|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Tue Dec 16, 2008 3:54 pm
MegaTherion777 Rotting Gnarl 1. En garde! 2. SNAKE?! SNAAAAAAAAAAAKE! 3. Quite. 4. I need to acquaint myself with the Brits' humour more. 5. My grandparents were engineers, and although one great-grandfather was a Red noble, another was a common soldier in the Red Army. They used and outhouse and at one point lived in a single room with two other families. They got government jobs and had friends at the University. I may have let pride get the best of me when describing them. But you bring up a good point. I realized a while back that my views aren't quite lined up with Marxism. Perhaps you can help? I've been looking for someone to whom I can describe my beliefs and have them tell me what I classify as... 1) don't bring a sword to a gunfight *shoots you* 2) ring ring ring ring ring ring ring, bananaphone! do-doo-do-do-doo 3) indubitably 4) look up billy connolly on youtube. funny scottish standup comedian. this advice goes for anyone reading this, it is not limited to gnarl alone 5) i'd need some more info, but it sounds like you're a bourgeois socialist - you like socialism but don't want to give up the trappings of bourgeois society. instead, you'd rather have everyone brought up to your level by the government, rather than giving up some things so that you'd be brought down and the poor would be brought up, and you'd meet at a halfway point. but that's just an educated guess, i'd need to know more to really be able to classify your politics 1. Obviously, you forget Metal Gear Solid's Grey Fox's "deflect bullets with a sword" technique. ninja 2. Snooj to the noooooj. 3. Rather so. 4. I shall do so. 5. Forget bringing everyone to one social status. People are not equal. Some deserve success, others deserve to die like dogs. This has nothing to do with race or religion, however, but competence and intelligence. What I want is not to equally distribute wealth. I do however want to distribute jobs and have the government own and regulate businesses. Everyone has a purpose, everyone contributes. The government itself needs to be a group of a highly qualified and intelligent few, chosen not by a popularity contest or biased appointment, but by a determination of knowledge and ability to lead and manage. An elite oligarchy, a junta, a Cabinet, a Pulitburo. These leaders would also not be divided based on territory, for that would cause too much competition and rivalry, but based on areas of expertise, like the aforementioned Presidential Cabinet. War, agriculture, industry, education, etc. To further prevent rivalries that would keep, for example, the agricultural and industrial leaders from supplying the war leader, the war leader shall have the privilege of being able to take as many supplies as needed, but to a limit that a certain amount must be left for the common people. The leaders themselves would be forced to undergo "exams" to prove that they qualify to lead the country, and each exam would be written and edited by the heads each other department. I could describe further, but I fear we have already driven the other members from this topic, and we would have to take this to PMs... Which I probably should have done for this post... sweatdrop sweatdrop sweatdrop
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Dec 16, 2008 4:16 pm
Rotting Gnarl 5. Forget bringing everyone to one social status. People are not equal. Some deserve success, others deserve to die like dogs. This has nothing to do with race or religion, however, but competence and intelligence. What I want is not to equally distribute wealth. I do however want to distribute jobs and have the government own and regulate businesses. Everyone has a purpose, everyone contributes. The government itself needs to be a group of a highly qualified and intelligent few, chosen not by a popularity contest or biased appointment, but by a determination of knowledge and ability to lead and manage. An elite oligarchy, a junta, a Cabinet, a Pulitburo. These leaders would also not be divided based on territory, for that would cause too much competition and rivalry, but based on areas of expertise, like the aforementioned Presidential Cabinet. War, agriculture, industry, education, etc. To further prevent rivalries that would keep, for example, the agricultural and industrial leaders from supplying the war leader, the war leader shall have the privilege of being able to take as many supplies as needed, but to a limit that a certain amount must be left for the common people. The leaders themselves would be forced to undergo "exams" to prove that they qualify to lead the country, and each exam would be written and edited by the heads each other department. I could describe further, but I fear we have already driven the other members from this topic, and we would have to take this to PMs... Which I probably should have done for this post... sweatdrop sweatdrop sweatdrop
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Dec 16, 2008 4:27 pm
ashlander_alpha Rotting Gnarl 5. Forget bringing everyone to one social status. People are not equal. Some deserve success, others deserve to die like dogs. This has nothing to do with race or religion, however, but competence and intelligence. What I want is not to equally distribute wealth. I do however want to distribute jobs and have the government own and regulate businesses. Everyone has a purpose, everyone contributes. The government itself needs to be a group of a highly qualified and intelligent few, chosen not by a popularity contest or biased appointment, but by a determination of knowledge and ability to lead and manage. An elite oligarchy, a junta, a Cabinet, a Pulitburo. These leaders would also not be divided based on territory, for that would cause too much competition and rivalry, but based on areas of expertise, like the aforementioned Presidential Cabinet. War, agriculture, industry, education, etc. To further prevent rivalries that would keep, for example, the agricultural and industrial leaders from supplying the war leader, the war leader shall have the privilege of being able to take as many supplies as needed, but to a limit that a certain amount must be left for the common people. The leaders themselves would be forced to undergo "exams" to prove that they qualify to lead the country, and each exam would be written and edited by the heads each other department. I could describe further, but I fear we have already driven the other members from this topic, and we would have to take this to PMs... Which I probably should have done for this post... sweatdrop sweatdrop sweatdrop Easy, just have the soldiers pledge allegiance to the country and not the leader. Just like the U.S. military. And measures would be taken prevent infighting. Like if every other leader agrees on the decision, a leader can be replaced. And they wouldn't rule for life. The people would also have to have a branch of watchdogs to prevent extreme self-endowment. And even if the rulers have "complete power", they are always outnumbered, and if worse comes to worse, violent overthrow can always be implemented. No form of government is perfect, you can only attempt to make a long-lasting and prosperous one.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Dec 16, 2008 6:47 pm
Rotting Gnarl ashlander_alpha Rotting Gnarl 5. Forget bringing everyone to one social status. People are not equal. Some deserve success, others deserve to die like dogs. This has nothing to do with race or religion, however, but competence and intelligence. What I want is not to equally distribute wealth. I do however want to distribute jobs and have the government own and regulate businesses. Everyone has a purpose, everyone contributes. The government itself needs to be a group of a highly qualified and intelligent few, chosen not by a popularity contest or biased appointment, but by a determination of knowledge and ability to lead and manage. An elite oligarchy, a junta, a Cabinet, a Pulitburo. These leaders would also not be divided based on territory, for that would cause too much competition and rivalry, but based on areas of expertise, like the aforementioned Presidential Cabinet. War, agriculture, industry, education, etc. To further prevent rivalries that would keep, for example, the agricultural and industrial leaders from supplying the war leader, the war leader shall have the privilege of being able to take as many supplies as needed, but to a limit that a certain amount must be left for the common people. The leaders themselves would be forced to undergo "exams" to prove that they qualify to lead the country, and each exam would be written and edited by the heads each other department. I could describe further, but I fear we have already driven the other members from this topic, and we would have to take this to PMs... Which I probably should have done for this post... sweatdrop sweatdrop sweatdrop Easy, just have the soldiers pledge allegiance to the country and not the leader. Just like the U.S. military. And measures would be taken prevent infighting. Like if every other leader agrees on the decision, a leader can be replaced. And they wouldn't rule for life. The people would also have to have a branch of watchdogs to prevent extreme self-endowment. And even if the rulers have "complete power", they are always outnumbered, and if worse comes to worse, violent overthrow can always be implemented. No form of government is perfect, you can only attempt to make a long-lasting and prosperous one. perhaps you should read plato's republic. this sounds like a modernized version of the philosopher-kings.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Dec 17, 2008 6:10 pm
MegaTherion777 perhaps you should read plato's republic. this sounds like a modernized version of the philosopher-kings. Perhaps I should. And I'm torn on whether I would allow free religion or ban religion altogether... I would prefer the latter, but it might be a tad oppressive and cause turmoil. Though, society would be much better off without it... I mean c'mon, Thomas Jefferson agrees with me: "Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity." -Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, 1782 "History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes." -Thomas Jefferson to Alexander von Humboldt, Dec. 6, 1813.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Dec 17, 2008 7:11 pm
Rotting Gnarl Easy, just have the soldiers pledge allegiance to the country and not the leader. Just like the U.S. military. And measures would be taken prevent infighting. Like if every other leader agrees on the decision, a leader can be replaced. And they wouldn't rule for life. The people would also have to have a branch of watchdogs to prevent extreme self-endowment. And even if the rulers have "complete power", they are always outnumbered, and if worse comes to worse, violent overthrow can always be implemented. No form of government is perfect, you can only attempt to make a long-lasting and prosperous one.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Dec 17, 2008 7:24 pm
ashlander_alpha Rotting Gnarl Easy, just have the soldiers pledge allegiance to the country and not the leader. Just like the U.S. military. And measures would be taken prevent infighting. Like if every other leader agrees on the decision, a leader can be replaced. And they wouldn't rule for life. The people would also have to have a branch of watchdogs to prevent extreme self-endowment. And even if the rulers have "complete power", they are always outnumbered, and if worse comes to worse, violent overthrow can always be implemented. No form of government is perfect, you can only attempt to make a long-lasting and prosperous one. ash, you seem to have a talent for expressing my thoughts in a much more eloquent way than i ever could. gnarl - but jefferson was a deist, which is a form of religion. ironic, ain't it? and not all religion is guilty of the things you (and marx) accuse it of. only western religions (judaism, christianity, islam) and perhaps hinduism. shinto, taoism, buddhism, etc do not have these problems
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Dec 18, 2008 5:57 pm
ashlander_alpha Rotting Gnarl Easy, just have the soldiers pledge allegiance to the country and not the leader. Just like the U.S. military. And measures would be taken prevent infighting. Like if every other leader agrees on the decision, a leader can be replaced. And they wouldn't rule for life. The people would also have to have a branch of watchdogs to prevent extreme self-endowment. And even if the rulers have "complete power", they are always outnumbered, and if worse comes to worse, violent overthrow can always be implemented. No form of government is perfect, you can only attempt to make a long-lasting and prosperous one. Propanda is a powerful thing. ninja But seriously, most of what you say still applies to many modern countries, including the U.S. How is my proposed government any worse? And to Mega: Sure, some of the smaller ones and the Eastern ones are better, but what they have in common is that most of them are less of a religion and more of a spiritual way of life. There's less "worshipping" involved, and they're usually the more free-flowing ones.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Dec 18, 2008 7:03 pm
Rotting Gnarl ashlander_alpha Rotting Gnarl Easy, just have the soldiers pledge allegiance to the country and not the leader. Just like the U.S. military. And measures would be taken prevent infighting. Like if every other leader agrees on the decision, a leader can be replaced. And they wouldn't rule for life. The people would also have to have a branch of watchdogs to prevent extreme self-endowment. And even if the rulers have "complete power", they are always outnumbered, and if worse comes to worse, violent overthrow can always be implemented. No form of government is perfect, you can only attempt to make a long-lasting and prosperous one. Propanda is a powerful thing. ninja But seriously, most of what you say still applies to many modern countries, including the U.S. How is my proposed government any worse? And to Mega: Sure, some of the smaller ones and the Eastern ones are better, but what they have in common is that most of them are less of a religion and more of a spiritual way of life. There's less "worshipping" involved, and they're usually the more free-flowing ones. the reason he's saying your government would be "worse" is because those same weaknesses that many modern governments have become more prevalent under collectivist systems - yes the US has it's problems, but under the collectivist system those same problems increase in scope. i'll let ash add any more thoughts he may have, since he's better with words than i am also, people need something to believe. look at communist societies - they outlawed religion, but it still survived and thrived in underground societies. it would be better to have freedom of religion and let people believe what they want to, spiritually. you have two ways to lead a country: 1) allow people certain freedoms and they will love and follow their leaders, or 2) rule with an iron fist so that they cower in the shadows. if you make them love you, they will be more loyal, more likely to do what is asked of them when it is asked, and generally happier with their government. ruling through fear will breed resentment and resistance groups.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Dec 18, 2008 7:06 pm
Rotting Gnarl Propanda is a powerful thing. ninja But seriously, most of what you say still applies to many modern countries, including the U.S. How is my proposed government any worse?
@Mega: Thanks for the compliment. biggrin
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Dec 19, 2008 11:51 am
ashlander_alpha Rotting Gnarl Propanda is a powerful thing. ninja But seriously, most of what you say still applies to many modern countries, including the U.S. How is my proposed government any worse?
@Mega: Thanks for the compliment. biggrin Factions of what? Like I said, the leaders control departments, not areas, like the Cabinet. And how am I oppressing the people? Sure, they can't own businesses, but they all will have jobs. As I said, I'm pretty much abandoning Marxism and starting from scratch to figure out my beliefs. People will get more money for working harder, and they will have certain freedoms not had in the Soviet Union and other psuedo-Communist societies. Like Mega said, it's better to be praised by the people than feared by the people. Which is why the whole religion thing is such a difficult issue for me, because though I think the world would be better without it, I know that people would protest and cause an uprising.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Dec 19, 2008 12:37 pm
Ahh Billy Connolly... a great comedian with a great purple beard :]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Dec 19, 2008 7:44 pm
Celtic guardian91 Ahh Billy Connolly... a great comedian with a great purple beard :] purple beard? since when? everytime i've seen video of him it's been gray, even when he was young xd
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
