What is your religion?

[emprworm]

SInce you earthnuker are unable to explain your position and instead hide behind the cop out statement "thats communism" (i dont really think you even read my posts), I am no longer going to talk to you. A definition is worthless unless you explain how it works given the issues I addressed. But you cant so you and me are finished. But to be honest, from you I expected as much. From Edric I expect better. I have a good feeling that he's going to step up and address my issues and clarify things and me and him will continue talking, to which I enjoy. As for you, I'll give you another chance as soon as you stop hiding behind the cop out. Till that happens (which I really dont expect it will), tah-tah. Toodle-oo! :D

[Anathema]

if you have private property in the Netherlands and the ability to start and run your own business, you are not even close to socialistic.

I think that proves you don't know the difference between socialism. I already defined both socialism and communism- you only define communism, and throw socialism in the same cup.

If you refuse to talk to me because you are cornered and afraid to be publicly humiliated, that's okay with me.

[emprworm]

This message is for Edric. Edric in case you might be thinking along the lines that because you already "defined socialism" thereby you have no need to explain yourself, I would like to mention where my understanding of socialism comes from.

SOCIALISM: PRINCIPLES AND OUTLOOK,--Socialism, reduced to its simplest legal and practical expression, means the complete discarding of the institution of private property by transforming it into public property, and the division of the resultant public income equally and indiscriminately among the entire population.

Source: Encylopeida Britannica

Now, of course, I know that your new government is a "re-defined" version of socialism. I want to understand this government you propose. So I am asking that you clarify things. Thanks.

[emprworm]

more from the Encylopedia Britannica on socialism:

"In Socialism private property is anathema, and equal distribution of income the first consideration. In capitalism private property is cardinal, and distribution left to ensue from the play of free contract and selfish interest on that basis, no matter what anomalies it may present. "

by the way, the person that wrote this is none other than George Bernard Shaw, who is one of the great socialist thinkers of all time. Here is a brief bio on Shaw:

George Bernard Shaw (1856-1950)

Irish dramatist, literary critic, a socialist spokesman, and a leading figure in the 20th century theater. Shaw was a freethinker, a supporter of women's rights, advocate of equality of income. He supported abolition of private property, radical change in the voting system, campaigned for the simplification of spelling, and the reform of the English alphabet. In 1925 he was awarded the Nobel Prize for Literature. Shaw accepted the honour but refused the money.

Do you find it odd, Edric, that a man who is a world-renowned socialist would define socialism as I have?

Earthnukers credibility has been lost. Yours is on the line. I await, my good friend Edric. There's still hope!!

:)

[guusr5644]

im jewish and i would like to come to every nazi's house with my 2 pistols and stock to his head a fucking 32 bullets!!!! and im roman i cant spell that right (i think) and im also spenish

[Anathema]

(taken from Elseviers Visum encyclopedia (Dutch))

Socialism- movement that strifes towards a structure of society in wich labour has a central position and in wich there are equal chances for everyone.

...

important stadia in socialism were: utopism, marxism and plan-socialsm.

...

Under utopism we understand pre-marxist socialism.

...

The so called scientific socialism or marxism of Marx distingishes itself from utopian socialism by that it doesn't just sound a moral message but also believed socialism would come inevitably.

...

The modern socialism, also called plan-socialism, strifes on social-economical area to a mingled manner of production, based on differentiated property forms, in wich the leadership of the economy lies with the government and is aimed towards creation of full employment and of a reasonable life standard.

So there are multiple forms of socialism. Now I will quote myself:

you only define communism, and throw socialism in the same cup.

Emprworm, you're the smartest person ever- fruit.

[Edric O]

Hold your horses! :)

Emprworm, why didn't you pay attention to what I said? I was late for school, I had no time to address all your issues!

NOW I have time. After posting this, I will write a long reply to answer all your points. Just wait for it please.

[emprworm]

SWEET edric. thanks man. I knew you'd come through. Hey read all my posts, I never doubted you man. Please address those issues so I can understand how this government of yours works.

[Anathema]

Hey, guess what- Emprworm added me to his IM ignore list for some reason beyond me- I didn't flame him or anything.

As explained in the quote from my previous post, communism is socialism, but socialism is not necessarily communism. Modern socialism strifes for equel chances and at leas reasonable living conditions for everyone.

Though this clarifies my point, Emprworm apparently thinks he is to good to respond to my posts- or to cowardly. We'll see wich is the case.

[emprworm]

Since other people might be wondering why I put Earthnuker on ignore, he was IM'ing me. Posts like "Author Earthnuker Topic LOL on: Today at 12:09:18

Ignoring my posts really makes you look smart.

lol "

SO I told him that no longer did I want to hear this so I simply ignored him temporarily, and I told him what he could do to get off my ignore list: namely address the things I asked for him to address. It is not polite that I address things he says, and then get blown off. When someone discards my points as if I wasted an hour of my time thinking we were having a good discussion, I get upset and I realize that there are other people who are interested in having a mutual discussion with me so my time is better spent elsewhere. But I am a reasonable person. When he addresses my points, then I will return the dignity and address his. Until then he is ignored by me.

[Anathema]

When I send you that IM, I already posted that quote from an enceclopedia yet you did not respond.

I did read your posts, and they all share one thing in common: they show you are convinced that in a socialist system there is only one wage height and no private property. That was so with early socialism, but not with modern socialism, as I pointed out, but Emp keeps ignoring my posts.

As for my rudeness, it is also not polite when you disregard other peoples posts and put words in their mouths while calling them juvenile idiots.

[emprworm]

"In Socialism private property is anathema, and equal distribution of income the first consideration."

-George Bernard Shaw, Socialist, Nobel Prize Winner

[Anathema]

I read that earlier, but as I said, socialism comes in different forms. This man died in 1950, and modern socialism came a long way since.

[ordos45]

You see none of this argueing will go anywhere because each of you seems to have closed your minds to the others opinions, when you read them is your first instinct to think of something to disprove them?

If you said yes, you've let it become to personal and you will no longer be effective, only a fanatic.

As for my stance on Edric/Earthnuker/Nema's redefined Socialism, I like the idea and have had them go over it in great detail with me in IMs. (Okay, not with Earthnuker, but with Nema and Edric.)

[emprworm]

Main Entry: so

[emprworm]

As for my stance on Edric/Earthnuker/Nema's redefined Socialism, I like the idea and have had them go over it in great detail with me in IMs. (Okay, not with Earthnuker, but with Nema and Edric.)

Ordos, I have tried desperately to get these guys to explain their re-defined socialism, but they just aren't doing it. I would just LOVE to see some 'great detail' here, but I get the run around (esp from earthnuker). I just keep getting more "thats communism" jargon. All i want is for one of them to explain HOW their "new socialism" works and not just spew vague definitions and accuse me of being communistic when I am simply going by the literal meaning of socialism. How in the world can private property exist in a socialist nation? If it can, I'd like to hear HOW- what exactly do people actually OWN? Copyrights? Inventions? Homes? Businesses? But all I get is a bunch of spew. Hopefully Edric will address the points I listed above and help me understand this system of his.

[ordos45]

Hope ya don't mind Nema, but I'm posting an MSN Conversation about it.

Never give out your password or credit card number in an instant message conversation.

Nema Fakei says:

Hello...

Ordos45 says:

Hi

Nema Fakei would like to send you the file "const.txt" (7 Kb). Transfer time is less than 1 minute with a 28.8 modem. Do you want to Accept (Alt+T) or Decline (Alt+D) the invitation?

Nema Fakei says:

You asked for this.

Ordos45 says:

Thank you

Transfer of file "const.txt" from Nema Fakei has been accepted. Starting transfer...

You have successfully received C:Documents and SettingsOwnerMy DocumentsMy Received Filesconst.txt from Nema Fakei. Before opening this file, you may want to scan it with a virus-scanning program.

Nema Fakei says:

Do you think it would be possible to institute such a system?

Ordos45 says:

Truthfully, or ideally?

Nema Fakei says:

Surely the first.

Ordos45 says:

Not very much of a chance in actuallity. Even if it was implemented, we humans have a way of screwing things up. However, there is always a small chance that anything can happen

Nema Fakei says:

Hm...

Nema Fakei says:

Assuming it were already in place, what would be the main flaws?

Ordos45 says:

That the councils could be corrupted by the Councillors' greed. If two or three Councillors on each council were bought off by an individual or corporation, it would be enough to ruin it

Nema Fakei says:

Aha. This is where the other bit comes in...

Nema Fakei says:

I have economy worked out too, to a lesser degree of certainty.

All finances are government-controlled. Your wages will be calculated on how well you serve the community compared to your potential. Therefore, brilliant accountant will be paid more for doing accounting than otherwise. If you are serving the community at your full potential (ie no laziness, doing whatever will help the community m

Nema Fakei says:

most), then you will receive the maximum payment, based on how much is being produced by the country. NB, f there is a lack of teachers, an accountant might be paid more to be a Maths teacher. Council work will be paid at a good level as well.

Hence, shopkeepers will not profit from what they take in; goods will be bought by plastic card, shopkeepers will be paid by the government.

Nema Fakei says:

Careers proficiency tests will be carried out to work out who can do what best

Nema Fakei says:

Note also No-one will have a harder job. They will work fewer hours in more stressful job, etc.

Nema Fakei says:

You see...

If we can refocus this greed back to where it was before we became modern-culture homo sapiens - want for the community, thus also providing benefit for self and progeny... wemight create a decent society. Condoning greed is what has brought down capitalism.

Nema Fakei says:

(I'm just pasting from a few IMs to Edric at the moment)

Ordos45 says:

Okay, you really did plan this out

Nema Fakei says:

I wouldn't leave a job half-done.

Ordos45 says:

Nope, you don't seem like the kind of person to

Nema Fakei says:

Especially concerning a world takeover plan. That sort of job HAS to be done properly.

Ordos45 says:

Yep, or it ends up like the "Bay of Pigs" operation the US did in Cuba

Nema Fakei says:

Hehe.

Ordos45 says:

Or the mockery we call "eclections" electorial system is old and should be abolished, then an invidual vote could actually count

Nema Fakei says:

Even with a totally representative democracy of the current kind, it would still be a popularity, not capability contest.

Nema Fakei says:

Plus the amount of business-backing (ie bribes) the parties will have.

Ordos45 says:

Yes, but it would still be better than a minor percentage more determining the worth of an entire state

Nema Fakei says:

Better, yes.

Nema Fakei says:

But still no good enough.

Nema Fakei says:

>not

Ordos45 says:

true

Nema Fakei says:

Any more criticisms?

Ordos45 says:

Not that I can think up about your government you worked out, about mine, plenty.

Nema Fakei says:

Hehe.

Nema Fakei says:

40% of the UK didn't vote last election... (or was it 40% who did? I forget) - therefore we really need change.

Ordos45 says:

Lol, same type of conditions here

Nema Fakei says:

But if you have any new ideas, please tell me... I'll incude them if they are good and fit.

Nema Fakei says:

>... good and if they fit.

Ordos45 says:

Sorry, my ideas are all dried up by disease.

Nema Fakei says:

Disease? Are you ill?

Ordos45 says:

Just the flu

Ordos45 says:

I've been sleeping all day

Nema Fakei says:

I'm sorry to hear it. I hope you recover soon.

Ordos45 says:

Thank you, so how are you? Aside from meticulously planning for a new world order

Nema Fakei says:

Well, I'm only doing that as a hobby.

Nema Fakei says:

I've got too much work to be doing it full time.

Nema Fakei says:

I have a bit of a cold (A cold for 6 months, then hayfever in spring and summer)

Nema Fakei says:

But otherwise, I am ok.

Ordos45 says:

Oh, I'm sorry, hope your cold doesn't get worse

Nema Fakei says:

Thankyou.

Nema Fakei says:

The problem with a new world order is how to set it in place. Military takeover is a problem, but some countries are going to be impossible to persuade. Certainly if I only have a few mintes each day (I have better things to do...).

Nema Fakei says:

But anyway, I must go.

Ordos45 says:

Goodbye

Ordos45 says:

and goodnight

And the constitution text, if you guys don't mind me posting it.

Let us consider the phrase "power corrupts". The idea of democracy is that power shared across the entire population will not be sufficient in any individual to corrupt any one. However, democracy fails in two ways: firstly, democracies elect representatives who individually hold power that would otherwise be spread across thousands of constituents - possibly sufficient to corrupt. Secondly, there is the problem that politics in a democracy where the people do not use their power or do not use it sensibly turns into a popularity contest, or a choice between larger parties so similar that the public are apathetic about any, and therefore about all politics. We see here the opposite to "power corrupts" - "weakness breeds disinterest" - without the choice of something different, people take what they are given for granted, and begin to ignore it.

However, note that in both cases that it is not the power or weakness itself which has this effect - it is someone's belief in the magnitude of their power that corrupts, and someone's lack of faith in their own ability to change something that makes them stop trying. Note especially that the illusion of power is relative - individual voters feel weaker if there is an omnipotent president, but stronger if there are larger groups who are unable to vote.

Therefore, when constructing a system of government, it must be considered that no-one should believe they have sufficient power to manipulate it to their own wont. Equally, no-one in the system should feel that they are so weak that the decisions they are asked to make are not needed. To do this, we must make each decision universal, but no decision can be so great that it might be manipulated by greed. This seems impossible.

At this point, I will remind you of another political ideas that is relevant. The idea of checks and balances to stop corruption by limitation of power is essential. It can be through scrutiny panels like corruption courts, or the electorate. Or, it can be through division of power - separate executive, legislative, and judiciary branches of government are common to many European democracies. Of these options, both will stop any manipulation of decisions for the purpose of greed, but only the second allows (some) decisions to be universal - in that decisions made by the Judiciary usually cannot be revoked or affected by decisions by the legislative. However, in most countries with such a system, we still have conflicts between different stages of the system - local legislative groups might pass a bye-law, but a national parliament might declare that the bye-law will be damaging to the country as a whole, thus over-ruling it. Therefore, the solution again seems to be to divide up the roles of of each body further, so that any one decision can only be made by one governing body - no single body can make decisions which are superior to those of another body. There are two reasons for this - first, the idea that one council is any better at making decisions than another is absurd. Secondly, as previously stated, the illusion of power is relative; if two councils composed in the same way were to make decisions on the same problem, making one council's decision constitutionally superior to that of the other will cause the 'better' council members to feel more powerful - and they would be more prone to corruption, whereas the 'worse' councillors would be more prone to disinterest.

So decisions should only be made once - this considerably reduces red tape, but appears to leave no route for appeal. This is not true, however. If the situation (or evidence) has changed considerably since the initial decision was made, then that decision will not be made again if an appeal is mounted - the decision could well be a different one, sice it will be made concerning different circumstances, even if the topic and question are the same.

Next, it must be found how to best do this. It is obvious that no decision can be made by one person alone. But equally, it is difficult to keep an overlarge group informed well enough that they can contribute to the decision and the discussion of the decision. These are considerationsthat must be taken, but it is not my place, nor is it within my ability to assert or otherwise prescribe a set size for each body. However, it is known that there must be a great number of these bodies, each to deal with a different set of issues. Each council will have an equal amount of power, because each decision will be irrefutible by other councils. Some councils will be permenant, but some will be temporary (councils to run enquiries into reasons for problems, crises, and disasters). Some will deal with research and analysis to provide information for other councils, others will make executive decisions. Some will deal with the administration (creation of, removal of, assignment of personnel to, liasons between) other councils.

So, once we have developed such a format for a council, we need to know about its members - specifically, how they are chosen. Since, in a vast network of councils, it is impossible to elect every single one democratically (plus, see above the problems of democracy, eg the tendency to elect figures for their popularity, not their ability), they must be elected in some other fashion. Moreover, this method cannot be relative to any form of political weightings, because that would be subject to opinion, as well as corruption. The only fair method is to select people randomly from the population to contribute, in the same way as National Service works in some European countries. Note that proficiency tests in such decision making would be required - perhaps in the form of written examinations, coupled with oral work and interviews. Those passing a minimum standard in capability and willingness will be put on a database, from which possible candidates for each council will be randomly selected, based on their preferences and interest in particular topics (so that people are not chosen to work on topics that bore them. Equally, someone who feels passionately about a particular topic is unsuitable to work as an unbiased opinion in a council).

[DjCiD]

:O be afraid be very afraid :O

[nemafakei]

Something seems to be eating my posts (I think it's my connection messing up). What I've been trying to say is Get ontopic!

But now it is here... emprworm, especially, please tell me (by IM) any faults with the system O45 showed.

If you feel the system seems too oppressive, use the word community rather than government... it might help you think about it in the way in which I do, rather than from a perspective that is conditioned to be cautious about government.

[Edric O]

First of all, let me make it clear that I am not your average socialist. Many of my ideas and ideals have nothing to do with clasical socialism. That is why I make this disclaimer: I will speak only for myself, not for socialism as a whole.

Problem is that the people will decide they want to have private property. So then what? Will the government OVERRULE the people in that case? What Edric is saying flat out is that there is no such thing as private property. You own nothing. Government owns all.

No, that is not what I want. First of all, it would be ludicrous to abolish private property. Every person must have personal belonginigs: his/her house and everything in it. BUT there must be no private ownership of the means for production and distribution (no private companies and enterprises). The people should collectively own all "firms" and "companies".

If they don't want that, then what are we doing ruling their country in the first place? If the people don't WANT socialism, we won't be elected!

There is no true freedom because innovation is squelched. In Edric's government, there will be no innovation, no real desire for quality since there is no competition. Advances in technology would come to a screeching halt.

You've just hit a VERY important issue. Incentive. I agree that any functional system MUST give the people an incentive to work. But there are more ways to do this. Competition is only one of them. For one thing, each person's work should be "evaluated" by its own merits, and not by comparing it to other people's work! And the better the end-result of your work is, the more you get paid.

There should also be a big bonus for anyone that invents or discovers something useful. The invention then becomes collective property.

Usually employers in a capitalist society are the ones who determine how hard a person works and how much pay they deserve. In Edric's government, all workers will be evaluated by the government. IMagine the immense beauracracy. 6 billion people being monitored by GOVERNMENT employees that really do nothing but watch everybody to see how hard they are working.

No no no! People are evaluated by the ones who use their products, not by some huge beauracracy! So, basically, your customers decide how much you get paid. However, there have to be certain commissions that make sure nobody is being treated unfairly. Basically, they would listen to complaints from people who think they're not being paid enough.

These wealthy people will find the easiest way to 'work hard." since the guy that works hard at flipping burgers gets paid the same amount as the guy that works hard drilling coal mines who gets paid the same amount as the guy who works hard making computer games, who gets paid the same amount as the guy who works hard writing writing novels (despite whether the novels are any good or not, as long as he works hard)

I think I already adressed the issue of wages. What matters is the quality of your products. This is different from capitalism, where the only thing that matters is if people WANT your products or not. If you write a splendid novel but nobody buys it, capitalism calls you a failure.

And, obviously, you can make better products if you co-operate with others...

Everyone takes a turn working the toilets and flipping burgers.

That's insane! I would NEVER support something like that!

He has not explained how or IF copyrights (both artistic and invention) would exist while democracy co-exists. If he is suggesting that everyone in the democracy would just "donate" their inventions / music / artistry / discoveries to the government for the "benefit of humanity"

Yes. The wheel belongs to everyone, not just to the guy who invented it! If you discover the cure for AIDS, then it should be given for free to those who need it, instead of using their agony for your own gain!

You should get paid A LOT if you invent something (the exact sum depends on how useful your invention is), but then your discovery belongs to HUMANITY!

In capitalism, way too many people are deprived of basic things like healthcare on the grounds of copyright!

WHO ON EARTH would be a paramedic? A surgeon?

Vital people such as medics (and policemen, and firemen) fall under the "public services" category and their wages are kept high by the government. However, if this causes everyone to suddenly want to be a surgeon, the government sponsoring only applies to a certain number of people.

In Edrics society, when a guy approaches the government and says "I'm sick of burger flipping, I'm going to start making a computer game." How would Edrics government respond?

My government would tell him: "Great! Go ahead and join one of our game-making co-operatives. But if you suck at making games, you go back to burger flipping and get a cut in pay for all the time you wasted."

Basically, everyone should do what he/her is best at. Any country (or indeed, the whole world) has a diverse enough population so that they're not all good at the same thing.

There will be variations, like periods with very few painters, or very few writers. But they will never last very long. Government sponsoring ensures there won't be shortages of vital people (medics, etc.)

[Edric O]

Ah yes, Nema's ideas are excellent. They handle mostly the social side. With my previous post I have tried to give solutions for the economic side.

My government would be a collection of councils, as described by Nema.

[emprworm]

oooh this is good, ok i havent read a thing cuz im busy right now at work, but I see at first glance that Edric posted a LOT. I like that, because it tells me he really wants to have a constructive dialogue. A good quality for sure. I dont get upset at someone disagreeing with me, only someone who refuses to try to talk. edric makes a serious effort here, so no matter what I read, even if its way off base ;) I will be impressed because of the great effort made. So I will sit down later this evening and read EVERY SENTENCE by nema and every sentence by Edric and honestly try to see things from their points of view and then give my response.

[emprworm]

Ok I begin with Nema.

This is a well thought out post. I agree with elements of it. He identifies a few key problems and his society poses the solution. Though I have some agreement with the identification of the problems, I completely oppose his conclusions, and most especially his solutions. I have identified two philosophical problems with it that cause me to reject the proposal. I will elaborate as we continue.

Let us consider the phrase "power corrupts".

Considered, and agreed.

The idea of democracy is that power shared across the entire population will not be sufficient in any individual to corrupt any one. However, democracy fails in two ways: firstly, democracies elect representatives who individually hold power that would otherwise be spread across thousands of constituents - possibly sufficient to corrupt.

Possible, yes, but corruption would be severely limited if elections are cyclical and there is a judicial system that makes appeals to a higher standard than the subjective whims of any single corrupted politician.

Secondly, there is the problem that politics in a democracy where the people do not use their power or do not use it sensibly turns into a popularity contest, or a choice between larger parties so similar that the public are apathetic about any, and therefore about all politics. We see here the opposite to "power corrupts" - "weakness breeds disinterest" - without the choice of something different, people take what they are given for granted, and begin to ignore it.

yes they do, but that is their choice. I see this as a problem, but not a problem that a government should mandate. Those same people that do not vote only do so because they have relative contentment. By that I mean that they are by and large content with the way things are. This is a good sign as well as a bad one, because it shows democracy in action. People are by and large satisfied with things so they feel no pressing need to make revolutionary changes. Why is it such a sin for people to ever settle down? Why the continuous need for revolutions? If people are apathetic because they are satisfied with life under their government, then who is anyone else to impose upon them something they choose not to do? I think you are overlooking the fact that those same people would in a flying instant dramatically raise their voices if something drastic were to occur in the system. Voting is a freedom. Not voting is also a freedom.

However, note that in both cases that it is not the power or weakness itself which has this effect - it is someone's belief in the magnitude of their power that corrupts, and someone's lack of faith in their own ability to change something that makes them stop trying. Note especially that the illusion of power is relative - individual voters feel weaker if there is an omnipotent president, but stronger if there are larger groups who are unable to vote.

people can 'feel' whatever they want. Government should not be trying to impose emotion. People 'feel' like they are going to go to nirvanna if they do some meditations every day. people 'feel' like the whole world is in a conspiracy with Satan. People of this world may 'feel' 6 billion different things at any given moment. O well. If a government gives freedom to people and that freedom actually exists, the cure for people 'feeling' a certain way is not more government, it is not changes to the government. It is simply education. Plain and simple. Maybe you never thought of the problem that too many people are stupid from watching too much shallow TV and need to be educated? No need for revolution. Education is much better. But then again, if someone WANTS to be a TV vegetable, well that is their choice.

Therefore, when constructing a system of government, it must be considered that no-one should believe they have sufficient power to manipulate it to their own wont. Equally, no-one in the system should feel that they are so weak that the decisions they are asked to make are not needed. To do this, we must make each decision universal, but no decision can be so great that it might be manipulated by greed. This seems impossible.

yes, extremely. You cannot regulate belief...period. People do not think alike. There are people in this world that think they are God (called Panentheism and millions of people subscribe to this world view). To them, no matter what kind of government you put in place, they will consider themselves to have sufficient power to maniuplate at will because they are God Himself. Your fundamental problem so far in this text has been your desire to change people's desires. You see PERCEPTION as something that is a problem that requires a whole new government! Thats just going way too far. If you want to change peoples PERCEPTION of things, this is nothing new to humanity. People have been wanting to change beliefs/perceptions of others for millenia. I now introduce you the concept of "proseletyzation". Welcome to the world of religion, you now join me and billions of other people who try to change perception. Of course, the difference between you and me is that I respect your differing perceptions, wheras you want to impose a particular perception utilizing government. Ick. Government is not about making people feel particular emotions or having a certain perception. Such a task is not only impossible, but inappropriate, and I would argue immoral in itself. But nontheless, lets see what you come up with.

At this point, I will remind you of another political ideas that is relevant. The idea of checks and balances to stop corruption by limitation of power is essential. It can be through scrutiny panels like corruption courts, or the electorate. Or, it can be through division of power - separate executive, legislative, and judiciary branches of government are common to many European democracies.

yes, I agree. And they are common because they are necessary. Accountability is most assuredly necessary in government. We know how humans are- power corrupts!!

Of these options, both will stop any manipulation of decisions for the purpose of greed, but only the second allows (some) decisions to be universal - in that decisions made by the Judiciary usually cannot be revoked or affected by decisions by the legislative. However, in most countries with such a system, we still have conflicts between different stages of the system - local legislative groups might pass a bye-law, but a national parliament might declare that the bye-law will be damaging to the country as a whole, thus over-ruling it. Therefore, the solution again seems to be to divide up the roles of of each body further, so that any one decision can only be made by one governing body - no single body can make decisions which are superior to those of another body. There are two reasons for this - first, the idea that one council is any better at making decisions than another is absurd. Secondly, as previously stated, the illusion of power is relative; if two councils composed in the same way were to make decisions on the same problem, making one council's decision constitutionally superior to that of the other will cause the 'better' council members to feel more powerful - and they would be more prone to corruption, whereas the 'worse' councillors would be more prone to disinterest.

sounds reasonable to me. I tend to agree with all this. It does become messy dont it? But I am GLAD that making new laws is messy and difficult. It really should be, since a law is something that constricts the actions of citizens- it should definately be very stringent to make new ones. I dont mind excess red tape at all when it comes to constricting my actions in society. If a law is being proposed, it will affect me somehow. The messier the process for approval, the better. Now if the law being proposed is VERY VERY NEEDED and society is screaming for it then it will fly right through like a bananna peel on a greesy ramp, lest those politicians pay the price at the next election.

So decisions should only be made once - this considerably reduces red tape, but appears to leave no route for appeal. This is not true, however. If the situation (or evidence) has changed considerably since the initial decision was made, then that decision will not be made again if an appeal is mounted - the decision could well be a different one, sice it will be made concerning different circumstances, even if the topic and question are the same.

Next, it must be found how to best do this. It is obvious that no decision can be made by one person alone. But equally, it is difficult to keep an overlarge group informed well enough that they can contribute to the decision and the discussion of the decision. These are considerationsthat must be taken, but it is not my place, nor is it within my ability to assert or otherwise prescribe a set size for each body. However, it is known that there must be a great number of these bodies, each to deal with a different set of issues. Each council will have an equal amount of power, because each decision will be irrefutible by other councils. Some councils will be permenant, but some will be temporary (councils to run enquiries into reasons for problems, crises, and disasters). Some will deal with research and analysis to provide information for other councils, others will make executive decisions. Some will deal with the administration (creation of, removal of, assignment of personnel to, liasons between) other councils.

interesting, however what ever happened to the will of the citizens? Isnt government supposed to serve its citizens or are you reversing it now?

So, once we have developed such a format for a council, we need to know about its members - specifically, how they are chosen. Since, in a vast network of councils, it is impossible to elect every single one democratically (plus, see above the problems of democracy, eg the tendency to elect figures for their popularity, not their ability), they must be elected in some other fashion.

uh oh, here comes the corruption. Your presumption over the freewill of the people is insulting. No one wants to be told by an intellectual that they are too stupid to know whats best for them. If you form a government off of the philosophical assumption that "the people dont know whats best for them" then your government is, in my book, corrupted right out of the gate. You are trying to be like a daddy with his little child. "I know whats best for you!" This is ok for children, but reprehensible for adults. Your system would be vehemently resisted. And I will be on the front lines.

Moreover, this method cannot be relative to any form of political weightings, because that would be subject to opinion, as well as corruption. The only fair method is to select people randomly from the population to contribute, in the same way as National Service works in some European countries.

there goes democracy. and just WHO is in charge of 'selecting' people? All I know is that if I was the one running the selection booth, I would make sure that certain people were selected. hehe lol

Note that proficiency tests in such decision making would be required - perhaps in the form of written examinations, coupled with oral work and interviews.

Question 1: Do you feel that people should have the freedom to to elect ALL of their officials?

Bob: Yes.

Big Governmental Moderator: Sorry, Bob. You failed. You are not eligible for this position. NEXT!

Those passing a minimum standard in capability and willingness will be put on a database, from which possible candidates for each council will be randomly selected, based on their preferences and interest in particular topics (so that people are not chosen to work on topics that bore them. Equally, someone who feels passionately about a particular topic is unsuitable to work as an unbiased opinion in a council).

the flaws in this are numerous. I reject the assumption that people are too stupid to know whats best for them. I reject the notion that people serve their government. I reject the notion that the governments place is to impose emotion and perceptions on its people.

And the big irony is this:

Nema's proposal of government according to this post consist to solve two "problems"

1. The problem of apathy among voters

2. The problem of people voting for politicians because they were persuaded by various means including popularity.

Nema's solution to these problems is this form of government that strips citizens of their power and imposes a forced will up on them.

I challenge Nema that neither of those 2 "problems" are really problems that a government needs to solve.

I do not know for sure, but lets assume for the sake of ARgument that Nema is not a Christian. Lets assume that Nema has freely chosen to be apathetic towards the claims of the Bible. I see this as a problem. So what do I do about this problem? I try to convince Nema why he needs God and try to pursuade him that the Universe was created by God. But that is ALL I can do. And it is all I should do. If a man is going to apathetic towards God, I have no right to ask the government to intervene. It is HIS CHOICE to not care. He is not infringing upon anyone else. LIkewise if a man wants to stay locked up in his house all his life and never vote, that is HIS CHOICE. He is not hurting anyone else. That is what he wants in life, so let him have it. I come down hard on Nema only because Nema is stripping people's freedom away. He is saying the government should be regulating the REASONS why people vote, and forbidding people to go around and try to convince others of their opinions. So funny considering Nema is doing the exact same thing.

If I go around preaching and people convert, then so be it . That is their decision. Call it brainwashing, call it manipulation, call it popularity, call it whatever you want, just dont start trying to squelch the free ability people have to make any opinion they want and the freedom for the preacher to go around preaching. If people vote for a politician because he is popular, then so be it that is THEIR CHOICE...>THEIR RIGHT. The government is way out of line to try and regulate freedom like this. Who is Nema to tell someone that their reasons for believing the popular evangelist that spoke to them on TV is wrong? Who is Nema to tell someone that their reasons for supporting a politician they saw on TV is wrong? The irony is that Nema is doing right here...right now...the VERY THING he criticizes. You see, in order for Nema's idea to gain acceptance, it must gain popularity . And how will this idea of Nema's gain popularity? He will need to go around trying to convince people that it is right. So here is Nema going around trying to convince people why people who go around trying to convince people need to be squelched by the government. This double standard is so obvious and immense, it screams out at me off my computer screen.

Do I see people not voting or voting out of popularity as a problem?

Yes. But it is an ACCEPTABLE problem just like a person not believing in God is an acceptable problem. It is their right. Their choice. And no one....I repeat NO ONE should EVER take those rights away. The only thing I can do is try to educate and/or convince them otherwise. NOT impose on them or take away their freedom with a randomized chaos-driven government that strips its citizens of their rights.

So here is Nema who is postulating a whole new government. Nothing wrong with that, of course. How is Nema able to do this? By using freedom of speech. And by appealing to people to all get together and decide this is the right way to go. How could Nema EVER see this government of his come to pass? The people would want it of course (unless Nema proposes to impose it by force against the will of the people). What type of society would be needed for Nema to just tell people about this idea? Answer: a free one. Nema needs a free democratic society to implement this. The only type of society that Nema can use to even safely propose a new government is a free one. Nema needs the people of the world to stand up and say "you're right Nema, we are too stupid to know what we want. Lets do this" Only then will it come to pass. But who in their right mind is going to agree that Nema knows better what someone needs than they themselves? That kind of proselytizing is daunting indeed. Name your religion and I think you have a higher chance of winning converts than convincing people that they are ignorant about what they want regarding government. Religion and Politics. Those are two subjects that everyone knows everything about. But its fun to talk about them and its fun to see Nema utilize democracy and capitalistic philosophy in order to propose these types of things. This type of proposal needs and depends upon a democratic society just to even introduce itself. I respect what Nema is doing, because nema is innovating. But Nema innovates a society that forbids this particular kind of innovation. So the great Irony is that Nemas society would not allow this entire proposal Nema is doing, since in Nema's world the people truly do not have any power and there is not really any accountability to the people since officials are chosen "randomly" (to which I seriously challenge that it would never be random). I guess it kind of invalidates itself on those grounds. But so far, from what I've read, I so despise Nema's proposed government that I would be willing to give my life fighting against it. I am for freedom. I will die a free man before living as a slave. However, I admit i only read part of Nema's proposal and would be interested in reading the rest. But those two primary pillars of his argument I vehemently object to. Besides, the detailed explanations regarding how people in this society would live and pursue happiness.

I will end my rebuttal by repeating this statement Nema said

"...it must be considered that no-one should believe.."

Thus by Nema's own words he wants a government that mandates belief. Impossible, and reprehensible.

I respond by saying "it must be protected that all may believe or disbelieve for any reason they so desire"

BUt nothing in this post said anything about issues of private property, copyright, creative work, motivation, quality, distribution of wealth, etc that I asked to be addressed earlier in this thread. So I'll move on now to Edric and see if he addresses them.

[ordos45]

and Nema's next reply will most likely be telling you that you never read his post, because you posted that instead of IMing him.

[emprworm]

why would I IM him? We are having a public discussion. I'm keeping everything public because its a healty discussion, at least I think so. Nema is a bright guy, I'm sure he is more than adequately able to respond to me.