NationStates Jolt Archive

Is this thread really full of commies and anarchists?

Lets find out, as there doesn't seem to be a census on this. Political compass does not always represent your style of government because they may be your ideals but in practicle terms you may prefer to get governed by another style of government.

*poll coming*

I consider myself nazi

I consider myself nazi

That would come under fascist I guess then.

Damn I forgot to make the poll public!!:mad:

uh.....can you define what you mean by left and right wing?

uh.....can you define what you mean by left and right wing?

Erm... Well left is as far left as you want untill you reach socialism. Right is as far right as you want untill you reach fascism. Centrist is in between. Don't know what else to say really.

I kind of like a minarchy, with some corporate limitations on environmental and ethical standards.

i chose anarchist, in the hope you weren't meaning anarcho-capitalism. and that's a really ideological choice i made there, in real life i don't know if it would work.

Erm... Well left is as far left as you want untill you reach socialism. Right is as far right as you want untill you reach fascism. Centrist is in between. Don't know what else to say really.

uh......facism and socialism aren't like.......comparable, I mean you could be a socialist facist, but not a socialist capitalist..........

I don't think I can vote anyway, my uh.....government style isn't up there.....

I guess I'd be a radical leftwing communist-anarchist or socialist-anarchist. So I guess I'll vote anarchist.

What divides socialist and left wing capitalist?

uh......facism and socialism aren't like.......comparable, I mean you could be a socialist facist, but not a socialist capitalist..........

I don't think I can vote anyway, my uh.....government style isn't up there.....

Well what is your government style and i'll see if i can interpret it into what I think, otherwise just vote other.

What divides socialist and left wing capitalist?

A left-wing capitalist believes capitalism can be reformed through regulation to make it nicer. A socialist says to hell with reform and wants capitalism to be abolished entirely to be replaced with an alternative-usually worker self-management and participatory planning.

What divides socialist and left wing capitalist?

It's subjective to your opinion, but if you were to put left wing capitalist instead of socialist I would just think that it may be partly socialist put it is also largely capitalist. Take the UK in economic terms for example.

I like variety. I think we should randomly choose a different governing style every day. Maybe with dice. *nod*

A left-wing capitalist believes capitalism can be reformed through regulation to make it nicer. A socialist says to hell with reform and wants capitalism to be abolished entirely to be replaced with an alternative-usually worker self-management and participatory planning.

I would say that's more communist than socialist. I'd say 'Left wing capitalist' would be a Social Democrat (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Democracy) whereas a Socialist would be a 'Democratic Socialist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_socialism).'

I picked 'communist', though I'm an anarcho-communist. I figured that maybe 'anarchist' meant something else, as there was no 'libertarian' or 'libertarian capitalist' option.

I picked 'communist', though I'm an anarcho-communist. I figured that maybe 'anarchist' meant something else, as there was no 'libertarian' or 'libertarian capitalist' option.

I fail to see how libertarian capitalist is anything like anarchist or communist. Anyway, communism covers all forms of communism. Anarchism represents no government whatsoever.

I fail to see how libertarian capitalist is anything like anarchist or communist. Anyway, communism covers all forms of communism. Anarchism represents no government whatsoever.Libertarian capitalist isn't like communist, but it is similar to anarchism, if you consider anarcho-capitalist to be an actual form of capitalism (this is up for debate, though).

I would say that's more communist than socialist. I'd say 'Left wing capitalist' would be a Social Democrat (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Democracy) whereas a Socialist would be a 'Democratic Socialist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_socialism).'

but there both the same *has break down*

Libertarian (http://flag.blackened.net/liberty/libsoc.html)
Also categorized as Libertarian Socialist/Libertarian Communist (http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Embassy/8970/)!

but there both the same *has break down*No. Democratic socialism is a form of left-wing anarchism. Social democrat can involve capitalism; democratic socialism cannot.

Market anarchist (wavering between agorism and anarcho-capitalism).

Until I am, however, fully notionally convinced of anarchism's viability, I'd support a minimal-state monarchy of sorts.

The first three options all fit me.

Dictatorship with me in control :p

I'd be surprised to see if we had any anarcho-tribalists/-primitivists amongst us.

:eek:

There are two votes for theocracy!

I must say I'm surprised!

No, I don't have any puppets and I'm not a puppet of anyone else, so I didn't vote twice.

The first three options all fit me.

What did you go with?

What did you go with?

Communism.

I'd be surprised to see if we had any anarcho-tribalists/-primitivists amongst us.

anarchyel or something is/was an anarchoprimitivis, if it was possible to 'go back' i think my utopian ideology would be anarcho-primitivism because they have a really interesting analysis about a lot of the problems in todays society (at least what i heard of it). but since that's almost impossible to begin living as a hunter/gatherer imo, i'm not a primitivist.

i realise this sounds a litle bit ironic on an internet forum from somebody who has had at least 15 hours of fysics and chemistry this week

Communism.

When in doubt, fly the hammer and sickle. :D

anarchyel or something is/was an anarchoprimitivis, if it was possible to 'go back' i think my utopian ideology would be anarcho-primitivism because they have a really interesting analysis about a lot of the problems in todays society (at least what i heard of it). but since that's almost impossible to begin living as a hunter/gatherer imo, i'm not a primitivist.

i realise this sounds a litle bit ironic on an internet forum from somebody who has had at least 15 hours of fysics and chemistry this week
I find it an interesting ideology from the point of view that its outcome would be so immensely different to the present-world state of affairs. I have physiocrat tendencies myself, but unfortunately as a position it is most unrealistic.

I find it an interesting ideology from the point of view that its outcome would be so immensely different to the present-world state of affairs. I have physiocrat tendencies myself, but unfortunately as a position it is most unrealistic.

yes unfortunatly, i've always asked myself if given the choice to be born like i was now or as a primitivist (and not die, because i had some kind of liver malfunctioning at birth) what i would choose.

When in doubt, fly the hammer and sickle. :D

Exactly! For the Motherland! Hurrraaahhhh!!!!:gundge: :mp5:

Your poll was flawed, and forced a false dichotomy of "Theocracy or Fascist." I am a theocratic Fascist.

Social Democracy.

Exactly! For the Motherland! Hurrraaahhhh!!!!:gundge: :mp5:
Isn't communism meant to be for the people, as opposed to some "Motherland"?

Isn't communism meant to be for the people, as opposed to some "Motherland"?

Don't ever question Joseph Stalin.

no really, don't its a really bad idea....:eek:

Isn't communism meant to be for the people, as opposed to some "Motherland"?

Soviet "communism" often involves a quasi-religious reverance of the Rodina, which is Russian for "motherland."

Other.

I prefer technocracy. Why would you ever want dumb, uninformed people to have a say in anything that conerns others?

Other.

I prefer technocracy. Why would you ever want dumb, uninformed people to have a say in anything that conerns others?How do we objectively determine which information is necessary to be able to make such decisions?

Other.

I prefer technocracy. Why would you ever want dumb, uninformed people to have a say in anything that conerns others?
Are MTAE and Neocon Pride your puppets? :D

Don't ever question Joseph Stalin.

no really, don't its a really bad idea....:eek:

http://www.pen-paper.net/artgallery/d/8823-2/cryx_iron_lich.jpg

Yeah, he might just crawl out of his grave...

Are MTAE and Neocon Pride your puppets? :D

I think he/she is too intelligent to be the Puppet Master for MTAE and Neocon Pride. ;)

http://www.pen-paper.net/artgallery/d/8823-2/cryx_iron_lich.jpg

Yeah, he might just crawl out of his grave...

Never underestimate the power of Stalin's Head in a Jar!

Never underestimate the power of Stalin's Head in a Jar!

http://www.robertwinter.com/pinball/eatpm/images/faces_hippy.jpg

Yes, imagine the Vozhd with psionic powers this time round. <.<

How do we objectively determine which information is necessary to be able to make such decisions?
Randomly select a certain number of children born and put them in a special leadership school that emphasizes utilitarian values, and assign those that perform the best to fill certain open government postions.
Are MTAE and Neocon Pride your puppets?
Why?

Randomly select a certain number of children born and put them in a special leadership school that emphasizes utilitarian values, and assign those that perform the best to fill certain open government postions.
Again, what are the selection criteria? What are, objectively speaking, the desirable qualities for a leader? What you are suggesting can only logically conclude in a system like that of Brave New World, where genetic engineering and preconditioning are used to ensure the existence of a ruling elite, a sort of middle class and the slave class.

Why?
The above answers it really. :) MTAE has the same Brave New World style notions.

Personally, as far as it is possible, I wonder why others should have any say to begin with over the lives of others... be they intelligent or not.

Again, what are the selection criteria? What are, objectively speaking, the desirable qualities for a leader? What you are suggesting can only logically conclude in a system like that of Brave New World, where genetic engineering and preconditioning are used to ensure the existence of a ruling elite, a sort of middle class and the slave class.
A leader is someone who is willing to give his entire life to the well-being of his people and is competent enough to do so successfully.
As long as everyone is happy, what does it matter? I don't understand what is wrong with the society in Brave New World.
The above answers it really. :) MTAE has the same Brave New World style notions.
No, he does not. He cares nothing for human suffering, as near as I can tell.
Personally, as far as it is possible, I wonder why others should have any say to begin with over the lives of others... be they intelligent or not.
To protect them from those that would harm them.

Randomly select a certain number of children born and put them in a special leadership school that emphasizes utilitarian values, and assign those that perform the best to fill certain open government postions.How do we know that those children would be better than the other children?
How do we know that utilitarian values are better than another set of values?
How do we determine what the best performance is?

He cares nothing for human suffering, as near as I can tell.

You are quite wrong. Search for his slavery thread, if you want a demonstration of this.

A leader is someone who is willing to give his entire life to the well-being of his people and is competent enough to do so successfully.
And how does one identify these traits? Some individuals seem completely unremarkable for the entirety of their life, until something forces them to act otherwise. Then they are seen as good leaders. Others are outwardly leader material, yet when the moment comes for them to act, they make matters worse.

As Schopenhauer said, Will minus intellect constitutes vulgarity. And it is very rare to find a good leader that is also highly intelligent and compassionate. Ruthless intellect often contravenes compassion. Put a supercomputer in control. It has will. It has extreme intellect, in a sense. Would you trust it with the lives of human beings though?

What exactly are utilitarian values is also highly subjective -- leaders are by their nature individualists. What one will consider a "good" value, another will discredit. That everything can be scientifically quantified (e.g. happiness in the form of utility in Economics) is a false hope.


As long as everyone is happy, what does it matter? I don't understand what is wrong with the society in Brave New World.
Look at the people in it if you can't. They are no better than brain-dead morons for the most part, even some of the Beta class individuals. Free thought is almost outlawed and punishable. What sort of existence values happiness over freedom? Furthermore, their happiness is an utter illussion, a drug-induced lie. They are coddled as though they were toddlers.

No, he does not. He cares nothing for human suffering, as near as I can tell.
He claims that his schemes will end their suffering too.

To protect them from those that would harm them.
And for this it is required that I totally and utterly surrender my freedom to some "superior" entity?

There is nos such thing a Communist or Socialist government.

I support dictatorships...in theory at least.

You are quite wrong. Search for his slavery thread, if you want a demonstration of this.
I was referring to his opinions on war.
How do we know that those children would be better than the other children?
We don't, but in a large enough random sample, the same characteristics will emerge in a certain number of those individuals.
How do we know that utilitarian values are better than another set of values?
They aren't. They just hold the potential for the greatest minimization of suffering.
How do we determine what the best performance is?
By tests designed for each child's learing style.
And how does one identify these traits? Some individuals seem completely unremarkable for the entirety of their life, until something forces them to act otherwise. Then they are seen as good leaders. Others are outwardly leader material, yet when the moment comes for them to act, they make matters worse.
Which is why we should eliminate all the uncertainty and create our leaders.
As Schopenhauer said, Will minus intellect constitutes vulgarity. And it is very rare to find a good leader that is also highly intelligent and compassionate. Ruthless intellect often contravenes compassion. Put a supercomputer in control. It has will. It has extreme intellect, in a sense. Would you trust it with the lives of human beings though?
Thus the emphasis on utilitarian values.
What one will consider a "good" value, another will discredit.
Then they are mistaken.
Look at the people in it if you can't. They are no better than brain-dead morons for the most part, even some of the Beta class individuals. Free thought is almost outlawed and punishable. What sort of existence values happiness over freedom? Their happiness is an utter illussion, a drug-induced lie.

Well certainly their methods leave much to be desired, and I would prefer that people have control over most of their life decisions, but the idea is not flawed.
And for this it is required that I totally and utterly surrender my freedom to some "superior" entity?
Why not? Your freedom is already at the mercy of an inferior entity, the wimsy of a mob of idiots.

There is nos such thing a Communist or Socialist government.

I support dictatorships...in theory at least.

I agree that it is impossible in reality for communism to ever sustain itself without a dictator. But do you really support dictatorship? Thats just wrong.

We don't, but in a large enough random sample, the same characteristics will emerge in a certain number of those individuals.Then why not just put all the children through the school?

They aren't. They just hold the potential for the greatest minimization of suffering.Why is minimizing suffering better than some other value?

By tests designed for each child's learing style.I'm not entirely certain that a test in a controlled, structured environment is equal to a real life event.
If someone fails in their real life events, the consequences in such a system could be disastrous.

Why not? Your freedom is already at the mercy of an inferior entity, the wimsy of a mob of idiots.At least we are a part of the mob of idiots, as opposed to being decided by people who are "better" than we are.

Thus the emphasis on utilitarian values.
You've established the end, but not the means. This is where utilitarianism in general goes awry, in that the means are rarely agreed upon.

Then they are mistaken.
Are they though? You seem to think that leaders can form some kind of hive mind. Observe BNW. The ruling Alpha ++ elites were also the most individualistic members. They were above the herd.

Well certainly their methods leave much to be desired, and I would prefer that people have control over most of their life decisions, but the idea is not flawed.
In what sense is it not flawed?

Why not? Your freedom is already at the mercy of an inferior entity, the wimsy of a mob of idiots.
Yes, and I'd prefer giving mobs (in general) less power over me rather than more. Their intellect is irrelevant.

Aww... I was hoping for a quiz with this poll.

Then why not just put all the children through the school?
Because the school would require most of a child's life, as would their leadership roles once they meet adulthood. It is an acceptable sacrifice in a few, but the vast majority should be free to live their lives freely.
Why is minimizing suffering better than some other value?
What value could possibly be more important?
I'm not entirely certain that a test in a controlled, structured environment is equal to a real life event.
If someone fails in their real life events, the consequences in such a system could be disastrous.
Perhaps a final test could be set up where the students think that they are in a real life situation?
At least we are a part of the mob of idiots, as opposed to being decided by people who are "better" than we are.
Maybe you are, but I do not count myself a member of the prejudiced, irrational and selfish masses.
You've established the end, but not the means. This is where utilitarianism in general goes awry, in that the means are rarely agreed upon
If enough people were working on it, and enough resources were spent, the best solutions would become apparent.
In what sense is it not flawed?

People are happy.
Yes, and I'd prefer giving mobs (in general) less power over me rather than more. Their intellect is irrelevant.
There will always be someone in charge.

Because the school would require most of a child's life, as would their leadership roles once they meet adulthood. It is an acceptable sacrifice in a few, but the vast majority should be free to live their lives freely.Shouldn't the children who are asked to make the sacrifice also have the choice?

What value could possibly be more important?Not all suffering can be eliminated, and as they say, what doesn't kill us makes us stronger.

Perhaps a final test could be set up where the students think that they are in a real life situation?I think you'll need more than one of those types of tests.

Maybe you are, but I do not count myself a member of the prejudiced, irrational and selfish masses.Are you sure you're not irrationally prejudiced against the masses?

If enough people were working on it, and enough resources were spent, the best solutions would become apparent.
Manifestly incorrect. Certain things simply cannot be quantified.

People are happy.
Or more appositely, they are deluded into thinking so. Soheran has argued this with MTAE before. False happiness is nothing but a meaningless state of existence; to me, it is hardly an existence at all.

There will always be someone in charge.
I concede that; however, the degree of control they have over me (and I over them) is something I'd prefer remaining between us. If I contract with someone for protection, it should be of my own choice, not because they force me into such a state of affairs. They should not, however, in any sense, have political control over me.

Now, I would've chosen "Right Wing Capitalist", but then I saw you saying you meant "right" as in conservative, big government right.

I'm a classical liberal who believes in the restriction of government to a very small, very specific role as an economic agent that is not bound by the markets but an alternative set of rules as agreed upon by the members of society.

So I'm not an anarchist either. I chose "other".

Socially: Liberalism, within reason.
Economically: Free-market capitalism.
Politically: Rule by the informed or intelligent. (in other words; testing is performed at voting age to determine a group of people most capable of rational and logical thought, simultaneously having the judgment to determine what is best for the country and its people; these people form a council of sorts and elect a leader from among themselves.)

I'm a classical liberal who believes in the restriction of government to a very small, very specific role as an economic agent that is not bound by the markets but an alternative set of rules as agreed upon by the members of society.

You believe in a "social contract"? If so what is to stop a kind of social contract you do not believe in? If not what exactly do you mean by those words?

As I learn more and more about socialism, it seems to appeal to me more and more; I don't know why.

At best?

A benevolent dictatorship slightly to the left of "left-capitalist". That would be quite workable and quite fair.

Democratic Socialism. So "other"

I'd probably say democratic socialist, with a strong green emphasis.

Politically: Rule by the informed or intelligent. (in other words; testing is performed at voting age to determine a group of people most capable of rational and logical thought, simultaneously having the judgment to determine what is best for the country and its people; these people form a council of sorts and elect a leader from among themselves.)
:)
Manifestly incorrect. Certain things simply cannot be quantified.
And why not?
Or more appositely, they are deluded into thinking so. Soheran has argued this with MTAE before. False happiness is nothing but a meaningless state of existence; to me, it is hardly an existence at all.
How can one be falsely happy? Happiness is thought. If one thinks that he or she is happy, he or she is.
Shouldn't the children who are asked to make the sacrifice also have the choice?
Why would they? Too many would say no. If you get them from an early enuogh age, a life of sacrafice will be all they know.
Not all suffering can be eliminated,
Only because people think it can not be. Suffering is in the mind.
and as they say, what doesn't kill us makes us stronger.
Which it does not. Anyone that's ever had cancer can tell you that.
I think you'll need more than one of those types of tests.
Yeah.
Are you sure you're not irrationally prejudiced against the masses?
Yes. I have observed what the mob does, how it is responsible for more human suffering than any dictator could ever possibly be.

Socially: Liberalism, within reason.
Economically: Free-market capitalism.
Politically: Rule by the informed or intelligent. (in other words; testing is performed at voting age to determine a group of people most capable of rational and logical thought, simultaneously having the judgment to determine what is best for the country and its people; these people form a council of sorts and elect a leader from among themselves.)How do we objectively determine who is more intelligent?

How can one be falsely happy? Happiness is thought. If one thinks that he or she is happy, he or she is.

"Love is thought. If one thinks that he or she is in love, he or she is."

That is absurd, right? Why do you think the same is not true of your statement regarding happiness?

Why would they? Too many would say no. If you get them from an early enuogh age, a life of sacrafice will be all they know.Wouldn't this cause suffering?

Only because people think it can not be. Suffering is in the mind.Then we don't need 'intelligent' people in charge, we just need a good propaganda team.

Which it does not. Anyone that's ever had cancer can tell you that.It might make them physically weaker, but it can sometimes prepare them to deal with worse crises than the cancer.

Yes. I have observed what the mob does, how it is responsible for more human suffering than any dictator could ever possibly be....especially when the mob is being manipulated by someone who is telling them that what they're doing is beneficial and can reduce their suffering.

Yes. I have observed what the mob does, how it is responsible for more human suffering than any dictator could ever possibly be.

Don't just state this. Demonstrate it. And explain how your elitist political system will solve it.

I assume by 'left-wing capitalist' that's socially liberal capitalism? That ftw. A benevolent dictatorship would be the best form of government, but it'd never work.

"Love is thought. If one thinks that he or she is in love, he or she is."

That is absurd, right? Why do you think the same is not true of your statement regarding happiness?
I don’t think that it's absurd at all, actually.
Wouldn't this cause suffering?
Sacrifice is different than suffering.
Then we don't need 'intelligent' people in charge, we just need a good propaganda team.
I suppose, but it's so much easier for the weak-willed to be made happy in a society where their needs are met and they are allowed to live freely, something that out hypothetical Technocrats would be capable of delivering.
It might make them physically weaker, but it can sometimes prepare them to deal with worse crises than the cancer.
Like what?
...especially when the mob is being manipulated by someone who is telling them that what they're doing is beneficial and can reduce their suffering.
Yes, exactly. Which is why it would be best to eliminate that possibility by creating our leaders, not allowing them to come to power through their own ambition and will.
Don't just state this. Demonstrate it. And explain how your elitist political system will solve it.
The Crusades
Slavery
The Holocaust
The current disregard for any person who happens to have brown skin
People would be content due to the superiority of their leadership and would thus have no need to riot and there would be no demagogues to rouse them.

Being a socialist myself, I'm surprised and pleased to see so many people with similar ideals.

Being a socialist myself, I'm surprised and pleased to see so many people with similar ideals.
...on the internet.

I don’t think that it's absurd at all, actually.

Then you do not understand emotional states. Thinking you are feeling a given emotion is not the same thing as actually feeling it.

Indeed, all the time people think they are feeling certain emotions (like love), only to realize later that in fact they were not.

The Crusades

Ordered by the Church and the dictatorial rulers of Europe, hardly representative of the masses.

Slavery

Which ended, when it did, with the increased respect for popular sovereignty and individual liberty - instead of being strengthened by those tendencies.

The Holocaust

Ordered and implemented by a dictatorial regime.

So was every genocide in history. So was every campaign of mass murder in history, at least those directed towards the domestic population.

The current disregard for any person who happens to have brown skin

Racism is hardly something exclusive to the masses, and its greatest atrocities have been implemented by dictators.

People would be content due to the superiority of their leadership

Doubtful. People are rarely content when they are denied the opportunity to voice their concerns and have them matter.

and would thus have no need to riot

Compare the popular unrest in democracies with that in dictatorships, and come back to me.

and there would be no demagogues to rouse them.

Because your "superior leadership" would never desire popular support? :rolleyes:

You, who always talk so much about "what works," should be the first to recognize that modern-day liberal democracy, though very far from perfect, works a whole lot better than dictatorship, whatever the trappings of benevolence.

...on the internet.

I've met plenty off the Internet, too.

And why not?
Because they are entirely subjective. For instance, you cannot quantify the "happiness" you get out of a tin of coke. In Economics we call it Utility, and even the best means of explaining it (indifference analysis) reveal very little.

How can one be falsely happy? Happiness is thought. If one thinks that he or she is happy, he or she is.
The Brave New World approach dispenses with all of that by replacing punishment with pleasure, but at what cost? It requires giving up art, science, literature, history, marriage, monogamy, religion, love, individuality, and freedom in return for soma, temporary happiness in a tablet. If all one does in life is "being happy" in the sense of mental inertia, what worth is their existence even? They are no better than plants in a certain way. BNW sacrifices change for absolute stability; in a way, it ends man qua man, and not in a positive sense.

Indeed, all the time people think they are feeling certain emotions (like love), only to realize later that in fact they were not.
No, that is what they tell themselves. Ultimately, we feel what we want to feel.
Doubtful. People are rarely content when they are denied the opportunity to voice their concerns and have them matter.
Only because they are discontented by inadequate leadership.
You, who always talk so much about "what works," should be the first to recognize that modern-day liberal democracy, though very far from perfect, works a whole lot better than dictatorship, whatever the trappings of benevolence.
Your entire post is rendered inapplicable because you fail to relies I am not talking about dictatorship, at least in the historical sense. I am talking about a leadership comprised entirely of people who have been conditioned to be above the average person in terms of will and knowledge. There would be no dictators to rile the masses, as the people would understand that the Technocrats have been trained to handle leading, just as most trust doctors to doctor and plumbers to plumb.

Because they are entirely subjective. For instance, you cannot quantify the "happiness" you get out of a tin of coke. In Economics we call it Utility, and even the best means of explaining it (indifference analysis) reveal very little.
I'm not talking about a tin of coke. I'm talking about people not being shot at because they live in a bad neighborhood. I think it's safe to assume that most do not like that.
The Brave New World approach dispenses with all of that by replacing punishment with pleasure, but at what cost? It requires giving up art, science, literature, history, marriage, monogamy, religion, love, individuality, and freedom in return for soma, temporary happiness in a tablet.
Which is why I said that their methods are bad. Certainly history, art, science, literature and freedom should be mantained. Those things make people happy.
If all one does in life is "being happy" in the sense of mental inertia, what worth is their existence even?
What worth is any existence?

I am philosophically and politically left wing. So... I choose a right wing capitalist gov't.

No, that is what they tell themselves. Ultimately, we feel what we want to feel.

Any animal with emotional states like that would quickly go extinct, because the role they play in aiding the survival of the organism would be void.

Only because they are discontented by inadequate leadership.

They will always be. No leadership can ever match the concerns of an entire population sufficiently. The only way to solve this problem is through democracy.

Your entire post is rendered inapplicable because you fail to relies I am not talking about dictatorship, at least in the historical sense. I am talking about a leadership comprised entirely of people who have been conditioned to be above the average person in terms of will and knowledge. There would be no dictators to rile the masses, as the people would understand that the Technocrats have been trained to handle leading, just as most trust doctors to doctor and plumbers to plumb.

There are two things you are missing.

The first is qualification for leadership. Good leadership (a contradiction in terms to a degree, but that is another discussion) does not merely require intellect and knowledge. It requires strong moral convictions and, perhaps most importantly of all, an identification with and understanding of one's constituents. By your description, it seems to me that the leaders you will raise will be nothing of the sort; they may be smart, they may be well-intentioned (though I bet you will have immense trouble guaranteeing either, let alone both), but they will screw things up anyway, because they do not understand the concerns and lives of ordinary people.

The second is that in both the cases of plumbers and doctors, association with them is voluntary. No one forces me to go along with the recommendations of a particular doctor, or to accept the services of a particular plumber. I am permitted my own judgment. The same would not be true of a ruling class of technocrats.

Any animal that with emotional states like that would quickly go extinct, because the role they play in aiding the survival of the organism would be void.
I fail to see how. No animal has emotions, but humans. People like to fuck, the fact that our brains are complex enough to enhance the experience with emotion is irrelevant.
They will always be. No leadership can ever match the concerns of an entire population sufficiently. The only way to solve this problem is through democracy.
In a democracy, the interest groups with the most resources and people rule and get the most benefit. In a technocracy, all would get equal benefit.
The first is qualification for leadership. Good leadership (a contradiction in terms to a degree, but that is another discussion) does not merely require intellect and knowledge. It requires strong moral convictions and, perhaps most importantly of all, an identification with and understanding of one's constituents. By your description, it seems to me that the leaders you will raise will be nothing of the sort; they may be smart, they may be well-intentioned (though I bet you will have immense trouble guaranteeing either, let alone both), but they will screw things up anyway, because they do not understand the concerns and lives of ordinary people.
I fail to see how lacking the prejudices of the masses could ever be a bad thing.
The second is that in both the cases of plumbers and doctors, association with them is voluntary. No one forces me to go along with the recommendations of a particular doctor, or to accept the services of a particular plumber. I am permitted my own judgment. The same would not be true of a ruling class of technocrats.
True, but we will always have rulers. Why not train them for the job?

I assume by 'left-wing capitalist' that's socially liberal capitalism? That ftw. A benevolent dictatorship would be the best form of government, but it'd never work.
Then you're talking about Libertarianism. I assume Left-wing capitalism is the form in the Scandinavian countries.

No animal has emotions, but humans.

Nonsense.

People like to fuck, the fact that our brains are complex enough to enhance the experience with emotion is irrelevant.

Is not "liking" an emotion?

In a democracy, the interest groups with the most resources and people rule and get the most benefit. In a technocracy, all would get equal benefit.

No, in a technocracy benefit would be allocated highly arbitrarily, with a preference towards those similar to the Technocrats.

I fail to see how lacking the prejudices of the masses could ever be a bad thing.

Because I didn't say "prejudices."

True, but we will always have rulers. Why not train them for the job?

Because having a ruling class is even worse than having rulers.

Better to have neither, but I'll take the latter, especially if they are democratically elected, over the former.

I'm not talking about a tin of coke. I'm talking about people not being shot at because they live in a bad neighborhood. I think it's safe to assume that most do not like that.
We can also assume that people like control over their own lives, rather then being told how to live, can't we?

Which is why I said that their methods are bad. Certainly history, art, science, literature and freedom should be mantained. Those things make people happy.
The kind of happiness you presume though entails complete control over every aspect of life to ensure no deviations. It kills creativity, which itself is often born in dissatisfaction.

What worth is any existence?
Then why not simply go one step further, and end existence?

Is not "liking" an emotion?
It is not.
No, in a technocracy benefit would be allocated highly arbitrarily, with a preference towards those similar to the Technocrats.
A group trained and conditioned to serve the greater good would not do so.
Because I didn't say "prejudices."
That's all the masses are. Misconceptions about life are what drives the mob.
Better to have neither, but I'll take the latter, especially if they are democratically elected, over the former.
Why? Do you enjoy incompetence and the possibility of impeachment because of a man's sex life?

I'd most prefer to live in a country that is run democratically, with a wide safety net (by which I mean public healthcare of some kind, as well as systems in place to keep people working and off the streets.), extensive protections for civil liberties, and an attitude that never excuses, and actively seeks out, corruption.

Unfortunately, I also have a deep and abiding love for America, So I feel an obligation to stay behind, and not move to, say, Sweden or Canada. Rather, I have to do my best to change America into the country I'd most want to live in.

I'd love nothing more than a truly socialist, democratic government with the maximum possible freedom for all in all spheres of life. Personally, I think the goal of society should be to maximize each individual's pursuit of self-fulfillment to whatever extent possible within the context of society.

Is it achievable? I think so, but the real question is when and through what method...that's not so easily answered in our current system, which, for all its problems does work very well and provides a fairly high level of freedom.

It is not.

Regardless, the reason emotions exist in humans is because they encourage and discourage certain behaviors, and in so doing, increased our fitness to our environment.

A group trained and conditioned to serve the greater good would not do so.

The problem is not what they are trained and conditioned for; it is that they are trained and conditioned at all.

That's all the masses are. Misconceptions about life are what drives the mob.

Your contempt for humanity is not only unjustified, but is also inconsistent; people may suck, but the solution to people sucking is not to entrench a ruling class of people who suck.

Why? Do you enjoy incompetence

I enjoy liberty. Better liberty and incompetence than competent tyranny.

and the possibility of impeachment because of a man's sex life?

Who impeached Clinton? Republicans in Congress.

Who gave Clinton high approval ratings through the end of his term? The stupid, prejudiced, dangerous mob.

Thank you for proving my point.

I chose right-wing capitalist. Don't ask me why, because I suck ass at debates. The only one I think I ever made a decent one of would probably be ripped apart by the people here.

Regardless, the reason emotions exist in humans is because they encourage and discourage certain behaviors, and in so doing, increased our fitness to our environment.
Right. And we can control them if we beleive we can.
The problem is not what they are trained and conditioned for; it is that they are trained and conditioned at all.

I don't follow.
Your contempt for humanity is not only unjustified, but is also inconsistent; people may suck, but the solution to people sucking is not to entrench a ruling class of people who suck.
Persons do not suck. People suck, in groups, and when led by cruel men.
I enjoy liberty. Better liberty and incompetence than competent tyranny.
I enjoy liberty as well. It's why I embrace a form of government that would never arbitrarily restrict it.
Who impeached Clinton? Republicans in Congress.
Who were elected.
Who gave Clinton high approval ratings through the end of his term? The stupid, prejudiced, dangerous mob.
It was a time of contentment. They had a competent leader. Clinton would have made a good Technocrat.
Thank you for proving my point.
No. Thank you for proving mine.

Socialist is my choise.

The statistics have been verified and researched by our researches and have some suprising results: "this thread seems not be full of commies and anarchists after all"

I am very surprised.

:eek:

There are two votes for theocracy!

I must say I'm surprised!

No, I don't have any puppets and I'm not a puppet of anyone else, so I didn't vote twice.
Why would you want theocracy? It never works well.

Other.

I prefer technocracy. Why would you ever want dumb, uninformed people to have a say in anything that conerns others?
You should specifcy an ideology for this technocracy. You can find expert economists who support communism, anarcho-capitalism and everything in between.

Why would you want theocracy? It never works well.

I can see it now:

So god, what shall we do now? Give us a sign....

*silence*

Silence aye? So.... that meanss..... we should silence non religious types? What like kill them?

Brilliant! God knows best.

Right. And we can control them if we beleive we can.
And I could be God if I believed I could. It does not work that way. Emotions are a part of human nature, and not a mere frame of mind. Believing you're happy does not equate actual happiness.

I don't follow.
If you've read Plato's Republic, you'll remember the metaphor of the Cave. Plato expresses a certain fear that his Philosopher-Kings would not want to rule, that they would not want to return to this "cave". Indeed, he readily submits that his rulers will rule against their will. Huxley in Brave New World says much the same -- one of the World Controllers, Mustapha, is an unwilling master. There are two contradictory notions at play -- the individualism a leader must display vs. the herd mentality he/she is meant to adhere to in order to ensure what is the "common good". I am not sure exactly what Soheran's objection to the notion of conditioning is, but the way I take it is that we are breeding them as though they were animals. An example of this is Marie-Antoinette, who for all her power and notoriety, was said to live a miserable, empty life in a gilded cage, to the extent that it killed any creativity she might have possessed.

I enjoy liberty as well. It's why I embrace a form of government that would never arbitrarily restrict it.

You are going the wrong way about it though. If I were to have a non-elected body ruling, I would ensure their powers were as limited as possible (notice my sig), and that they were there only to perform the functions of their office.

Schopenhauer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schopenhauer#Politics), perhaps my favourite philosopher, too had a distaste for mob-rule.

What was essential, he thought, was that the state should "leave each man free to work out his own salvation", and so long as government was thus limited, he would "prefer to be ruled by a lion than one of [his] fellow rats" — i.e., a monarch.

Giving an elected body complete control over society is madness. Giving an unelected one such power is idiocy. I admit that minarchism is only my second-choice political stance, but if I were to be ruled I'd want the ruler to have as little power as possible, be they Monarch (in a Platonic sense), elected body or whatever.

I can see it now:

So god, what shall we do now? Give us a sign....

*silence*

Silence aye? So.... that meanss..... we should silence non religious types? What like kill them?

Brilliant! God knows best.
Imagine if God did grant its priesthood divine power though. <.<

http://www.arikah.net/commons/en/thumb/9/95/180px-Satire_Benedict_XVI.jpg

Something akin to the drow theocracy wouldn't be too far off then. :D

Well, I had typed out all sorts of quiz results and such and was going to ask "you tell me," but then my web browser decided to intrepret a "move tab" command as "reload tab" instead and I lost it all.

So I just answer the thread with a resounding "meh."

Right. And we can control them if we beleive we can.

Depends on the level of "control."

I don't follow.

People who are conditioned in a way radically different from everyone else will always form a separate class of people.

A separate class of rulers will never be capable of ruling.

(You, who argue so much against idealism and idealogues, should recognize this.)

Persons do not suck. People suck, in groups, and when led by cruel men.

I think you are just dodging the point now. A society that does not involve people in groups is a society that contradicts the definition of "society."

Like it or not, human beings are social creatures. You can't change that.

I enjoy liberty as well. It's why I embrace a form of government that would never arbitrarily restrict it.

Most likely, it will - because the Technocrats, with all their education and conditioning, are convinced that they know better than everybody else. (Indeed, that assumption is often built into ruling, certainly in any undemocratic regime.)

And you fully intend to destroy the liberty intrinsic to a democracy - the liberty to choose the public policies of the community of which one is a part. In our complex societies, where individual liberty is difficult to maintain because of their interconnected nature, this kind of collective liberty is essential.

Who were elected.

So? I agree that representative democracy isn't a great way of running things.

It was a time of contentment. They had a competent leader. Clinton would have made a good Technocrat.

He was elected. Twice. And he would have been elected a third term if not for the undemocratic term limits restriction.

That's a success of democracy, not a failure.

Fascism, by which I mean ideological Fascism and not the dictatorships that have existed. Basically meanin a Corporatist government with a strong government.

Sacrifice is different than suffering.Doesn't being forced to sacrifice cause suffering?
What percentage of the population would be required to make this sacrifice?

I suppose, but it's so much easier for the weak-willed to be made happy in a society where their needs are met and they are allowed to live freely, something that out hypothetical Technocrats would be capable of delivering.How are they living freely if they don't have the option of choosing who rules them?
How would we guarantee that a ruling technocrat isn't also weak-willed?

Like what?Like the death of a loved one, or perhaps facing their own mortality, or the resolve to not get bogged down in the little things in life and focus on what's more important.

Yes, exactly. Which is why it would be best to eliminate that possibility by creating our leaders, not allowing them to come to power through their own ambition and will.It would be best to eliminate that possibility by also eliminating the position of "leader".

Why would someone wish to be a good leader if they don't have the ambition to do so?

I chose right-wing capitalist. Don't ask me why, because I suck ass at debates. The only one I think I ever made a decent one of would probably be ripped apart by the people here.Perhaps you could lurk in threads where such debates take place and either find something that supports your views or weakens them?

I'm an anarchist-communist, but I voted anarchist.

Obviously I voted for a Raelian theocracy.

what's these left wing capitalists then? do you mean socially liberal capitalists? left and right wing refers to economics as far as i'm concerned.

what's these left wing capitalists then? do you mean socially liberal capitalists? left and right wing refers to economics as far as i'm concerned.

I think it means capitalist with a welfare state.

I think it means capitalist with a welfare state.

all right then. well i still vote anarchist. left wing anarchist.

"Left-wing capitalist" is a contradiction. Ergo, I chose right-wing capitalist.

I am about as extreme left as one could possibly get, but I lean alot more to authoritarian socialism than libertarian, I also dislike democracy when the vulgar preferential whim of the mob can simply vote 'socialism' and progression out of office.

I would also have to say that I like subsidised socialism in which income and wealth inequalities and concentrations can be more corrected via state control of assets etc. I also support expropriation and confiscation of all private sector assets and wealth to the state so that development can serve the community and not the greedy hedonistic individual.

So in such a way I support indoctrination of the populace to selflessness also, so as to eliminate poverty, unemployment, inflation etc.

I am all for a republican style of government, which is what the US has now.

Although right wing capitalist was closest to mine, so I picked that.

"Left-wing capitalist" is a contradiction.

Its getting rather semantic if you argue that. Its like saying that capitalism has never really been practiced because governments have always regulated, subsidized, or otherwise interfered with the economy.

"Left-wing capitalist" is a contradiction. Ergo, I chose right-wing capitalist.

He means left wing as socially liberal rather than left wing meaning socialist economically.

I would also have to say that I like subsidised socialism in which income and wealth inequalities and concentrations can be more corrected via state control of assets etc. I also support expropriation and confiscation of all private sector assets and wealth to the state so that development can serve the community and not the greedy hedonistic individual.


When you're serving a community, you are serving individuals. You cannot serve a group, it is an entity composed of individuals.

This is my problem with socialism that de-emphasizes the individual. If you truly wanted to benefit the group you would do what was best for the GROUP alone, meaning not EVERYONE would be treated equally. For example, let's say that there is a shortage of food and there are several individuals: the elderly, children, and adults. An equal distribution of food would most certainly result in malnutrition - the equal rations everyone receives would most likely be insufficient. Thus, in order for the group to survive in the long run, one collection of individuals is favored over the other. Let's say the children and adults in this case as the children will repopulate the elderly who die from starvation. Still thinking about the group?

On the other hand, supporting individuals is a much more human interaction. Someone who is compassionate is thinking about the individual families not the resultant group. At least, that's my take on it. Which is why I tend to have more respect for left-wing libertarians than socialists.

"Left-wing capitalist" is a contradiction.

I wish.

I am about as extreme left as one could possibly get,

No, you're not. People who support class systems are not "extreme left."

When you're serving a community, you are serving individuals. You cannot serve a group, it is an entity composed of individuals.

Individuality creates inbalance and thus inequality. Once individuality in lowered to an appropriate level then the state will be dealing with a group of individuals yes, but if they all think or at least act the same then they might as well be one coherent unit.

Individuality creates inbalance and thus inequality. Once individuality in lowered to an appropriate level then the state will be dealing with a group of individuals yes, but if they all think or at least act the same then they might as well be one coherent unit.

Well, you stated that you are authoritarian socialist, so it's understandable that you would support the destruction of what makes us human, really. A hive mind is more oppressive than any class system you can conjure. What good are values like selflessness when you don't choose them? Human beings are not all the same: we all possess different personalities, beliefs, types of humor, why do you insist on breaking the crux of humanity to impose your system? What good is being selfless if you can't conceive of selfishness (the old you can't have good without evil argument). One final note: what's the point of equality if there is only one coherent unit? If one person dies, it most likely won't affect the hive mind. All values are essentially devalued in that system.

A side note for anarchists, though: what is the difference between the commune and a government that practices direct democracy?

A side note for anarchists, though: what is the difference between the commune and a government that practices direct democracy?

Two - extreme decentralization and free association.

Two - extreme decentralization and free association.

So why have a commune at all if it can't enforce basic democratic decisions?

Would the commune be alright if, let's say, three friends and myself decide that we wish to start another commune that is capitalistic in nature. Would we be opposed, or allowed to pursue our beliefs?

So why have a commune at all if it can't enforce basic democratic decisions?

"Enforc[ing]" would probably be limited to defending the commune, its members, its resources, and its allies.

Would we be opposed, or allowed to pursue our beliefs?

Probably you would be allowed to go ahead with it, as long as you permitted your members genuine free association.

I am about as extreme left as one could possibly get, but I lean alot more to authoritarian socialism than libertarian, I also dislike democracy when the vulgar preferential whim of the mob can simply vote 'socialism' and progression out of office.
You are a totalitarian, plain and simple. Leninist/Stalinist describes you best.

So in such a way I support indoctrination of the populace to selflessness also, so as to eliminate poverty, unemployment, inflation etc.
More like what you support is the destruction of this dastardly beast, the individual (and consequently anything human about us).

I wish.
How come?

Probably you would be allowed to go ahead with it, as long as you permitted your members genuine free association.
Elaborate, if you will.

"Enforc[ing]" would probably be limited to defending the commune, its members, its resources, and its allies.


Property? I was under the impression that property does not exist under an anarcho-communist system.

More like what you support is the destruction of this dastardly beast, the individual.

This individual is certainly a pesky fellow. What is it that makes him so great again? Something about freedom and human nature...

This individual is certainly a pesky fellow. What is it that makes him so great again? Something about freedom and human nature...
You dare utter the "F" word! :eek: Heresy I say, heresy! You evil rational thinker, you! The Vozhd will consume you, foolish statistic.

Property? I was under the impression that property does not exist under an anarcho-communist system.

Not in its present sense, no, but the commune would be entitled to defend itself against those who would deprive it of its resources for the sake of their greed.

Its members would collectively own the means of production and would share in the produce of production, but people seeking to steal the resources exclusively for themselves would not be permitted to do so.

How come?

Because I want more socialists. Why else?

Elaborate, if you will.

As long as they are entitled to leave, are actually capable of doing so, and have decent places to leave to.

Is this thread really full of commies and anarchists?

Lets find out, as there doesn't seem to be a census on this. Political compass does not always represent your style of government because they may be your ideals but in practicle terms you may prefer to get governed by another style of government.

*poll coming*

i hate governments,more precisely..i hate full of shit hypocrites dictating my life,cause they can.
cause they take my money,create a job for their useless ass,and self perpetuate the job,by taxing me.

i am not totally an anarchist..but please...i am kinda nice to my fellow humans,and dont need the gov to tell me to be.
seems to me the governments create as many problems as they solve.
so.....fuck the government.....i can build my own road,protect myself(unless the gov disarms me)
teach my kids right from wrong,and if i cant..well there is always the rule of the jungle...seems to work for animals.
whats the other rule about the pond...darwin?

he always win dont he..lol

Because I want more socialists. Why else?
Ah yes, competition for scarce resources. Human capital in this case. :)

As long as they are entitled to leave, are actually capable of doing so, and have decent places to leave to.
The right to individual secession, quite literally.

You dare utter the "F" word! :eek: Heresy I say, heresy! You evil rational thinker, you! The Vozhd will consume you, foolish statistic.

You used the forbidden word! We are very disappointed with you.

You used the forbidden word! We are very disappointed with you.
I sorry Community. :( What be my punishment now?

Oops, I used the "I" and "M" words. :eek:

Property? I was under the impression that property does not exist under an anarcho-communist system.No, but usage rights do, (It's entirely possible to use something without owning it) and the commune would protect itself against people who would try to prevent the commune from exercising its usage rights.

I can see it now:

So god, what shall we do now? Give us a sign....

*silence*

Silence aye? So.... that meanss..... we should silence non religious types? What like kill them?

Brilliant! God knows best.
Correct. Theocracies tend to glorify nothing more than human corruption and fallibility.

He means left wing as socially liberal rather than left wing meaning socialist economically.
No, he doesn't.
It's subjective to your opinion, but if you were to put left wing capitalist instead of socialist I would just think that it may be partly socialist put it is also largely capitalist. Take the UK in economic terms for example.

i voted fascism, cause ideally it would work. but corruption would eventually wreck the system.
note, fascism is not nazism. there are huge differences.

The kind my NS nation is, an egalitarian dictatorship where the government leaves it's people alone and there is no democracy threatening it's lack of oppression on it's people.

Why would you want theocracy? It never works well.

If God gave us Law (which I believe He did in the Old Testament) and if part of that Law contains the manner in which the civil authority ought to operate (which it does) who am to not support the use of that prescribed manner?

If God gave us Law (which I believe He did in the Old Testament) and if part of that Law contains the manner in which the civil authority ought to operate (which it does) who am to not support the use of that prescribed manner?
Show me a theocracy that has worked out well in the past.

Show me a theocracy that has worked out well in the past.

I can show you no republican theocracy which has worked in the past, simply because one has not existed. An exception may be the Old Testament, but it did not last long, because the people turned from the theocratic system and embraced a pagan democracy (referring to their government, not the system) and later a monarchy.

There have been dictatorial theocracies and are. But these prove the folly of a dictatorship, not of a theocracy. If we were to have a republican system, there would be leaders holding each other to account and the leaders would fear the wrath of the people (through election), not the other way around as is the case with the dictatorial theocracies.

I have realized that in the past, and possibly now, I have been defining theocracy differently than most people. A theocracy (as I define it) is simply where the government adopts the Law of God (or Allah, or Satan, or whomever) as its highest Law. It does not mean that the Church (or the "Mosque" or whatever religious organization) controls the government, though many of you define it as so.

You believe in a "social contract"? If so what is to stop a kind of social contract you do not believe in? If not what exactly do you mean by those words?
Not a social contract. Rather more explicit than that: voting!

There would be a very limiting constitution, and what the government does within that constitution is up to the voters to decide.

I'm a minarchist right-wing libertarian who is considering converting to centrism.

Not a social contract. Rather more explicit than that: voting!

There would be a very limiting constitution, and what the government does within that constitution is up to the voters to decide.

Then there's the problem of getting a very limited constitution and the problem of voters wanting to loosen those limits.

Then there's the problem of getting a very limited constitution and the problem of voters wanting to loosen those limits.
Yep.

Well, I would say that...

a) The thread asked me about my preferred style of government, not an absolutely ideal one, so I make the constitution. ;)

b) Some sort of social contract probably is necessary, though I would still make it more explicit than the abstract concept we generally talk about. So in other words, give people something they can actually sign.

c) Changing a constitution is not an easy thing, though I suppose it may be possible. The ultimate goal of my idea here is the creation of a society with as little coercion and as much agreement as possible, both by eliminating as much as possible the capacity of government to coerce, and by making those few remaining capacities dependent on agreement by as many as possible.
I suppose that's an ideal that people would have to accept, yes. If they wanted to impose their will on others, then my government might fall to that.

How are they living freely if they don't have the option of choosing who rules them?
Choosing one's leaders has nothing to do with freedom, seeing as under no system will one ever truly be able to do so.
Freedom is the ability to live one's life happily in the way one sees fit without harming others.

Communism works when done right. I point to Vietnam.

Anarchists believe that humanity is smart enough to not kill and maim each other randomly just because there is no law against it. Or they are nuts.

See? Commies and Anarchists aren't all bad.

Right wing capitalist

Right wing capitalist
:fluffle:

:fluffle:

Why hello there!

Why hello there!
Hi. :)

Communism works when done right. I point to Vietnam.
Though that's state-directed capitalism alá China or modern Russia. It's got nothing to do with communism.

Choosing one's leaders has nothing to do with freedom, seeing as under no system will one ever truly be able to do so.But some systems give more of a choice than others.

Freedom is the ability to live one's life happily in the way one sees fit without harming others.As well as the ability to make decisions to affect one's own life (self-determination). The actions of leader would affect a person's life, so the person should have the right to determine who those leaders are.