The political poll

[Anathema]

7? :)

Holland, Zeeland, Groningen, Utrecht, Friesland, Gelderland en Overijssel. The other territories were part of the Republic but had no representation in it.

[Dante]

Why do you believe oligarchy is the best? You didn't really explained :)

I didn't realise I had to...

I believe in autocracy, specifically monarchies. But an oligarchy is much more interesting as it allows whole new prospects of diplomatic backstabbing and occasional warfare to break out. It combines the efficiency of autocracy with the 'two heads are better than one' attitude of a very slight injection of democracy.

Autocracy is not fair, but it is efficient. It is capable of much more than democracies. I think a good system would be one where each country is ruled autocratically by a single monarch, with the surrounding ones ruled in a similar way by an extended family. Thus via oligarchy and nepotism we have a cluster of countries that can band together against others, and fight amongest themselves at the same time. In this perpetual state of balance the countries will either cancel each other out or be consumed by one or more of themselves before collapsing and starting over again. Oligarchy offers variety to an already sensible system.

[Edric O]

"Efficiency" means to be very good at achieving one's purpose. Therefore, the "efficiency" of any system depends on what purpose you have in mind.

When you say autocracy is "efficient", you forget to mention that it's efficient at killing, enslaving and exploiting innocent human beings, at sowing death and destruction, at replacing law with arbitrary rule and replacing justice with the autocrat's bloody whims, and most of all at turning all men except one (the autocrat himself) into miserable slaves.

If crushing Humanity is your goal, then autocracy is very efficient indeed...

And if I haven't said this before, let me say it now: You disgust me.

[GUNWOUNDS]

whole new prospects of diplomatic backstabbing and occasional warfare to break out......cluster of countries that can band together against others, and fight amongest themselves at the same time. In this perpetual state of balance the countries will either cancel each other out or be consumed by one or more of themselves before collapsing and starting over again. Oligarchy offers variety to an already sensible system.

:D hehe ... dustscout treats the topic as if he were playing a video game...

Ordos ally with House Sardukar and IX and keep Harkonnen in check.

[Wolf]

How is autocracy/olgiarchy a sensible system?

[Caid Ivik]

EdricO, political systems, categorized as showed by this poll, can all lead to "crushing humanity". Nukes do not question whether you are communist or capitalist, you know. In fact, when there is an autocratic or other form of centralized state, control over such difficult projects as n-bomb assembly can be only in hands of ruler. Altough I think prosperity and liberty should be placed before security.

[Dante]

You don't need to be so rude Edric.  :-  What happened to the polite discussions via IM?

Efficent: getting things done fast, getting them done well, making a good job of it. Examples include ancient architecture, empires, etc. Subjugating the masses is a necessary sacrifice to achieve this.

How is autocracy/olgiarchy a sensible system?

Strength, lack of bureaucracy, efficiency, perhaps a small injection of romanticism...

[Egeides]

Dust_scout: The ideal of an enlighten totalitarian is pretty, but did it brang to any RESULT throughout history? I'm not saying that we don't have some wastes in actual systems, but I wonder if the wastes weren't simply worst in the past. We already saw the advent of aristocracy: sadly, they went down to a static system in no time.

[Edric O]

You don't need to be so rude Edric.  :-  What happened to the polite discussions via IM?

You made me angry. You won't like me when I'm angry.

Efficent: getting things done fast, getting them done well, making a good job of it.

Getting WHAT things done? That is the question. A system that is efficient at doing something may be horribly inefficient at doing something else.

As I said before: When you say autocracy is "efficient", you forget to mention that it's efficient at killing, enslaving and exploiting innocent human beings, at sowing death and destruction, at replacing law with arbitrary rule and replacing justice with the autocrat's bloody whims, and most of all at turning all men except one (the autocrat himself) into miserable slaves.

Autocracy is very efficient at fulfilling the wishes of ONE MAN, no matter how many innocent people are killed in the process. Autocracy is very efficient at doing whatever the autocrat wants, with no regard for human life or human happiness.

If enslaving the world to the whims of one man is your goal, then autocracy is indeed efficient. But if your goal is to achieve a world of harmony and prosperity, if your goal is to maximize happiness and minimize suffering, then autocracy is the WORST, most inefficient system imaginable.

We already went over this, Dust Scout. It ultimately comes down to a fundamental difference in our goals. Your goal is to subjugate Humanity to your wishes, which is why you support autocracy and why you disgust me.

My goal is to achieve the best possible system for all human beings; to maximize happiness and minimize suffering. That is why I am a communist.

[Dude_Doc]

If someone believes in perfect communism and capitalism, what difference does it make for fascism? For those who believe in God (and I believe too): isn't this dictatorship? A dictator who does what is the best for the people isn't very far off as perfect communism.

The differences are that in communism, as Edric speaks of it, people will have access to politics (not classified and under survelliance as most of the things are today), which leads to a common agreement. The catch for this is that people must want to be a part of the system, that people must be willing to work together and understand, well, most of the things they are doing for society and humanity in the long run.

In an authorian system, one man has the power. He can use it for his own goals, which usually leads to disagreement with the people and the eventual downfall of his regime - or he can use it to benefit the people, to satisfy them. The difference here is that the decision lies with one man, and since the ultimate power lies within the people, he will have no other choice than to either brainwash them for his own goals (meaning propaganda), or making the people happy by making public "votes" and allowing free speach.

The difference with all this is that in communism, the control lies with the people, and in fascism the control lies with one man. With this, there is also both good and bad things: not every man and woman are interested in making debates and votes, which usually takes time, they want things to happen right away. This may also be the reason why some wants to have the agreement of everyone, while some wants one person to take responsibility for the public development and security.

This may also be a reason why the world probably will be devided into respective governments.

Though, I'm not sure how capitalism will work out. I'm not entirely clear on this matter for now.

There is also a note to be taken on fascism. As most people know, it is obvious that a person can not live forever. Not a human anyways. The point of this is that while a leader of a society may be good and generous towards his people, there are no guarantees that the leader after him will be as good.

[danielsh]

Dictatorship and oligarchy only make even a tiny bit of theoretical sense for one generation. After that, a new leader (or set of leaders) takes over and begins to serve its own agenda. Because unlike communism, fascism allows for a single man to serve his own agenda; under communism, the only agenda that can be served is that of the people. And if that's a bad thing, then I'm a conservative.

I blame representative democracy and the two-party system for voter apathy. Frankly, how can people be expected to care when they're voting in order to determine who wins in their arbitrary district, in order to determine (theoretically) which candidate some congressman selects? The individual is so far removed from actual change to his government that it's a wonder people vote at all. But if the impact of a man's decisions is right in front of his eyes every day, he is more inclined to act in the best interests of the community; to participate in his society and government; to allow the needs of the many to supersede his own self-interest. Read Howard Zinn's essay on human nature. It contains information about a compelling study demonstrating that human beings are more likely to resist the dominant paradigm when they see the consequences of their actions. It's pretty fascinating stuff.

[alchemi2]

finally a poll, no doubt the final result will provide months of discussion, as we interpret it to support our opinions.

[Dude_Doc]

Dictatorship and oligarchy only make even a tiny bit of theoretical sense for one generation. After that, a new leader (or set of leaders) takes over and begins to serve its own agenda. Because unlike communism, fascism allows for a single man to serve his own agenda; under communism, the only agenda that can be served is that of the people. And if that's a bad thing, then I'm a conservative.

It could work in a form, a kind of constitutional dictatorship, like they had in Starship Troopers. Then, there is always the "dictatorship" of Duke Leto in Dune. Monarchy in other words hehe... well, if only a leader would be that good.

[Edric O]

If someone believes in perfect communism and capitalism, what difference does it make for fascism? For those who believe in God (and I believe too): isn't this dictatorship? A dictator who does what is the best for the people isn't very far off as perfect communism.

The problem with a dictator who does what is best for the people is that such a dictator could never exist. Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. No dictator will EVER do what is best for his people. Even the holiest, most pure-hearted of men can be corrupted by absolute power. No human being is perfect.

And just how exactly is the dictator supposed to know what is best for the people, anyway? It seems that besides being perfect and incorruptible, he'd also have to be omniscient. He would have to know everything so that he could determine what is best for the people. And he would also have to be infallible on top of all that, so that he would never make mistakes.

You can see that it is simply physically impossible for a human being to come anywhere near those standards. Fascism would only work if the dictator was God. If the dictator is a human being, we end up with mass murder, oppression and suffering.

[Edric O]

Hmmm... am I the only one who is slightly worried by the fact that 21% of the people who voted so far have chosen a dictatorial system?

I bet none of the people who chose option 5, 6 or 7 have ever experienced what it means to live under a real dictatorship.

[Wolf]

No, Edric, they have not. They still have fingers to type with.

[Dante]

But then again, none of us have directly experienced evolution either. It's still there.

Besides, since when have I said my goal is to subjugate the masses? That's not the end I have in mind, generally. The end I have in mind is to make something that will keep us on our toes, avoid stagnation. Autocracy lasts, and when it is destroyed it is destroyed spectacularly to (hopefully) be replaced by another autocracy. I guess there is an aspect of romanticism in the view as well, but frankly when I look around today I can't help but long for the past.

Sure, you say, I'd probably be miserable (more likely dead, I have a lot working against me), but some things are worth more than life.

Having said this however, I am at least partly in favour of autocracy because I don't think people deserve democracy. I don't think the masses deserve to think for themselves, I don't think the great unknown of the world deserve the care you heap on them. You're fighting for the rights of everyone, including the people on this board, and how many of them are thanking you for it? How many are joining you? How many of them are convinced?

Power does not corrupt because all humans are corruptable inherantly. They are - with a few exceptions - evil, disgusting, ungrateful, self-obsessed monsters who, when the time comes, will always look out for number one.

And though I do not like it, I am human as well. I am part of the problem. But instead of rejecting what is innate to my species, I accept it and try to make the best of it. I see no point in hiding behind attractive but ultimately misleading theories.

I never mentioned an enlightened dictator... though that would be perfect, Edric and I agree at least in that it is either impossible or would not last.

Efficiency. Getting things done fast and well. Building pyramids to last thousands of years, forging Empires that span continents... the subjugation of masses that you hae never met and easily detach yourself from is a small price to pay.

It's not perfect, but it's reality. Live with it, as they say.

[Dude_Doc]

The problem with a dictator who does what is best for the people is that such a dictator could never exist. Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. No dictator will EVER do what is best for his people. Even the holiest, most pure-hearted of men can be corrupted by absolute power. No human being is perfect.

Then this is also a problem with communism. If one man can't handle power correctly, do you think ordinary people will? Isn't this why we must have a government and a police force, in any form?

You must understand that if a communist system must work, people, all people within it, and I'm talking in numbers of millions, must be willing to work in a society. How do you ensure people will do their work otherwise? By propaganda? Manipulated information? Police? There you have it, a dictatorship.

I think someone already quoted something like this before:

For human communism to work, we would have to be angels or ants, in which case we wouldn't be human anyways.

[Edric O]

But then again, none of us have directly experienced evolution either. It's still there.

The point was that no one who has actually lived under a dictatorship would ever support a dictatorial system.

Besides, since when have I said my goal is to subjugate the masses? That's not the end I have in mind, generally. The end I have in mind is to make something that will keep us on our toes, avoid stagnation.

That's funny, seeing how the longest periods of stagnation in human history have been under strong autocratic systems. Autocracy loves stagnation and hates all forms of change. Stagnation ensures that the dictator keeps his power. Change may pose a threat to his authority. Hence, autocratic dictators encourage or even enforce stagnation.

Oh, and the greatest period of innovation, development and radical change that has ever existed in human history have been the past 200 years. In other words, the period since the rise of modern democracy. The 20th century alone saw the most innovations and the fastest rate of change that was ever recorded in all our history. Is it a coincidence that the 20th century was also the most democratic century in all our history?

Autocracy lasts...

Indeed it does. It lasts for a very, very long time. And not much happens in all that time. Look at Ancient Egypt. 3000 years of autocracy. And every single one of their great achievements (like the great pyramids, or the invention of mummification) were made in the first 500 years. The other 2500 were spent doing almost nothing.

I guess there is an aspect of romanticism in the view as well, but frankly when I look around today I can't help but long for the past.

Somehow, I don't think the people who lived in the dirty, plague-ridden, war-torn, cruel and miserable world of the past would agree with you.

Sure, you say, I'd probably be miserable (more likely dead, I have a lot working against me), but some things are worth more than life.

True. But the amusement of tyrants is not one of them.

Having said this however, I am at least partly in favour of autocracy because I don't think people deserve democracy.

Who died and made you judge and jury of what people do or don't deserve? Your arrogance is sickening.

I don't think the masses deserve to think for themselves.

The masses already think for themselves, whether you like it or not. And the history of 200 years of revolutions and struggle shows that the masses are losing patience with people like you.

"Debout, les damn

[Dante]

So far it's been 'what everyone else has made it.' The individual gets very little say in the matter.

*Sigh*

Getting the WRONG things done fast and well is worse than useless.

I disagree with you there at least. And it depends on your concept of 'wrong.'

"In other words, you're a coward with a convenient excuse for hiding away and doing nothing. "There's nothing we can do, we're only human!" - said one caveman to another caveman who was proposing a better way of life. You see, it is innate to our species to live in caves and hunt our prey with sticks and stones. But we seem to have rejected that with no ill effect."

Emotive language aside, I find that many acts that people paint as cowardly are just sensible. Don't protect the village if you can't win the battle, run away. I can't win against my own nature (and in that everyone else's).

If it were human nature to do the right thing then there wouldn't be any more wars. It's true that the longest periods of nothing happening were under autocracies but I tend to blame this on religion rather than politics. Any sensible ruler encourages development unless it threatens their own seat of power. The same cannot be said of religion.

"Somehow, I don't think the people who lived in the dirty, plague-ridden, war-torn, cruel and miserable world of the past would agree with you."

Probably not. The people who exploited them might.

The other 2500 were spent fighting (and until the end, winning) wars. Not perfect but interesting at least.

"Who died and made you judge and jury of what people do or don't deserve? Your arrogance is sickening."

Who said I was the judge? I don't claim to be right, I just give my opinion (granted, my opinion is that I'm right but that may not be correct either). Besides, I already said that as I human I'm just as bad as everyone else. How can I be arrogent if I acknowledge that I am a part of the problem?

"Speak for yourself. And stop trying to justify your own immorality by telling yourself that everyone else is just as bad. In the name of the 5,999,999,999 human beings who are not you and whose minds you cannot read, I demand a little respect."

You have my respect. They do not. They don't respect me, I return in kind. You possibly don't either but that's by the by.

"Those masses that you so casually brush aside in your elitist fantasies are the living soul of Humanity. They are ultimately the only thing that matters. The life and happiness of each and every human being. That is something worth sacrificing for. But sacrificing yourself is always harder than sacrificing others, isn't it, Dustie?"

Yes. Sensible, not necessarily cowardly. Besides which, how many others would sacrifice themselves for me?

"Look who's talking about reality! Building pyramids and holding royal banquets isn't exactly a part of "reality", Dustie."

Once it was.

"If your hobby is to lament the past (or, to be more exact, an imaginary past with "good old days" that never existed anywhere outside your head), go right ahead. I'd rather fight for the future."

The present is depressing enough. The past is the only thing I can be optimistic about. Sure, it was probably terrible for the vast majority; but for just a few it was happy. I don't see how it is possible to make everyone happy, and I don't see the point.

It is of course possible that I am just twisted, vindictive, and bitter (probably suffering from slight lunacy as well). I acknowledge that there is a good chance that I'm wrong. On the other hand, there's just a good a chance that you're hopelessly deluded. At least you think you're doing the right thing. I just think I'm following the only real option.

[Caid Ivik]

Today's system is best described as oligarchy, or better what Germans call "fach-aristocracy", by type of government and free capitalism with state's support for unprofittable sectors. Extremely functioning for those capable of maintaining it, extremely destructive for those who can't. Tough rather dependant on resources. So enjoy the fat years while you can.

[Edric O]

So far it's been 'what everyone else has made it.' The individual gets very little say in the matter.

*Sigh*

"Everyone else" is a sum of individuals. A single individual can only give the world a slight push in a certain direction, but if enough individuals push in the same direction...

I disagree with you there at least. And it depends on your concept of 'wrong.'

Of course it does. I believe that a 'right' action is one that benefits the people; one that causes happiness to increase and/or causes suffering to diminish. And a 'wrong' action is one that causes unnecessary suffering, one that causes more suffering than happiness or one that goes against human rights.

You have different notions of right and wrong, of course. You believe that a 'right' action is one that benefits YOU and a 'wrong' action is one that harms YOU. If an entire government ran by your principles, it would be an extremely oppressive and outright inhumane dictatorship. But we already knew that, and you already said that you're not bothered by it...

Emotive language aside, I find that many acts that people paint as cowardly are just sensible. Don't protect the village if you can't win the battle, run away. I can't win against my own nature (and in that everyone else's).

How about "cover your retreat and help everyone escape if you can't win the battle"?

Since humans are by nature social animals, we naturally tend to form groups and stick together when we're going through difficult times. (this doesn't apply to sudden and short-term catastrophes like being on a sinking ship, however; we form groups and stick together for our long-term survival)

Whether cowardly acts are sensible or not depends on the situation, and on your moral code. But since we don't share the same morals, there's not much point in discussing it...

If it were human nature to do the right thing then there wouldn't be any more wars.

It's not human nature to do the right thing. It's also not human nature to do the wrong thing. It's human nature to do whatever you want to do - right or wrong, that's your choice.

It's true that the longest periods of nothing happening were under autocracies but I tend to blame this on religion rather than politics. Any sensible ruler encourages development unless it threatens their own seat of power. The same cannot be said of religion.

There wasn't much of a difference between religion and politics in Ancient Egypt...

And just because you find something sensible, that doesn't mean every autocrat must think the same way. Dictators tend to be rather paranoid...

Who said I was the judge? I don't claim to be right, I just give my opinion (granted, my opinion is that I'm right but that may not be correct either). Besides, I already said that as I human I'm just as bad as everyone else. How can I be arrogent if I acknowledge that I am a part of the problem?

You are arrogant because you presume to speak for everyone on the planet. When you say you're as bad as everyone else, you begin by making the assumption that everyone else is bad...

I respect your right to hold whatever opinion you like. But if you want to impose your opinions on other people (and being an autocrat DOES mean imposing your opinion on everyone else), then we have a problem.

You have my respect. They do not. They don't respect me, I return in kind. You possibly don't either but that's by the by.

They don't respect you? 99.999% of them don't even know you at all! Don't you think the respect of the entire world is a little too much to ask?

Yes. Sensible, not necessarily cowardly. Besides which, how many others would sacrifice themselves for me?

Paramedics, firemen, policemen, soldiers...

The present is depressing enough. The past is the only thing I can be optimistic about.

What you don't understand is that the present is better than the past. Sure, there are millions of things wrong with our world. But in the past it was even worse... So things have been steadily getting better, and I want to accelerate this trend.

Sure, it was probably terrible for the vast majority; but for just a few it was happy.

Yes, and now things are terrible for a smaller majority, and there is a bigger minority of people who are happy. Still not nearly good enough, but better than in the past.

Many of us here are living better (and longer) lives than the great medieval kings could ever dream of.

I don't see how it is possible to make everyone happy, and I don't see the point.

I don't want to make everyone happy. I want to make as many people as possible happy. Maximize happiness and minimize suffering.

It is of course possible that I am just twisted, vindictive, and bitter (probably suffering from slight lunacy as well). I acknowledge that there is a good chance that I'm wrong. On the other hand, there's just a good a chance that you're hopelessly deluded. At least you think you're doing the right thing. I just think I'm following the only real option.

I believe you are only misguided, and that your fatalistic views are largely the result of the unpleasant experiences you've went through in your life. You always seem to look at the dark side of the world and everything you come across.

I am always an optimist, because pessimism is illogical. When the optimist is right, he wins. When the optimist is wrong, he loses. But the pessimist always loses, no matter if he's right or wrong.

Or, in other words: I will either achieve my goals and help build a better future for Humanity, or I will go down fighting.

[Edric O]

Now, let's not forget about Cyborg's old post. I also wish to reply to him:

Then this is also a problem with communism. If one man can't handle power correctly, do you think ordinary people will? Isn't this why we must have a government and a police force, in any form?

One man can't possibly know what is in the best interest of the people, and he can't be trusted to look after their well-being.

But the people themselves obviously know what is in their own best interest, and they will always look after their own well-being.

You must understand that if a communist system must work, people, all people within it, and I'm talking in numbers of millions, must be willing to work in a society. How do you ensure people will do their work otherwise? By propaganda? Manipulated information? Police? There you have it, a dictatorship.

Communism is a democracy. You don't need everyone to agree on anything. Decisions are taken democratically, by majority vote. Whoever doesn't agree with the decisions of the majority can either (a) persuade people to join his cause until there is a majority in his favour, or (b) leave the communist society.

How do you know people will do their work? Because it's in their own interest to do their work! If too many people don't work, their standards of living will decrease.

I think someone already quoted something like this before:

For human communism to work, we would have to be angels or ants, in which case we wouldn't be human anyways.

And I ALREADY REPLIED to that idiotic statement in the topic where it was made:

That quote is typical of the kind of idiotic myths that just won't go away, no matter how irrational and baseless they are proven to be. It's really nothing more than a dogmatic statement which completely lacks any kind of substance. In order to compose a reasonable argument, you would have to go through the following steps:

a) Define "human nature".

b) Prove that your idea of "human nature" really is a characteristic inherent to all human beings.

c) Prove that human beings cannot escape the restrictions of this "human nature".

d) Explain why this "human nature" comes into conflict with communism.

I have yet to meet any capitalist capable of accomplishing points B and C. Also, when they get to point D, most capitalists show that they do not understand how communism works. You see, communism does NOT rely on people sharing their possessions out of the kindness of their hearts. It relies on people sharing their possessions because they know that they will all benefit from it.

I also made a topic to address the silly myth about communism and "human nature". Click here to see it.

[Dude_Doc]

One man can't possibly know what is in the best interest of the people, and he can't be trusted to look after their well-being.

What about polls? Free speach? I'm talking about a form of Constitutional Dictatorship, a likeness we can see in the movie Starship Troopers.

But the people themselves obviously know what is in their own best interest, and they will always look after their own well-being.

In which selfishness comes in. This is also a reason why people build capitalistic societies and oppressive corporations, so that in the end, they can gain the majority of the income, so that they can ensure the survival of themselves.

How do you know people will do their work? Because it's in their own interest to do their work! If too many people don't work, their standards of living will decrease.

I assume that this is something like "if people don't work, civilization will collapse"? Doesn't this need to be backed up by a government, to ensure that if a communist system fails, there will always be other ways?

[alchemi2]

Hmmm... am I the only one who is slightly worried by the fact that 21% of the people who voted so far have chosen a dictatorial system?

I bet none of the people who chose option 5, 6 or 7 have ever experienced what it means to live under a real dictatorship.

slightly worried than 10% and 12% have voted for socialism and yet have never lived under that regime. ;)