NationStates Jolt Archive

As far as I can see it...

What capitalists don't like about communism, or what they feel makes communism unworkable in the real world, is that it disallows individuals ability to rise in society and improve their own lives, thereby eliminating their motivation to work hard.

One of the things commies dislike about capitalism is that some people just get scerwed over by the system by circumstances outside of their control.

So, how about just ensure that everyone gets off to a good start and then turn them loose to rise or fall based on their ability?

Just take the children from birth, educate/train/indoctrinate them to work hard and be good people well, and then when they're adults, somewhere between the age of 18 and 25, turn em loose.

Note: This wouldn't solve alot of problems with capitalism, like that some people get jobs that pay shit. But besides that some people would undoubtedly think its immoral, it seems like a good start at least...

Just take the children from birth

No, thank you.

I opt for a benevolent technocratic dictatorship, in which we are all androids or cyborgs and have no religion or moral ethics, or principles and are completely controlled like 1984.

I opt for a benevolent technocratic dictatorship, in which we are all androids or cyborgs and have no religion or moral ethics, or principles and are completely controlled like 1984.

Never!:mad: :mad: :mad: Sorry, you just named my ultimate dystopia.

I opt for a benevolent technocratic dictatorship, in which we are all androids or cyborgs and have no religion or moral ethics, or principles and are completely controlled like 1984.
Hell no, nothing like 1984. I will never allow myself to be subjugated in the way the Outer Party or the proles were.

Besides, having no prinicples and being subject to total control is oxymoronic, considering that the Party was indoctrinating its members, as well as manipulating the proles.

My ideal government would be a minarchist government whose primary responsibilities are (in this order) Law and Order, Education, Defence, and Infrastructre. Structurally similar to the US Constitution but with a few more checks to prevent major porkbarrel spending.

EDIT: Hey Letila, I just finished 1984 today. All I have to say is, poor Winston :(

The best government is no government at all.

Failing that, one that elects a new congress every year, which in turn elects a president for that congress. A three fifths majority is required for any measure to pass. They have an amendable constitution that was created by elected drafters and then the people vote on the finished product. Ideally, maximization of natural rights is held paramount by the society in which the government is created, and they feel little need to become involved outside their borders, if they even have any.

Thomas Paine thought it was good idea anyway.

Besides, having no prinicples and being subject to total control is oxymoronic, considering that the Party was indoctrinating its members, as well as manipulating the proles.
I don't see the oxymoron. The proles in 1984 were no more manipulated than people today. The proles were manipluated by telescreens, we are manipulated by television

I'd like to see a resurgance of the Polis myself

As far as I can see it...

What capitalists don't like about communism, or what they feel makes communism unworkable in the real world, is that it disallows individuals ability to rise in society and improve their own lives, thereby eliminating their motivation to work hard.

One of the things commies dislike about capitalism is that some people just get scerwed over by the system by circumstances outside of their control.

So, how about just ensure that everyone gets off to a good start and then turn them loose to rise or fall based on their ability?

Just take the children from birth, educate/train/indoctrinate them to work hard and be good people well, and then when they're adults, somewhere between the age of 18 and 25, turn em loose.

Note: This wouldn't solve alot of problems with capitalism, like that some people get jobs that pay shit. But besides that some people would undoubtedly think its immoral, it seems like a good start at least...

This is largely how I used to conceive the ideal society (though of course this is just one part of it). Since everyone starts off at the same level, everyone is given an equal opportunity, and there is no chance of an aristocracy of sorts forming. And how high you rise is based entirely on your ability; it would make the ideal hiearchy where those at the bottom are those who are the "weakest" and the ones at the top would truly be the "strongest." This system is far from perfect, but it is still considerably better than capitalism or communism. For the "immorality" of it; people will get over that after a generation or two unless they are exposed to the media of other nations where people who are unable to see beyond the perspective of their own culture denounce anything different as wrong and cite illusory "human rights."

I don't see the oxymoron. The proles in 1984 were no more manipulated than people today. The proles were manipluated by telescreens, we are manipulated by television
You're forgetting that the proles and Oceania lack freedom of speech/expression, the press/news media, and religion. All that telescreen crap and prolefeed comes from none other than the Party :mad:

The best government is no government at all.

Failing that, one that elects a new congress every year, which in turn elects a president for that congress. A three fifths majority is required for any measure to pass. They have an amendable constitution that was created by elected drafters and then the people vote on the finished product. Ideally, maximization of natural rights is held paramount by the society in which the government is created, and they feel little need to become involved outside their borders, if they even have any.

Thomas Paine thought it was good idea anyway.

The problem with a democracy like this is that it rests on the assumption that the common people are qualified to make decsions of this nature. The common people will vote for whatever wealthy individuals who are able to look and sound best and appeal to their prejudices and superstitions. Granted congress elects the President; but the nature of the congress being elected by this kind of circumstances would cause them to elect a President who has the same agenda that they do. And the extreme transience of their position in congress would cause them to cause focus more on how to use their year in power to gain the most for themselves rather than anything greater. I definitely agree that any government should minimize non-trade related involvements with other nations.

I heartily accept the motto, "That government is best which governs least"; and I should like to see it acted up to more rapidly and systematically. Carried out, it finally amounts to this, which also I believe— "That government is best which governs not at all"; and when men are prepared for it, that will be the kind of government which they will have.
-Henry David Thoreau

the way i see it is that "Death solves all problems - no man, no problem" -- Joseph Stalin
it is ridiculus to argue what is the best government because nomatter what people will always dissagree and have different ideas or oppinions. therefore there is no such a thing as a perfect government because "perfect" is a matter of opinian and cannot be defined.
This is why governmens are not formed on a "What is best for everybody" ideal, but a "what is best for me or what will succeed the best in this current situation"

The problem with a democracy like this is that it rests on the assumption that the common people are qualified to make decsions of this nature. The common people will vote for whatever wealthy individuals who are able to look and sound best and appeal to their prejudices and superstitions. Granted congress elects the President; but the nature of the congress being elected by this kind of circumstances would cause them to elect a President who has the same agenda that they do. And the extreme transience of their position in congress would cause them to cause focus more on how to use their year in power to gain the most for themselves rather than anything greater. I definitely agree that any government should minimize non-trade related involvements with other nations.
That problem is easily fixed by including very strict controls over the lives of conresspeople. After all, you are suposed to be servants to the people. Very few rich men want to be their own secretary, and ceratinly very few want restricted access to their acounts and the acounts of their businesses while in office.

But if you still don’t like that, we could always just put Melkor Unchained in charge.

An ideal government--a complete and pure Utopia--would only exist when all human greed is eliminated. No greed for power or wealth, no greed for possessions or even for freedoms. That, obviously, will never happen.

An ideal government--a complete and pure Utopia--would only exist when all human greed is eliminated. No greed for power or wealth, no greed for possessions or even for freedoms. That, obviously, will never happen.So, then, doesn't this mean that Utopia can only be achieved by the elimination of human civilization?

I think a Kervoscracy would be nice, but that's just my opinion.

I think a Kervoscracy would be nice, but that's just my opinion.
I could get behind that.

So, then, doesn't this mean that Utopia can only be achieved by the elimination of human civilization?

read post # 14

As far as I can see it...

What capitalists don't like about communism, or what they feel makes communism unworkable in the real world, is that it disallows individuals ability to rise in society and improve their own lives, thereby eliminating their motivation to work hard.

One of the things commies dislike about capitalism is that some people just get scerwed over by the system by circumstances outside of their control.

So, how about just ensure that everyone gets off to a good start and then turn them loose to rise or fall based on their ability?

Just take the children from birth, educate/train/indoctrinate them to work hard and be good people well, and then when they're adults, somewhere between the age of 18 and 25, turn em loose.

Note: This wouldn't solve alot of problems with capitalism, like that some people get jobs that pay shit. But besides that some people would undoubtedly think its immoral, it seems like a good start at least...

Sounds like socialism.

Clarification: do you mean take children away from their parents? Or, just educate them during the day?

best government would be a local government controlled and done by communs/soviets. They will send a delegate to a nationwide assembley which will work together on national matters. This way everyone has control on what goes on and power is controlled by the people for the people especially in the areas where it would be most useful.

I could get behind that.
I think I found my Minister of Spy Operations.

best government would be a local government controlled and done by communs/soviets. They will send a delegate to a nationwide assembley which will work together on national matters. This way everyone has control on what goes on and power is controlled by the people for the people especially in the areas where it would be most useful.
The confederacy did that and therein lied the problem. They could not agree on what to do, there was too much in-fighting. And they had trouble raising an army when war came around (all of these are problems with a weak central government).

So your "Confederated Comunes of (Geographic Region)" wouldn't work when another, larger country came looking for land.

I propose we allow corporations to hold office, they obviously know whats best for us.
"President McDonalds, Congressman ExxonMobil is filibustering the McGovernment bill!"

The ultimate society is being built by the Japanese. Their answer to their need for low-paid labour, is to build robots to do it for them. Seriously. They are a very monocultural society, so rather than bring about ethnic tension inherent in the rest of the world, they are hoping that technological progress will eliminate this issue.

They don't share the west's fear of robots taking over. No, sci-fi literature really condemns robots/androids in Japan.

Perhaps the answer to the capitalism/communism question is technological advancement. Sooner or later, we may arrive at the point where technology meets all of our basic needs, and our big worries will be whether or not you are an engineer or an artist.

A government run by giant computerized moles.

The confederacy did that and therein lied the problem. They could not agree on what to do, there was too much in-fighting. And they had trouble raising an army when war came around (all of these are problems with a weak central government).

So your "Confederated Comunes of (Geographic Region)" wouldn't work when another, larger country came looking for land.

I propose we allow corporations to hold office, they obviously know whats best for us.
"President McDonalds, Congressman ExxonMobil is filibustering the McGovernment bill!"

Tell that to Leonidas and the Spartans when their Greek Federation held off hordes of Persians. The confederacy lost the war due to the union's superior numbers and Industrialization, not their form of government.

I think I found my Minister of Spy Operations.
Goodie.

The best government would be one that allows the market to function as much as possible but still retains basic protections for its citizens and provides them with free access to the education and facilities they would require to be able to compete freely on the basis of merit in an open, global, and most importantly capitalist marketplace. Ideally, there would be one world government, allowing free flow of goods, people, services, and ideas across the globe without penalty.

Just read Amartya Sen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amartya_Sen).

A nice quote, by the way:
The absurdity of public-choice theory is captured by Nobel Prize-winning economist Amartya Sen in the following little scenario: "Can you direct me to the railway station?" asks the stranger. "Certainly," says the local, pointing in the opposite direction, towards the post office, "and would you post this letter for me on your way?" "Certainly," says the stranger, resolving to open it to see if it contains anything worth stealing.

Ideal government would be direct democracy with equality of income, to ensure democracy, in other words, no government.

A socialist government that uses a socialist free market to run the economy. Sounds like a wierd mix, but it would be interesting.

A socialist government that uses a socialist free market to run the economy. Sounds like a wierd mix, but it would be interesting.
German or Chinese version?

German or Chinese version?

I really hope it's the German...at least you don't have to worry about your entire country becoming an environmental wasteland in a few decades.

A government run by giant computerized moles.
How many? A mol? :p
Wait, thats a lot, like a lot a lot.

Seriously, I have though for a long time on this issue and I have concluded that Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others, mind you I have lived under a rock all of life and that was completely me, not one Winston Churchill who I, by the way, have never even heard of. Winston Who? (Dr. Who's brother).

Seriously seriously, I have though for a long time on this issue and I have concluded that government has two purposes: protecting basic human rights, preventing monopolies*, and protecting borders from invasion. But human rights are culturally relative (sometimes marriages are arranged or land cannot be owned etc.) and I'm not even sure that a monopoly is necessarily a bad thing. As for the best form of suffrage, uhhh, The "Machines" from I, Robot (the book not the movie, not that I didn't like the movie cause Willsmith was in it).

My point is, Humans are crap. Individually they can be great but in an impersonal world they really suck. So the best Utopia is that of the Simpson's uncle Arthur:

Marge: Well, Bart, your uncle Arthur used to have a saying: "Shoot 'em
all and let God sort 'em out." Unfortunately, one day put his
theory into practice. It took 75 federal marshalls to bring him
down. Now let's never speak of him again.

*this means that the government would not print money, banks would. And they would accept taxes in gold, no, platinum, no, BLOOD and Virgin Sacrifices! :D

Tell that to Leonidas and the Spartans when their Greek Federation held off hordes of Persians. The confederacy lost the war due to the union's superior numbers and Industrialization, not their form of government.
Didn't help

Certainly not the Chinese. Chinese Socialist Free Market is like authoritarian capitalism.

I wrote a paper on the ideal government once (I was like 13). In it essientials were government owned (like food) and everything else was an absolute free market. The government was meritocratic and geniocratic whith a shit load (number in south, follows 1 and 2) of checks and balances. Of course I didn't know all of these big fancy words, like shit load, when I was 13. Only now do I realise what it was.

Man, if I went back in time, I would argue with myself I would probably kill me.

Just read Amartya Sen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amartya_Sen).

A nice quote, by the way:
I take it you're not a big fan of public choice theory.

A kakistocracy! Poliicians always fail doing the things, they consider right, which are nearly often wrong IMNSCO, so a kakistocracy would try everything bad and because they are politicians fail. :P

German or Chinese version?

I don't know what the original poster intended, but in my view neither has a "socialist free market."

A "socialist free market" would be an economy where the means of production are controlled by workers' collectives that sell goods on the market.

I take it you're not a big fan of public choice theory.
Meh. I spent most of my last year doing statistics and management courses, and the same will be true for the next semester. So I haven't had the chance to do much on public choice.

I don't think I'm qualified to really make an argument either way here.

A kakistocracy! Poliicians always fail doing the things, they consider right, which are nearly often wrong IMNSCO, so a kakistocracy would try everything bad and because they are politicians fail. :P
Interesting.

A friend of mine is thinking up the ultimate government form. He calls it idiocracy (preferably located in Bizzaro World). The currency is leaves. And I can't remeber the rest, but my suggestions are as follows:
-Every politician has to be wasted during session, wheter on beer, cannabis, or LSD, they cannot be thinking strait.
-The person who gets the least votes gets office (and people take a shot of LSD before voting)
-The penalty for crimes is getting appointed to high level jobs.
-The leaves are off of some sort of cannabis tree, so they can be smoked.
-Flag burning is mandatory.
-Heterosexual marriage is banned.
-People are educated for 20 years before they die.
-Some other crap.
-Some more crap.
-Seriously, if you are still reading, either I'm actually funny or you have no life. And I'd like to think you have a life because I'm nice.

-Seriously, if you are still reading, either I'm actually funny or you have no life. And I'd like to think you have a life because I'm nice.


LIFE? Lame imitation of Fair Existance? Where can I DL that? (well, the posting was weird and funny as well)

I don't know what the original poster intended, but in my view neither has a "socialist free market."

A "socialist free market" would be an economy where the means of production are controlled by workers' collectives that sell goods on the market.
Yes, that is very much what i had in mind actually.

This might be too abstract, but the ideal government is one that governs justly and effectively. It then mostly becomes a matter of hashing out what justice and effectiveness are.

Perhaps I am being a little glib, but the ideal government can be only made up of the ideal leaders/statesmen/politicians. Having the ideal people in your government, it doesn't really matter what form it is because it will always be perfect. Even a totalitarian dictatorship ruled by the ideal leader will be just as good as a ideal pure democracy.



Having said that, my ideal government would be ruled by an AI computer more intelligent and resilient than the collective brainpower of the world. This computer then can actually be designed to be free of greed, lust for power, subjectivity, and any other of the common failings of modern politicians. Conversely, it can be programmed to protect the rights and lives of the people, and regulate world conflicts, while allowing humanity to to progress rapidly; unfettered with concerns of survival and basic needs.

Of course, this would only work if humanity is actually able to construct such a device, and program it accordingly.

Exactly, monarchy works if you have an infallable, immortal dictator. But what do we have? Humans.

Perhaps I am being a little glib, but the ideal government can be only made up of the ideal leaders/statesmen/politicians. Having the ideal people in your government, it doesn't really matter what form it is because it will always be perfect. Even a totalitarian dictatorship ruled by the ideal leader will be just as good as a ideal pure democracy.



Having said that, my ideal government would be ruled by an AI computer more intelligent and resilient than the collective brainpower of the world. This computer then can actually be designed to be free of greed, lust for power, subjectivity, and any other of the common failings of modern politicians. Conversely, it can be programmed to protect the rights and lives of the people, and regulate world conflicts, while allowing humanity to to progress rapidly; unfettered with concerns of survival and basic needs.

Of course, this would only work if humanity is actually able to construct such a device, and program it accordingly.

I believe Kirk, Spock and Bones already established why this would be a bad idea.

Exactly, monarchy works if you have an infallable, immortal dictator. But what do we have? Humans.

That's why we need zombies. But they'd have to wear helmets to ensure they're brains remain intact.

I believe Kirk, Spock and Bones already established why this would be a bad idea.
The borg are not bad. Whats that queen, assimilate him? I'm on the internet I can't just assimilate him.

Here’s my take on this (no better or worse than anyone else’s take, this being a democracy and all).
If we had one person that everyone in a nation could trust unequivocally we could make her supreme leader (the point of communism) but we would have to trust that the power will not corrupt her and she would start considering herself “more equal” than the rest of us (and yes that’s from Animal Farm). Let’s say we that we even have someone like that, she will need assistance because no one can do it alone (can’t trust a computer we want a human being in charge here). So lets say we can find those trustable people and we can trust them not to use the power to benefit themselves.
What would be the point; I mean life for me would be the same as life for you and then what?
I figure I like having a reason to improve myself, and let’s face it there is a spill over effect in having a Bill Gates (more of use work towards making more money).
And then there is the George Bush effect, I mean if you had his IQ in a purely meritocratic communist state, they would simply have to write you off, but look we have crowned him king (well not quite king but I’ll bet in his head he is Crowned and there are millions of people with a lower IQ than him, who can aspire to better :).
Just a thought, don’t you just love being American.
I am so much happier in a capitalist society where our "Idiot King" doesn’t have as much of an impact as he would in a Communist state.
Another concept here is that Power should be given to one who wants it least and that’s the thing even in a communist state, power goes to one who wants it most.
Food for thought
Steven

Perhaps I am being a little glib, but the ideal government can be only made up of the ideal leaders/statesmen/politicians. Having the ideal people in your government, it doesn't really matter what form it is because it will always be perfect. Even a totalitarian dictatorship ruled by the ideal leader will be just as good as a ideal pure democracy.

Having said that, my ideal government would be ruled by an AI computer more intelligent and resilient than the collective brainpower of the world. This computer then can actually be designed to be free of greed, lust for power, subjectivity, and any other of the common failings of modern politicians. Conversely, it can be programmed to protect the rights and lives of the people, and regulate world conflicts, while allowing humanity to to progress rapidly; unfettered with concerns of survival and basic needs.

Of course, this would only work if humanity is actually able to construct such a device, and program it accordingly.

Well nice in theory but that’s the thing, if I could build that AI, to be impartial I would also have to build it to be uncompassionate and then there is the question of what is the right thing to help humanity towards rapid progress. I mean if I was a right wing fundamentalist that would be my measure of progress. As it turns out my definition of Rapid Progress would offend 50% of the population who would see it as too left wing and then a portion of the left wing who would figure it was too capitalistic and then there are the idiots who would complain it was too meritocratic and so on. Fact is no AI is going to answer those questions for us. Before we build an AI government we have to come to a consensus on what it is that we are trying to achieve (its not like the AI will be better at making us happy and isn't that what we would want to pay for :D
just a thought
Steven

Here’s my take on this (no better or worse than anyone else’s take, this being a democracy and all).
If we had one person that everyone in a nation could trust unequivocally we could make her supreme leader (the point of communism) but we would have to trust that the power will not corrupt her and she would start considering herself “more equal” than the rest of us (and yes that’s from Animal Farm).

The point of communism is not to create a supreme leader. lol Read Marx before you make such crazy statements. Plus Animal farm was a satire writen about the Russian revolution(not communism).Tthe author was a communist himself.

If we're taking best to mean most stable then i'd go for true democratic socialism (note this is a system where everyones voice has the same weight i.e. where the state is the people rather then traditional socialism achieved through parliamentary democracy (which if you think about it is basicly a mind fuck as how much do you actually affect how things happen)) as it is the most adaptable.

The point of communism is not to create a supreme leader. lol Read Marx before you make such crazy statements. Plus Animal farm was a satire writen about the Russian revolution(not communism).Tthe author was a communist himself.

I didn't say that a Supreme leader was the point of Communism. Read Karl Marx the idea was that no one would be in charge but I am starting from the premise that we can't vote on every action so someone will have to be given the authority to make decisions that are not practical for everyone to provide thier two cents on.
Central control of resources require that someone (or some people) do the controlling. The ideal thing would be that everyone got to make that decision but then ideally everyone would have to be accurately informed on everything so that they are equiped to make an "informed decision" now, i don't claim to be an expert on communism or capitalism, thankfully I am not asked to make decisions that would affect the way in which resources are controlled in a economy.
cheers
Steven

The point of communism is not to create a supreme leader. lol Read Marx before you make such crazy statements. Plus Animal farm was a satire writen about the Russian revolution(not communism).Tthe author was a communist himself.

Orwell was a communist? You wouldn't think so from reading 1984... My take on both those books was not just about communism, but authoritarianism in general, and about the manipulation of truth to serve the ends of government.

Orwell was a communist? You wouldn't think so from reading 1984... My take on both those books was not just about communism, but authoritarianism in general, and about the manipulation of truth to serve the ends of government.
I believe Orwell varied between socialist and communist throughout his lifetime.

I didn't say that a Supreme leader was the point of Communism. Read Karl Marx the idea was that no one would be in charge but I am starting from the premise that we can't vote on every action so someone will have to be given the authority to make decisions that are not practical for everyone to provide thier two cents on.
Central control of resources require that someone (or some people) do the controlling. The ideal thing would be that everyone got to make that decision but then ideally everyone would have to be accurately informed on everything so that they are equiped to make an "informed decision" now, i don't claim to be an expert on communism or capitalism, thankfully I am not asked to make decisions that would affect the way in which resources are controlled in a economy.
cheers
Steven sorry if I misinterpreted what you said.

Although the Soviet system had central control of the economy, it is certainly possible to have a decentralized socialist economy. Just like its possible to have a centralized capitalist economy.

Orwell was a communist? You wouldn't think so from reading 1984...
He was, and passionately so. He fought in Spain for the Trotskyists, and got shot in the neck. But he was an anti-Stalinist also, and he liked democratic socialism.

So I take Animal Farm in particular to be a tragic book about a grand idea gone horribly wrong. I think it's a sad book, always have, and seeing as to what Orwell himself felt, I think that's the right interpretation.

Orwell was a communist? You wouldn't think so from reading 1984... My take on both those books was not just about communism, but authoritarianism in general, and about the manipulation of truth to serve the ends of government.Yes, but there's nothing about communism that requires authoritarianism. Orwell supported communism but not authoritarianism.

There is no perfect form of government and all are not faultless, however in my opinion, those that allow democracy, civil rights and political freedoms are much better than those who don't for the people that live under their authority.

The key is mandated political terms and to change them out regularly so they don't become too corrupt..like umm Rove, Chaney, Rice and their idiot puppet .. relaxed and comortable and a feeling of being untouchable does not make for good government... :D