NationStates Jolt Archive

:confused: :confused:

i would like to now from many people what they think is better;)

after i find out i will make a reigon just for those democratic or facist states

personally i go for the facist states but i want to create what others want:)

Democratic states tend to chase me less. *nod*

why do you like fascism more than democracy?

personally i go for the facist states but i want to create what others want:)

*laughs at the irony*

I find facist states offensive. Discrimination based on facial attractiveness is no different to any other kind of discrimination. All humans, regardless of face, should be... [etc] :p
(except [INSERT ATTRACTIVE CELEBRITY HERE])

Heh. Insert. Heh heh heh.

*sniggers childishly*

Democratic states tend to chase me less. *nod*

That's because they're too busy with petty politics. If you could just shoot the bastard who is holding the system back then they could chase you again.

:confused: :confused:

i would like to now from many people what they think is better;)

after i find out i will make a reigon just for those democratic or facist states

personally i go for the facist states but i want to create what others want:)

Is this a serious question?

Depends on what kind of "Facism". The US tends to use "Facism" to describe any country that has a different form of government than us. Facism actual means ruled by a single authority with absolute power or a similar system. Therefore, I prefer democratic countries, and I am paticularly in favor of direct democracy and democratic socialism.

"Question 2: If you lived in a monarchy, would you rather be the king or a slave? Why or why not?"

"Question 2: If you lived in a monarchy, would you rather be the king or a slave? Why or why not?"
I'd rather be a slave. You get food and shelter, and there are far fewer people who are trying to kill you.

:confused: :confused:

i would like to now from many people what they think is better;)

after i find out i will make a reigon just for those democratic or facist states

personally i go for the facist states but i want to create what others want:)

Define what you mean when you say "fascist" and "democratic". Most people (including several political leaders) tend to use these terms incorrectly.

I'm very much a facist. I don't like ugly people

I'd rather be a slave. You get food and shelter, and there are far fewer people who are trying to kill you.

Good call on Sir Digby, by the way :)

That's because they're too busy with petty politics. If you could just shoot the bastard who is holding the system back then they could chase you again.

Well, I don't want to be chased too much. :p

The question is amusing, because you're making use of democratic methods right here and now to determine what you think you should be doing with your region.

The question is amusing, because you're making use of democratic methods right here and now to determine what you think you should be doing with your region.

Hence my earlier post. :p

The question is amusing, because you're making use of democratic methods right here and now to determine what you think you should be doing with your region.

not really. There's no guarantee they'll act on the suggestions.

I'm very much a facist. I don't like ugly people

I guess that's better then calling anti-smoking people fascist...

not really. There's no guarantee they'll act on the suggestions.

Oooh, representative democracy in action!

The better government would be a benevolent dictator.

But since those are few and far between and don't tend to last, I'll stay in my democracy, thank you very much.

fascism is only good if the person is the right for the job.
but who is the right person?
thus you need voting.

I want a trollocracy. The loudest and most obnoxious rules. :D

Better how? Democratic states are better to live in if you are a minority, or if you have a soul. Fascist states are usually better at getting things done, more efficiently (depending on the particulars of their brand of fascism). Fascism is more succeptible to imcompetency, whereas the writhing morass of checks, balances, and bureaucracy makes Democracy a little more stable (if a lot less useful). Personally I don't fancy either. Both have pros and cons.

Define what you mean when you say "fascist" and "democratic". Most people (including several political leaders) tend to use these terms incorrectly.

This is infact true. Infact, Fascism is rather poorly defined in the world, and nobody seems to really agree on what constitutes a Fascist society.

The best you could probably give it is a very nationalistic society, where the state comes before all else, and is almost always totalitarian.

This is rather brood, I know, but it seems to be the only parts that most people can agree on. However, there are some definitions which are completely different than this. Really, the word "Fascism" is very ambiguous, and extremely difficult to explain and define.

Better how? Democratic states are better to live in if you are a minority, or if you have a soul. Fascist states are usually better at getting things done, more efficiently (depending on the particulars of their brand of fascism). Fascism is more succeptible to imcompetency, whereas the writhing morass of checks, balances, and bureaucracy makes Democracy a little more stable (if a lot less useful). Personally I don't fancy either. Both have pros and cons.

Well, depends on the type of Democracy you are talking about. America, for instance, is barely democratic. All those checks and balances are in place to try and stop the people from doing everything they want, which trust me, can be extremely destructive.

In a 100% democracy, you would need a very small group of people for it even to succeed, if at all, and all people would need the same social and economic factors for it to be "fair" to all people. This is extremely rare to occur in the real world, thus a true democracy almost never exists.

Well, depends on the type of Democracy you are talking about. America, for instance, is barely democratic. All those checks and balances are in place to try and stop the people from doing everything they want, which trust me, can be extremely destructive.

In a 100% democracy, you would need a very small group of people for it even to succeed, if at all, and all people would need the same social and economic factors for it to be "fair" to all people. This is extremely rare to occur in the real world, thus a true democracy almost never exists.
Yes and then there is that. America is democratic, but not a democracy. Nobody is. Athens was. Thats all. Some witty greek dud noted democracy was the system wherein "Wise men argue, and fools decide". Seriously, imagine if 'the people' were in charge of economic policy. Protectionism would fuck the world. I mean it makes sense, common sense, but not economic sense. This is why I am not a democratist, what do people actually know about what is good for them (as a group). Individuals must know what is best for themselves, as this is the basis of civil liberties, and most importantly property rights and free-trade. However, people do not know what is good for the whole. People with economics degrees know that. Personally, I think the best solution to the dicey issue of who and how to govern is to can government all together. Privatise everything useful they do, and lose the concept of 'the whole'. Have a world of individuals. But that is just Anarcho-capitalist me.

Yes and then there is that. America is democratic, but not a democracy. Nobody is. Athens was. Thats all. Some witty greek dud noted democracy was the system wherein "Wise men argue, and fools decide". Seriously, imagine if 'the people' were in charge of economic policy. Protectionism would fuck the world. I mean it makes sense, common sense, but not economic sense. This is why I am not a democratist, what do people actually know about what is good for them (as a group). Individuals must know what is best for themselves, as this is the basis of civil liberties, and most importantly property rights and free-trade. However, people do not know what is good for the whole. People with economics degrees know that. Personally, I think the best solution to the dicey issue of who and how to govern is to can government all together. Privatise everything useful they do, and lose the concept of 'the whole'. Have a world of individuals. But that is just Anarcho-capitalist me.

Exactly the point. The "people" are generally far to ignorant of how to run a system of self governance themselves. Not only that, but emotional appeal often overrides logical and rational ideas far to greatly in our society. People are rather willing to the will of emotions, and self-destruction can easily ensue.

Now, in a perfect world, the idea of Privatising everything could work. However, we do not live in a perfect world, and the question arises as to what we privitise. I agree that some aspect may be useful to privatise, but not all. For instance, law enforcement. One can only imagine the outcome if Law Enforcement was privatised. Same goes for Judicial ideas, as well as the military and many other parts of the government(both local and Federal) which are necessary to maintain by the government as a whole.

And for "Anarcho-Captilism" to be truly fair, all people would need to begin at a relatively equal social and economic status. Problem is, this does not exist today, and thus it would far easier for those with the resources to exploit those without. With a beginning "even playing field", so to speak, it would be far more difficult for exploitation to ensue, at least for some time.

Well, I don't want to be chased too much. :p

Suuure you don't ya little tease.


Anyways, economic fascism or social fascism. There's a difference.

not really. There's no guarantee they'll act on the suggestions.

Aye, but that he's falling back on democratic processes to give his region a sheen of legitimacy is what's important.

:confused: :confused:

i would like to now from many people what they think is better;)

after i find out i will make a reigon just for those democratic or facist states

personally i go for the facist states but i want to create what others want:)

Well, this country seemed a lot better back when it was a Democracy, so I'm going to say democratic ones work better.

Well, if we were in a fascist state we wouldn't be able to go on the Internet and discuss the merits of fascism versus democracy. Chances are, we'd all be in jail or dead now for even mentioning half the things on this message board...

Well, if we were in a fascist state we wouldn't be able to go on the Internet and discuss the merits of fascism versus democracy. Chances are, we'd all be in jail or dead now for even mentioning half the things on this message board...

nah... we'd just have special internet tools like Google Fascism, MSN Windows version FASCIST and whatnot. We wouldn't be allowed to search for thigs such as democracy.

Well, if we were in a fascist state we wouldn't be able to go on the Internet and discuss the merits of fascism versus democracy. Chances are, we'd all be in jail or dead now for even mentioning half the things on this message board...

If this were a fascist state, that moving to Switzerland option would look mighty fine to me.

I want a trollocracy. The loudest and most obnoxious rules. :D

How is that different from what we've got?

I think he's talking about in NS, guys.
And so, fascism, it's funner.

Fascism or democracy, uh? They're both forms of collectivism, not much of a choice...

I'll happily side with the ideology that won the big dust-up of the early 40's thank-you...



(Not Communism you nit-picking types.... ;) )

Best to live in a government that is just in your head. That way nothing will go wrong. Unless you just like imagining nihilism in your society. I guess you might have issues or something...

Well, this country seemed a lot better back when it was a Democracy, so I'm going to say democratic ones work better.

I assume you're talking about America, in which case might I ask when exactly we were a "democracy"? Really, we have only a slightly democratic socieyt to begin with.

But I digress.

Democratic states tend to chase me less. *nod*
That is because they are not as FAScisT :D

Exactly the point. The "people" are generally far to ignorant of how to run a system of self governance themselves. Not only that, but emotional appeal often overrides logical and rational ideas far to greatly in our society. People are rather willing to the will of emotions, and self-destruction can easily ensue.

Now, in a perfect world, the idea of Privatising everything could work. However, we do not live in a perfect world, and the question arises as to what we privitise. I agree that some aspect may be useful to privatise, but not all. For instance, law enforcement. One can only imagine the outcome if Law Enforcement was privatised. Same goes for Judicial ideas, as well as the military and many other parts of the government(both local and Federal) which are necessary to maintain by the government as a whole. I can go into the hypothetical workings of a privatised Law enforcement industry, and a privatised judiciary. I have spent some time theorising, and discussing and I am still convinced it would work. It is quite long though, and not really much to do with the thread in which we are posting. Let me give you a nutshell of an explanation. Individuals would subscribe to a judicial agency (of which there would be a free market of competeing agencies). The Judicial agencies work very much like insurance agencies, wherein you pay a fee of some sort in case of the eventual need of their services. The judicial agencies would work on contract with law enforcement/security agencies when neccesary. Naturally, it is the victims judicial agency that head all law enforcement, the defendant is represented by his. It is not in the commercial interests of judicial agencies to fund private wars against each other, so they will not.

And for "Anarcho-Captilism" to be truly fair, all people would need to begin at a relatively equal social and economic status. Problem is, this does not exist today, and thus it would far easier for those with the resources to exploit those without. With a beginning "even playing field", so to speak, it would be far more difficult for exploitation to ensue, at least for some time. No they don't. 'Exploitation' is the hippy term for 'mutually beneficial exchange'. 'Exploitation' makes the world go round.

I can go into the hypothetical workings of a privatised Law enforcement industry, and a privatised judiciary. I have spent some time theorising, and discussing and I am still convinced it would work. It is quite long though, and not really much to do with the thread in which we are posting. Let me give you a nutshell of an explanation. Individuals would subscribe to a judicial agency (of which there would be a free market of competeing agencies). The Judicial agencies work very much like insurance agencies, wherein you pay a fee of some sort in case of the eventual need of their services. The judicial agencies would work on contract with law enforcement/security agencies when neccesary. Naturally, it is the victims judicial agency that head all law enforcement, the defendant is represented by his. It is not in the commercial interests of judicial agencies to fund private wars against each other, so they will not.

Key word, hypothetical. As with all hypotheticals, it must work perfectly in order for the given point.

However, taking this hypothetical, there are a few holes. For instance, if privatised, law enforcement working for those whom have the money to afford it is hardly a justice system. What of those who cannot afford said agencies? They will have absolutely no protection what so ever. How does one try criminals? A privatised judicial system could easily be bought one way or the other(It can happen today, but would be far more likely in a privatised system).

How would try for rape? Murder? etc?


No they don't. 'Exploitation' is the hippy term for 'mutually beneficial exchange'. 'Exploitation' makes the world go round.

I'm thinking more along the lines that since there are so many people in the world, competition would actually work in reverse. For instance, we are taught that employers will pay more skilled workers more money for their services than another, for instance.

However, what I mean is that since there is always someone willing to work for less than you, wages will gradually decrease due to this factor. It would not be far to long until wages would be unlivable(again). When I talk about about "exploitation", I'm not referring to the idea that capitization feeds off the poor and gives to the rich nonsense, but to the idea that an over abundance of labor force would allow competing companies to offer wages at near unlivable standards.

And never call me a hippy. I hate those smelly hypocritical bastards.

Key word, hypothetical. As with all hypotheticals, it must work perfectly in order for the given point.

However, taking this hypothetical, there are a few holes. For instance, if privatised, law enforcement working for those whom have the money to afford it is hardly a justice system. What of those who cannot afford said agencies? They will have absolutely no protection what so ever. How does one try criminals? A privatised judicial system could easily be bought one way or the other(It can happen today, but would be far more likely in a privatised system).

How would try for rape? Murder? etc? Okay firstly as long as there are people to benefit from a justice agency, there will be justice agencies providing them with some form of limited service for whatever little fee they can pay. The more you pay the greater benefits you will recieve, the greater lengths they will go.

You try criminals the same way you do now, you investigate, find a prime suspect, send them a court summons or arrest them, depending on the crime, and sentence them. If they don't show, they can be sentenced in absentia.

A privatised judicial system would be less corrupt than a public one, because the company stands to lose a lot of face in the market if it is shown to be corrupt. Who wants to be protected byu a corrupt judicial agency?

I'm thinking more along the lines that since there are so many people in the world, competition would actually work in reverse. For instance, we are taught that employers will pay more skilled workers more money for their services than another, for instance.

However, what I mean is that since there is always someone willing to work for less than you, wages will gradually decrease due to this factor. It would not be far to long until wages would be unlivable(again). When I talk about about "exploitation", I'm not referring to the idea that capitization feeds off the poor and gives to the rich nonsense, but to the idea that an over abundance of labor force would allow competing companies to offer wages at near unlivable standards. This is true, but it presents no problem. The way to go will always be to specialise. If you can do something not many others can, then you automatically increase your value. Plus as the world economy opens up and homogenises, there should be equal job creation as there is labour inundation. at least in the long term. It'll always balance and head towards equilibrium.

And never call me a hippy. I hate those smelly hypocritical bastards.But they did invent weed ;)

:confused: :confused:

i would like to now from many people what they think is better;)

after i find out i will make a reigon just for those democratic or facist states

personally i go for the facist states but i want to create what others want:)
Don't they teach spelling and punctuation in elementary school?

Don't they teach spelling and punctuation in elementary school?

grammar and spelling nazi!! :)

Fascist.

Both are better than Neo-Fascism.

well faschists are so obvious that they are more visible,the"democratic fashist"one can go on and on just surfing over it,
Like representative "democracy" surf over an economic wave,sure they are artists,but really sneaky ones.

Both are better than Neo-Fascism.
you right,but by neo fascimus what do you mean?

well faschists are so obvious that they are more visible,the"democratic fashist"one can go on and on just surfing over it,
Like representative "democracy" surf over an economic wave,sure they are artists,but really sneaky ones.
well the question then is whether you want to know you're being repressed, or if ignorance is more fun.
tyranny by majority, all the way. it makes me feel better.

well the question then is whether you want to know you're being repressed, or if ignorance is more fun.
tyranny by majority, all the way. it makes me feel better.

benevolent fascism

grammar and spelling nazi!! :)
Ja. Und? http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y223/GermanNightmare/Wehrmachtsoffizier.gif
Ve have vays of making you... spell. :p