the extra seat be given to the winning party?

Should the extra seat be given to the winning party?

What's up what's up ;)

Whose your buddy...whose your buddy...

nudge nudge wink wink

Er...that hardly seems fair. The Conservatives won by a 2 vote margin, and get a whole seat (which is equivalent to about 25-30 votes). I'm not sure what the best thing is, but you had probably better consult with the Party members.

*cough* give it to the RTP, we rock *cough*

Democratic Socialist Party : 16.21% => 4 seats
Emphatically Silly Party: 8.83% => 2 seats
MOBRA: 4.65% => 1 seat
New British Imperialist Party: 9.15% => 2 seats
NS Classic Liberals: 8.19% => 2 seats
NS Conservative Party: 19.42% => 5 seats
Reason Party: 19.10% => 5 seats
Revolutionary Trotskyist Party: 5.78% => 1 seat
United Democratic Communist Party: 8.67% => 2 seats

Which gives us 24 seats. The party closest to winning an additional seat, unless I’m very much mistaken, is the RTP. Therefore, the RTP wins the twenty-fifth seat in Parliament.

Thank you all for taking part. :)

On behalf of Blu-tac, Cristia Elite, and all members and supporters of the NS Conservative Party, I offer my humble thanks. We will do our best to represent you in a traditional, conservative capitalist manner.

Do we think the Parliament will do anything this time?

Ariddia, thank you for acting as Returning Officer again, by the way.

Er.. it actually works out to 5 votes... Had we reached 126 instead of 121, we would have had 20.06%. Here's the math:

101 16.08%
55 8.76%
29 4.62%
57 9.08%
51 8.12%
126 20.06% <<
119 18.95%
36 5.73%
54 8.60%

628

Um...but you didn't get 126. So...why should you get the extra seat?

Do we think the Parliament will do anything this time?

Ariddia, thank you for acting as Returning Officer again, by the way.

I hope it will! And you're welcome. :)

Um...but you didn't get 126. So...why should you get the extra seat?
Why should the Communists? You’re showing your bias.