CurvedSpace Forums: Ideal Government - CurvedSpace Forums

Jump to content

  • (2 Pages)
  • +
  • 1
  • 2
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

Ideal Government

#1 {lang:macro__useroffline}   Zziggywolf5 {lang:icon}

  • Senior Member
  • Icon
  • {lang:view_blog}
  • {lang:view_gallery}
  • Group: Moderator
  • Posts: 2,739
  • Joined: 27-June 03

Posted 23 January 2008 - 12:09 AM

What is you idea of the perfect government? Is a republic better than a dictatorship? Is capitalism truly a wiser choice than communism?
Discuss.

QUOTE (JGJTan @ Jul 17 2008, 04:48 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I endorse stalking. :thumb:
0

#2 {lang:macro__useroffline}   Neraphym {lang:icon}

  • Do not want!
  • Icon
  • {lang:view_blog}
  • Group: Super Moderator
  • Posts: 10,332
  • Joined: 29-October 03
  • Location:Terra, orbiting Sol

Posted 23 January 2008 - 12:48 AM

Ideally, Governments would not need to exist at all. Too bad we don't live in an ideal world (thus anarchy is NOT an option). I think a direct democracy is fine in this day and age. Without the aid of technology, the best we could do was a Republic. Now I think we're ok to move to a direct mass democracy. However, we need to restrict the rights to vote only to people educated enough to make smart decisions. The 'stupid vote' is a big problem in America, and we need to remove it from our legislative process. We still need to elect a leader for real-time decision making, and some legislation moderators that propose and organize the votes on legislation. Stupid people will be allowed to vote for them, so they will have limited say, rather than none or full. Judges should be separate from the legislature and elected by the smart voters.

The problem with an aristocracy is that the aristocrats that start the government are weeded out and replaced by moronic demagogues. Compare Jefferson with Bush, and you'll see what I mean. We can widen the aristocratic base and have them elect. We need a means of weeding out the stupid people vote that gives power to demagogues. For this, I propose that anyone with a college degree is smart enough to vote. There are obviously many potential problems here that could prevent otherwise smart, but uneducated-for-some-reason people from voting. I'm sure there are solutions here, so don't discount it. Smart people = good decisions.
Neraphym Archaeon
Posted Image
GWAMM
0

#3 {lang:macro__useroffline}   Atilla {lang:icon}

  • Senior Member
  • Icon
  • Group: Member
  • Posts: 1,663
  • Joined: 20-November 03
  • Location:Terra, orbiting Sol

Posted 23 January 2008 - 04:40 AM

Neraphym would like Plato's Republic.

World Government ftw. Eliminates nationalism, which, over a period of time, eliminates racism.

Structurally, organizing a world government as a social democracy seems most logical.
<b>(\__/)</b>
<b>(='.'=)</b> This is Bunny. Put him in your signature and help
<b>(")_(")</b> him on his way to world domination.
0

#4 {lang:macro__useroffline}   Neraphym {lang:icon}

  • Do not want!
  • Icon
  • {lang:view_blog}
  • Group: Super Moderator
  • Posts: 10,332
  • Joined: 29-October 03
  • Location:Terra, orbiting Sol

Posted 23 January 2008 - 04:45 AM

A world government would be ideal, but it is a long way away. There are certain societies out there that would need to mature politically before it can join the world stage. *points to Middle East and South America* To give them votes at this point is like giving an accused criminal a vote on in his own jury.
Neraphym Archaeon
Posted Image
GWAMM
0

#5 {lang:macro__useroffline}   Aaron {lang:icon}

  • Hai
  • Icon
  • {lang:view_gallery}
  • Group: Moderator
  • Posts: 6,067
  • Joined: 26-December 04
  • Location:Terra, orbiting Sol

Posted 23 January 2008 - 10:06 PM

I'm currently writing a research paper on why America needs to adopt a system of Direct Democracy. I'll post it here when I'm finished grnwink.gif .

Direct Democracy does work and makes sense. Mob rule can be just as bad as our current oligarchy of a republic, so fusing Direct and Representative Democracy is the way to go. Initiative, Referendum, and Recall work very well. Switzerland and California are two modern examples of this system in action. Let the will of the people be carried out! thumb.gif
0

#6 {lang:macro__useroffline}   Spikeout {lang:icon}

  • Tired
  • Icon
  • Group: Member
  • Posts: 9,068
  • Joined: 02-April 03
  • Location:Terra, orbiting Sol

Posted 12 February 2008 - 03:57 AM

QUOTE (Neraphym @ Jan 22 2008, 06:48 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Ideally, Governments would not need to exist at all. Too bad we don't live in an ideal world (thus anarchy is NOT an option). I think a direct democracy is fine in this day and age. Without the aid of technology, the best we could do was a Republic. Now I think we're ok to move to a direct mass democracy. However, we need to restrict the rights to vote only to people educated enough to make smart decisions. The 'stupid vote' is a big problem in America, and we need to remove it from our legislative process. We still need to elect a leader for real-time decision making, and some legislation moderators that propose and organize the votes on legislation. Stupid people will be allowed to vote for them, so they will have limited say, rather than none or full. Judges should be separate from the legislature and elected by the smart voters.

The problem with an aristocracy is that the aristocrats that start the government are weeded out and replaced by moronic demagogues. Compare Jefferson with Bush, and you'll see what I mean. We can widen the aristocratic base and have them elect. We need a means of weeding out the stupid people vote that gives power to demagogues. For this, I propose that anyone with a college degree is smart enough to vote. There are obviously many potential problems here that could prevent otherwise smart, but uneducated-for-some-reason people from voting. I'm sure there are solutions here, so don't discount it. Smart people = good decisions.


Lol, is the Stupid Vote the vote that opposes your vote? And what makes a good decision? Your terms are loosely based and needs to be defined... The Constitution designed Presidential Elections to be chosen by only a handful of people anyways. Electoral votes count more than the population vote and resrticting voting rights to only educated goes back to the late 1800's. It was used to keep Blacks, Women, and Lower Class people from voting. Only the Middle and Upper class could vote. With only middle and upper class males voting, different issues would arise, the politicans running to be President would only care about the Middle and Upper class issues because they are the ones voting for them. So limiting the vote would definately cripple America more than it already is.

As for the Middle East and South America, they have a more mature government than what America has now. Ever since the Industrial Revolution, America has been trying to expand its markets all around the world, even if it means taking military action. The countries that we consider "the bad guys" (Cuba, Iran, Prewar Iraq, etc.), we have exploited their countries for resources. Before Castro, America put a dictatorship in Cuba so that America could get the vast amount of resources that Cuba owns. When Castro started the revolution, won, and closed the doors to American Influence, America started labeling them as the bad guys. Read into McKinley's War Message towards Spain back in the Spanish-American War and compare it to Bush's War Message today. American government is about economy and commerce and always expanding it. What the Middle East and South America has done is basically closed their doors to American Influence and keep their country away from U.S. Policies.



0

#7 {lang:macro__useroffline}   Atilla {lang:icon}

  • Senior Member
  • Icon
  • Group: Member
  • Posts: 1,663
  • Joined: 20-November 03
  • Location:Terra, orbiting Sol

Posted 12 February 2008 - 05:57 AM

QUOTE (Spikeout @ Feb 11 2008, 09:57 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Lol, is the Stupid Vote the vote that opposes your vote? And what makes a good decision? Your terms are loosely based and needs to be defined... The Constitution designed Presidential Elections to be chosen by only a handful of people anyways. Electoral votes count more than the population vote and resrticting voting rights to only educated goes back to the late 1800's. It was used to keep Blacks, Women, and Lower Class people from voting. Only the Middle and Upper class could vote. With only middle and upper class males voting, different issues would arise, the politicans running to be President would only care about the Middle and Upper class issues because they are the ones voting for them. So limiting the vote would definately cripple America more than it already is.

As for the Middle East and South America, they have a more mature government than what America has now. Ever since the Industrial Revolution, America has been trying to expand its markets all around the world, even if it means taking military action. The countries that we consider "the bad guys" (Cuba, Iran, Prewar Iraq, etc.), we have exploited their countries for resources. Before Castro, America put a dictatorship in Cuba so that America could get the vast amount of resources that Cuba owns. When Castro started the revolution, won, and closed the doors to American Influence, America started labeling them as the bad guys. Read into McKinley's War Message towards Spain back in the Spanish-American War and compare it to Bush's War Message today. American government is about economy and commerce and always expanding it. What the Middle East and South America has done is basically closed their doors to American Influence and keep their country away from U.S. Policies.

You speak from experience? Oh, no, you live in an entirely different continent. indifferent.gif

There's much disinformation here, and being an avid history student I feel obligated to correct it.

Let's examine the first paragraph, which is less full of {expletive hax0rd by Cspace} than the second. Much of this is true, including the fact that white male landowners were the only people granted suffrage. But consider the era in world history. When was the last time this form of government had existed? The answer: the Roman Republic, about 2000 years prior, before it became the Roman Empire. You're not giving them enough credit; people seem to bash them for not abolishing slavery and all of that immediately, and completely ignore the fact that it was going on all around the world, albeit in a different form (serfdom). Also, your facts are not straight about the electoral system. It was actually not designed to cut out the popular vote. Read more about it and you'll discover that faithless electors never have and more than likely never will change the outcome of a presidential election. This is not to say I'm in favor of the current system, but it was not set in place for the reasons you're claiming.

As for the second paragraph, well here goes. Define a "mature" government please. If consistent violent revolution is considered mature, I'll stick with the "immature." As for the Cuba situation, that is mostly accurate. It was more because of the perceived threat of communism that the authoritarian government was installed (as many others around the world), not for Cuba's resources. You must also understand the perceived threat of communism was fairly legitimate; the Soviets had nukes after all. I'm not attempting to defend the killing of innocent people, but rather attempting to defend the idea that the prevention of worldwide nuclear winter was a little more important. Read up on the Bay of Pigs and maybe you'll get an idea.

All that being said, I agree with you in most instances of the corporate world bashing. Foreign outsourcing disgusts me, as it just continues the ever-growing gap between the rich and the poor in this country. That is why I voted for Obama in the democratic primary.
<b>(\__/)</b>
<b>(='.'=)</b> This is Bunny. Put him in your signature and help
<b>(")_(")</b> him on his way to world domination.
0

#8 {lang:macro__useroffline}   Neraphym {lang:icon}

  • Do not want!
  • Icon
  • {lang:view_blog}
  • Group: Super Moderator
  • Posts: 10,332
  • Joined: 29-October 03
  • Location:Terra, orbiting Sol

Posted 12 February 2008 - 07:35 AM

QUOTE (Spikeout @ Feb 11 2008, 10:57 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Lol, is the Stupid Vote the vote that opposes your vote? And what makes a good decision? Your terms are loosely based and needs to be defined... The Constitution designed Presidential Elections to be chosen by only a handful of people anyways. Electoral votes count more than the population vote and resrticting voting rights to only educated goes back to the late 1800's. It was used to keep Blacks, Women, and Lower Class people from voting. Only the Middle and Upper class could vote. With only middle and upper class males voting, different issues would arise, the politicans running to be President would only care about the Middle and Upper class issues because they are the ones voting for them. So limiting the vote would definately cripple America more than it already is.

As for the Middle East and South America, they have a more mature government than what America has now. Ever since the Industrial Revolution, America has been trying to expand its markets all around the world, even if it means taking military action. The countries that we consider "the bad guys" (Cuba, Iran, Prewar Iraq, etc.), we have exploited their countries for resources. Before Castro, America put a dictatorship in Cuba so that America could get the vast amount of resources that Cuba owns. When Castro started the revolution, won, and closed the doors to American Influence, America started labeling them as the bad guys. Read into McKinley's War Message towards Spain back in the Spanish-American War and compare it to Bush's War Message today. American government is about economy and commerce and always expanding it. What the Middle East and South America has done is basically closed their doors to American Influence and keep their country away from U.S. Policies.


There are opinions, and then there are facts. I have no problem with people holding opinions that are different than mine, but when people have their facts wrong, we have a problem. When Americans cannot find their own country on the world map, yet have the right to vote, what kind of results can we expect? I'm not talking about disenfranchising someone for having a different view of our situation in Iraq or the best way to deal with economic recession. I refer you to the people who do not know on what continent Iraq lies.

You raise a valid point in that selective enfranchisement based on education would have, as a side effect, a discriminatory effect on minorities. However, I already addressed this point, so I refer you to my original post.

The issues of the disenfranchised would indeed receive less attention. Consider the disparity between benefits for senior citizens and for kids and up to college students. This could be a tricky problem, but again, it can be dealt with.

As for the South American and Middle Eastern countries, I was referring to the insane human rights violations, participation in illegal drug trafficking of cocaine/opium, and terrorism. No world government should recognize dictators, nor the elected officials of religiously brainwashed ignorant masses (if they are even elected...). Consider why it is you'd probably rather live in an enlightened, secular, and liberal country, as opposed to most other countries in South America and the Middle East. Now imagine all those ideals being trumped by the ignorant, theocratic, and fascist votes. No government can be perfect, but I think it is quite evident which are the least evil.
Neraphym Archaeon
Posted Image
GWAMM
0

#9 {lang:macro__useroffline}   Aaron {lang:icon}

  • Hai
  • Icon
  • {lang:view_gallery}
  • Group: Moderator
  • Posts: 6,067
  • Joined: 26-December 04
  • Location:Terra, orbiting Sol

Posted 16 February 2008 - 04:07 PM

The Need for Direct Democracy in American Government

Most Americans think they live under the fairest government system known to humankind: democracy. Although we enshrine democratic ideals, the United States government is not a pure democracy. We live in a republic: a government led by individuals chosen by the populace. The question is: Do these individuals truly represent the interests of their constituents? Many Americans would say no. These same
Americans would probably agree that they should have more of a voice in government. The answer to that is to implement direct democracy in our current republican system. This is actually quite feasible, and has been done around the world. It may be hard for America to break the mold, but I believe it is time we did. The United States Federal Government should fuse direct democracy with the current representative democracy.

Democracy, as defined by the Grolier encyclopedia, is a form of government in which a substantial proportion of the citizenry directly or indirectly participates in ruling the state. The original democracy in Greece was a direct one. In a direct democracy, citizens vote on laws (“Democracy”). Direct democracy has been called the most radical form of democracy. Some of the criticisms of direct democracy are: it is impossible to coordinate, the citizens are not properly equipped to make decisions, and instability is caused by shifting popular majorities (Budge). These criticisms have truth; Direct democracy can become a dangerous government. The minority is often the injured party in a direct democracy, because the majority rules. However, no one is always the minority in every issue.

A republic has its faults also. Grolier encyclopedia defines a republic as a form of government in which sovereignty rests in those people entitled to elect, either directly or indirectly, representatives who hold office for limited periods of time (“Republic”). To clarify, a republic is also known as an indirect democracy or a representative democracy. Having representatives vote for a group of people is not necessarily a bad thing, but when you have no surefire way of influencing their decisions, it is not fair to the constituents. Ian Budge says, “Modern representative (party) democracies are heavily imbalanced against popular participation” (Budge). In the federal government, citizens have little or no say in how laws are made. Interest groups and lobbyists can influence representatives’ decisions, but they are in no way required to vote in the constituents’ favor. Also, those interest groups often do not have the majority’s interest in mind. Citizen participation is definitely lacking in our national government.

Both direct and representative democracies cannot stand alone. Combining them can only make them stronger. Making them work together may sound impossible, but it has already been done, and it works.

Initiative is the proposal of a law or constitutional amendment proposed by a specified percentage of voter signatures on a popular petition (“Referendum and initiative”). An initiative allows the citizen to put his idea forth in front of the people and the legislature. An initiative can either go straight to the people for a vote or to the legislature first. One may argue that interest groups and lobbyists already can essentially propose a bill. However, if the legislature does not pass the initiative, it is placed on the ballot for the electorate to consider (“Referendum and initiative”). By giving the people the chance to pass what the legislature would not, a powerful check is placed on the legislature.

Referendum is another very powerful tool of the people. A referendum by petition allows the voters to veto an act of the legislature (“Referendum and initiative”). If the legislature passes a law that is very unpopular, then the people have a chance to strike it down. When a law is passed by the legislature, it does not take effect immediately. During this period of time, a referendum can be petitioned for and the law can be either enacted or erased.

Recall is procedure where the people can vote to remove an elected official from office. It is not as common as initiative and referendum, and those governments that allow it don’t use it often. California is the last state to use the recall. Governor Gray Davis was removed from office by the citizens of California. The voters chose Arnold Schwarzenegger to replace him. Recall is one of the only ways to stop a corrupt or tyrannical leader.

Switzerland is a paragon of democracy. Direct democracy has been prevalent in their government system for hundreds of years. We can use their government as a model for our own.

Switzerland is a hybrid government: a representative democracy that embraces direct democracy. Most laws are made and passed by Parliament. However, the big difference between Switzerland and representative democracies like Britain and America is that citizens are entitled to put almost every law passed by the legislature to a vote (Kaufmann).

Any citizen can put a law to vote if they gather 50,000 signatures within 100 days of the passing of a law. In 96 times out of 100, this is not necessary. Switzerland’s parliament has a high level of legitimacy. The legislators know that the people will seriously check their decisions, so they strive to do a very good job (Kaufmann).

Swiss citizens can also propose a constitutional amendment. These amendments cannot violate international law or human rights. For an amendment to be put forward there must be 100,000 signatures within 18 months (Kaufmann).

It is obvious that the Swiss have a very participatory government. The people are not just involved at the national level, but at the state and local levels as well. A great benefit of direct democracy is that it gives the Swiss people a very high standard of living. Bruno Kaufmann notes, “Startlingly, those parts of the country where the people are most involved in politics also have better public services and stronger economies.” It seems that when the people feel like they are heard, they lead more productive and comfortable lives. Kaufmann concludes, “From the Swiss experience we can all learn that representative democracy can do much better, if it includes comprehensive and citizen-friendly methods of participation” (Kaufmann).

In the United States, initiative exists in 21 states, and referendum is found in 37 states (“Referendum and initiative”). Of these states, California uses initiative and referendum the most. The Progressive Party founded these instruments of direct democracy in California in 1910. Charles Kesler explains the history behind it, “As the Progressives saw it, the problem with representative government in California was that the people were not being represented in the legislature, which was dominated by big corporate interests and political machines that served them” (Kesler). Direct democracy has thrived in California. The average number of initiatives filed each year is now about 80. Of course, this seemingly perfect process is not without its faults. Special-interest groups have not been eradicated from California’s political system, but at least the people themselves can decide who and what to support. Nevertheless, Californians like their directly democratic government (Kesler).

All in all, the federal government of the United States should assimilate direct democracy into its current republican system. Democracies and republics are two distinct types of government and have trouble standing on their own. A hybrid government allows even more precious freedom to permeate society. Through initiative, referendum, and recall, the people and their government can work together in shaping the laws of the land. This system is already present and working well in several places around the world, most notably in Switzerland and the state of California. The people should be heard in America. Let’s make our country truly free.

My sources are available if you wish to see them.
0

#10 {lang:macro__useroffline}   Kaezion {lang:icon}

  • Advanced Member
  • Icon
  • Group: New Member
  • Posts: 543
  • Joined: 28-December 04
  • Location:Terra, orbiting Sol

Posted 16 February 2008 - 06:47 PM

smart people's decisions are more likely to be better ones, so they should count for more?

so i guess more weight should be given to an ivy league graduate's opinions than to a state school graduate's.

and by that same token we should listen more closely to people who have majored in economics or political science than to people from art or music majors - because their decisions are likely to be more relevant, right?

you might say that the examples i'm giving are completely arbitrary or irrelevant, but so is yours. a college degree? a graduate of my high school would be better informed than a graduate of my local community college. so how are you going to settle that difference? and then there are people who did get college degrees from reputable institutions and don't even command a functional mastery of their native languages (e.g. the current U.S. president). there are no solutions that clearly and successfully distinguish between people who should get more/stronger votes and people who shouldn't.

and given your apparent stance on human rights, i think you're being inconsistent in that you're looking to suppress the opinions a particular group of people (and i might add that ignorant people are more prevalent in certain demographics than others). i understand the frustration an educated person feels when he/she looks upon the ignorant mass. but short of classifying ignorant people as a different species (and sometimes i wonder if they are, seeing the depths of stupidity some of them can be entrenched in), there is no way to justify giving them less say in the same government's affairs. as soon as that happens, your Plato's Republic starts looking more like the Mein Kampf.
0

#11 {lang:macro__useroffline}   Monkeys & Me {lang:icon}

  • Member
  • Icon
  • Group: New Member
  • Posts: 36
  • Joined: 16-February 08
  • Location:Terra, orbiting Sol

Posted 17 February 2008 - 09:52 PM

Any system of goverment must maintain a level of dictatoral role; sharing to the masses and having a fair system like communism is all well and good however it does not take into account the basic principles of human greed. Humans are evolved to be greedy; it allows us to survive in an competitive environment and as such we will never accept a "Fair" system as it does not contain a hierarchial system that allows us to see the expression of self-preservation.

As such unfortunately the only perfect form of government is one that imposes controls on people while allowing them to operate a sense of ownership. This pretty much sums up democracy....crap
Oh Rely? Ya Rely! No Wai!
0

#12 {lang:macro__useroffline}   Neraphym {lang:icon}

  • Do not want!
  • Icon
  • {lang:view_blog}
  • Group: Super Moderator
  • Posts: 10,332
  • Joined: 29-October 03
  • Location:Terra, orbiting Sol

Posted 18 February 2008 - 08:02 PM

QUOTE (Kaezion @ Feb 16 2008, 01:47 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
smart people's decisions are more likely to be better ones, so they should count for more?

so i guess more weight should be given to an ivy league graduate's opinions than to a state school graduate's.

and by that same token we should listen more closely to people who have majored in economics or political science than to people from art or music majors - because their decisions are likely to be more relevant, right?

you might say that the examples i'm giving are completely arbitrary or irrelevant, but so is yours. a college degree? a graduate of my high school would be better informed than a graduate of my local community college. so how are you going to settle that difference? and then there are people who did get college degrees from reputable institutions and don't even command a functional mastery of their native languages (e.g. the current U.S. president). there are no solutions that clearly and successfully distinguish between people who should get more/stronger votes and people who shouldn't.

and given your apparent stance on human rights, i think you're being inconsistent in that you're looking to suppress the opinions a particular group of people (and i might add that ignorant people are more prevalent in certain demographics than others). i understand the frustration an educated person feels when he/she looks upon the ignorant mass. but short of classifying ignorant people as a different species (and sometimes i wonder if they are, seeing the depths of stupidity some of them can be entrenched in), there is no way to justify giving them less say in the same government's affairs. as soon as that happens, your Plato's Republic starts looking more like the Mein Kampf.



As always, you raise valid criticisms here. I suppose I need to clarify how enfranchisement in my ideal system would work. "Smart people's decisions are more likely to be better ones." I agree with this, and will take it as my root premise. In order to make the best decisions, we need to do two things: Get lots of smart people and weed out the stupid ones. Now before you scream social Darwinism, I'm simply talking about disenfranchisement, not genocide. I certainly don't want that.

The first thing we need are smart people. For this, we establish a fair and accessible education system. Oh, and it needs to work. bluetongue.gif In this system, a vast majority of the people that come out of it will be considered smart enough to vote. This system would give everyone an equal opportunity to succeed, very much unlike our current system. I admit, if we tried to establish my ideal government under the current system, your criticisms would surely be right. Our current system discriminates on sex, race, class, etc. It also fails to produce adequately intelligent people, even at the college level. I do not have the answers to how to fix this, only that if it is fixed, we can move on to my ideal concept of government.

The second issue is the touchy one, disenfranchisement. "There is no way to justify giving [stupid people] less say in the same government's affairs." I disagree. I will draw a connection between stupid people and children, as I hope to show you how these two groups are very much the same. In America, you need to be at least 18 years old to vote. That means that people under this age, a very large proportion of our population, are disenfranchised. Why are they disenfranchised? I think we understand why and everyone accepts. Now, these kids have a way to gain enfranchisement: grow up. People that fail to meet the minimum requirements for voting should always be given the chance to achieve enfranchisement. If they study hard enough, they can pass. If they are handicapped enough that they cannot pass, then they shouldn't be able to vote.

As long as disenfranchisement is the fault of the individual, and not the state, then I deem it justified. With regards to our education system, if it is successful and accessible to all, then you cannot blame the state for failures that are your own. As it stands now, disenfranchisement of stupid people would be the fault of the state for failure to provide adequate education. Again, the goal is to enfranchise as many people as possible. To do this, you either lower the standards or raise the quality above the standards. I believe the latter produces superior results.

I hope it is understood that these things I speak of are ideals, and thus not necessarily attainable. I do hedge my bets a lot here and try to get a system that is likely to be attainable, but I do not guarantee that it is. I'd love to live in an enlightened world, but it just might not be in the cards.



Neraphym Archaeon
Posted Image
GWAMM
0

#13 {lang:macro__useroffline}   Aaron {lang:icon}

  • Hai
  • Icon
  • {lang:view_gallery}
  • Group: Moderator
  • Posts: 6,067
  • Joined: 26-December 04
  • Location:Terra, orbiting Sol

Posted 19 February 2008 - 05:00 AM

QUOTE (Neraphym @ Feb 18 2008, 03:02 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I'd love to live in an enlightened world, but it just might not be in the cards.


Mankind has gained and lost knowledge over time, but I think we can only learn more from here on out. A growing percentage of the population is being sufficiently educated, but there will never be the universal enlightenment that you (and many others) wish for. Selfishness holds humans back.
0

#14 {lang:macro__useroffline}   sigmundfreud_rulez {lang:icon}

  • New Member
  • Icon
  • Group: New Member
  • Posts: 2
  • Joined: 08-January 09
  • Location:Terra, orbiting Sol

Post icon  Posted 08 January 2009 - 04:01 PM

Well, if you are running a country, you would want it to be a communist country, because it is easy to rule stupid people. There are risks though, like the citizens may want to turn against with thier freedom.

But if you were a capatilist country, there is a low chance that the people will revolt, but you have less controll....

=/

I guess if you are the citizen, capatalism ftw!!! thumb.gif
0

#15 {lang:macro__useroffline}   Aaron {lang:icon}

  • Hai
  • Icon
  • {lang:view_gallery}
  • Group: Moderator
  • Posts: 6,067
  • Joined: 26-December 04
  • Location:Terra, orbiting Sol

Posted 08 January 2009 - 06:51 PM

That made no sense.
0

  • (2 Pages)
  • +
  • 1
  • 2
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users