Spew All About Politics Here

[Anathema]

Yes. And what's your point? This verse doesn't support Creationism. God made the universe, of course. The only thing we disagree on is just how He made it. Is that really so important?

People tend to want to know more then what's important.

[Edric O]

The government's only duty is to serve the people. When it cannot fully fulfill that duty, the people have the right to take over and start a new one.

Exactly. Serve the people. That is all I want to do. Serve ALL the people EQUALLY. Not depending on who can afford to be served and who can't.

[Anathema]

But to serve in what way? Where does the responsibility of the government stop?

[emprworm]

his employees as paid slaves to make him profit, then I'm making people unhappy.

if his employees are paid slaves then he is breaking the law, and he should be punished. but this should be the case in any capitalist democracy. Objective moral law forbids slavery.

You base your entire argumentation on the assumption people need money to be motivated. It is our nature to seek wealth and happiness for ourselves- but we're not animals! In your society people will always strife to be rich,

i base my entire assumption on human progress throughout history. people who have no ability or no way to pursue their personal dreams have no motivation. Doing something for the "good of society" is not good enough. Motivation must also come through personal fufillment. I probably will never own a yacht. But I love the sea. I wish sometimes I was a dolphin. I probably will never aquire one, but its so nice to know I can dream of one and that it is always a possibility In your society those dreams are squandered because they will forever be fiction. Having a goal that is at least possible is an extremely motivating force. In your society the only goal anyone has to look forward to is the day they finally die and be done with all the hapless monotony.

No one cares in your society, there is no economy whatsover. Economics does not just exist because you say so. There is no functional model of your government. Every potential model I see of your system you deny as "communism" and that it doesn't apply. Therefore since there is no, and has never been a functional model of your government, you have no basis upon which to say it would even work. Especially since communism is much closer to it than US capitalism. It would be an abysmal failure.

and lastly, despite what you and Edric say, your governments do not promote private property. I have looked at it and your claim of private property is a deception. Its kind of like giving a prisoner a uniform. Sure, it might have his name on it, but it ain't his.

[Anathema]

In your society the only goal anyone has to look forward to is the day they finally die and be done with all the hapless monotony.

No one cares in your society, there is no economy whatsover.

and lastly, despite what you and Edric say, your governments do not promote private property.

My government is not communist. I made a summary of it early in this thread. I was merely defending communism from the BS you typed about it.

And you do base your argumentation on the assumption that people need money to be happy. Capitalism is based on that assumption. You just divert the subject. If people believe in what they are doing, then that is motivation enough.

[Inoculator9]

It's called fanaticism. I didn't start playing emperor for the money. That's why the people of the middle east are perfectly happy to live in absolute heck, as long as they can worship alah and in their own little way, destroy america.

[emprworm]

And you do base your argumentation on the assumption that people need money to be happy

rediculous. I base my assumption that people need to make up their own minds what makes them happy- not Edric, not Nema, and most certainly not you and some oppressive government.

[Anathema]

And you do base your argumentation on the assumption that people need money to be happy

rediculous. I base my assumption that people need to make up their own minds what makes them happy- not Edric, not Nema, and most certainly not you and some oppressive government.

And they wouldn't be able to do that in a non capitalist system? Ridiculous.

You keep saying people won't work if they don't hav a chance of getting paid better- sounds like they need money to be happy.

[Edric O]

Emprworm, are you really listening to what I'm saying?

The PEOPLE control the government! Obviously, if they don't like it, they will change it.

You keep going on and on about how my government would be oppressive, but you forget that it is being run by the people themselves! So they WILL make up their minds on what makes them happy, and use the government to achieve that happiness.

But "government" is not a good term. It will be a de-centralized network of councils, not a single entity.

If you think there is even the slightest possibility of you ever owning a yacht, then you are a naive person living in a fantasy. Wake up!

I refuse to insult the intelligence of the people by giving them false hope in impossible fantasies.

You are being extremely materialistic, Emprworm. As a Christian, I expected you to realize that there is more to this world than material profit... You don't need to be rich in order to be happy.

[pointybum]

Happyness is liking what you doing, freedom is doing what you like. If one can marry these two together without the constraints religious faith, constraints of financial impoverishness or wealth, the corrupting constraints of governments, nor the identification of race, creed, shape, or sex, then the world would be a much nicer place.

But we do look at faith in the religious way as much as we look hope in the moral way - i.e. why am I here, whats my purpose, and when do I stop fulfilling this purpose whatever that is. To some, wealth is more important than religious or moral faith - it is usuallly brought upon by background influence more than anything.

We are born with a blank sheet, it is your environment that writes the script for you to role play later in life. Even if its all perfect there will always be a negetive to throw the balance offside - that is what life is all about, as fascinating, as exciting, and as tough as it can get. Quite literally, ask a mute (deaf and blind) what they think, what they want, what they believe in, and what would they 'want' to do about it and you'll be surprised with the unique answers.

I'd like to think that President Bush is not a warmonger anymore than Saddam is a nice person, along with the sniper who could come from a loving warm family. If one can cast these religious/moral ideas aside and think who they actually are, to think of the real miracle of their existence in the first place and appreciate it, than to throw it all away because of some strong opinion, again the world would be a less conflictive place to live in.

Idealistic it does sound but the world is the way it is because of these differences of opinions, it is an age old problem that will never go away unless, of course, we start again with a world blank sheet. And yes, I am thinking of the worst case scenario - civilisations have been wiped out before and it will no doubt happen again - hopefully not in our life time, or aeons to come.

[Dude_Doc]

Whatever the case may be in this world, death is not the final stop. Life is too short, maybe, life is somekind of prison. We never get the time to do what we like. We must live together in a community, we must pay to someone, we must work to live. Earth hasn't recources to satisfy all 6 billion people and their dreams, but Heaven can. Then why do we live? Well, we are teached to live, actually life is not that bad, everyone must agree, right? If this indeed is a prison, well, I deserve it for some unknown reason.

"In a world full of people, only some wants to fly, isn't that crazy?"

-Seal

:P

[Edric O]

Earth hasn't recources to satisfy all 6 billion people and their dreams, but Heaven can.

If there isn't yet a way to satisfy all 6 billion people, we will FIND one. As much as I am a Christian, I am disgusted by the idea that we should just accept life as it is (as miserable as it is for some people) in the hope of the afterlife. That is just a cheap way to get out of responsibilities. I never say "there's nothing I can do about it". There is ALWAYS something that can be done better, and there is always a way to do it. And even if I don't find it, I am sure that someday, someone will.

And as strange as it may seem, I agree with Pointybum. :)

[pointybum]

Earth hasn't recources to satisfy all 6 billion people and their dreams, but Heaven can.

If there isn't yet a way to satisfy all 6 billion people, we will FIND one. As much as I am a Christian, I am disgusted by the idea that we should just accept life as it is (as miserable as it is for some people) in the hope of the afterlife. That is just a cheap way to get out of responsibilities. I never say "there's nothing I can do about it". There is ALWAYS something that can be done better, and there is always a way to do it. And even if I don't find it, I am sure that someday, someone will.

And as strange as it may seem, I agree with Pointybum. :)

Wha-hey!

;D

[Dude_Doc]

Of course we should not accept life like it is, we should improove it. The main point of the post was that a lifetime is too short.

[DjCiD]

Whatever the case may be in this world, death is not the final stop.

yep, this world isnto my home either... and death is just the start of it...

Life is too short, maybe, life is somekind of prison. We never get the time to do what we like. We must live together in a community, we must pay to someone, we must work to live.

Then why do we live? Well, we are teached to live, actually life is not that bad, everyone must agree, right?

I am disgusted by the idea that we should just accept life as it is (as miserable as it is for some people) in the hope of the afterlife.

Ok what is life? Its a race remember... not important who wins only that we all finish.

Ecclesiastes 9

10 Whatever your hand finds to do, do it with all your might, for in the grave,[1] where you are going, there is neither working nor planning nor knowledge nor wisdom.

11 I have seen something else under the sun:

The race is not to the swift

or the battle to the strong,

nor does food come to the wise

or wealth to the brilliant

or favor to the learned;

but time and chance happen to them all.

[1]9:10 Hebrew Sheol

[pointybum]

All I am trying to say is smell the flowers while you can. :)

[nemafakei]

First, the quick, easy ones.

"all this shows is a common need in capitalistic nations to reach agreements regarding the environment. Such as hunting whales, sharks, ect."

There is this need for the whole, but each individual country would prefer not to do so themselves.

"Preserving the environment is not contrary to capitalism."

Agreed, but with capitalism in place, abuse of resources is inevitable, unless, by chance, each person in the world becomes a very nice person.

Now onto the more recurrent things.

"You have said that people point out flaws which do not exist."

There are almost certainly flaws. I like people to point them out. What I object to is when people 'find' flaws in parts of arguments where there are none. (NB I was talking generally, rather than specifically... you infer more than was meant).

I'm saying that co-operation is superior to competition, and that competition should only be undertaken when it has been assessed that competition would aid co-operation.

We won't all think alike, we will instead have the same aim in mind. Different ideas will, of course compete, in one sense,

"I just dont get it. You want to regulate people's decision making AND their belief system. I have one word for it: infringement"

I want to regulate the way people make decisions over *others'* lives, so that they come out with unbiased decisions. It's a choice of either a case of infringement of someone's 'right' to be greedy, or a case of allowing people to be corrupt, thus producing bad decisions.

Remember, all I'm doing is swapping the decision making around so that people don't decide over something they are involved with enough to be manipulative over the decision. I'm not trying to force everybody to conform in their mindset.

"And if you really truly believe this, Nema, then why aren't you backing the US president George Bush to disarm Hussein? Or do we just let any maniac get nuclear weapons?"

He has far, far better things to do with his time and money, for one thing. Some people HAVE nuclear weapons... but to go any further ould be to digress.

The point is, that we already try to stop people killing others by discouraging it, partly by making it illegal, with punishments attached. We should have far better systems of prevening effects of one of the fundemental problems of this world - greed.

"because they have no freedom."

What is this with freedom? Where is my system not free?

"no i wont. the wealth does not belong to me. There is no such thing as wealth in your system. i read it and I see no allowance for wealth. private property is a deception."

For you to state this, and for me to nullify your comment, we also need to know what we each mean by ownorship... I'll come onto that in another post, I think. Suffice to say thay all my money says "I promise to pay the bearer, on demand, the sum of".

"people who did not invest in the Dow Jones did not lose...they didn't gain, just like people who didnt go on the field trip didnt get to ride the bus. Its kind of a given. But calling them losers? Rediculous."

I've already disproved that they did not gain, using not only logic based on the concept of money in capitalism, but bolstered with your own statistics as examples. The point is that work should be proportional to gain - which, with the stock market, does not happen...

People who profit from the stock market gain, but they do not put into society anything of benefit. (Any general benefit from investment does not have to be stock-market invested, it can be government-invested.) The inbestors therefore produce nothing, but eat up food and other resources (and, being rich, will do so in vast amounts).

Finally, if everyone went to india, everyone could see the Taj Mahal. But if everyone invested (even if they could), the return on invertment would be no greater than inflation, therefore no-one would be the richer.

"wages increased. They have been doing so for the last 100 years. So I guess there's really nothing to say. And now, the US Per capita is 33,000 bucks. Even the poorest person in the US is making bank compared to ppl 100 years ago. A few losers, but such will always be where you have freedom, equality, and capitalism, but most are winners. The only real losers in my country are the people that don't care. Can't help them. They dont want to be helped."

Stop viewing statistics in isolation!

There is no way you can possibly use the US as a model of how everyone wins! Everyone in the US may indeed win, but the US is only one cog in the system of capitalism that is, simply speaking, the world. Therefore, any statistics you use can only be talking about the world. Moreover, you must also talk in terms of efficiency, rather than consumption. For example, in Ashton, you cannot merely state that because people end up with more money and goods that they did before, then that is good. You must also consider 'real' wages - those over and above the effects of inflation. You must also consider that people have been using up resources that may not regenerate as fast as they are being produced. You must also ask yourself whether people who have worked hard are paid proportionately well for it.

Not only this, you must show that Ashton is what would actually happen in the capitalist system as a whole. Not by statistics (that would be too dependant on luch and the nature of the statistics), but by logic that prevents it being any other way.

It is not enough to throw at me graphs and numbers at me that prove something is true in certain circumstances when we are considering all circumstances. Especially when we know that these circumstances are significant to the result and varying across the area in consideration.

"I showed you more than one graph. did you not see the nasdaq?"

To prove what you try to prove, you would have to show not one group, not two, but every single company on the market. I don't expect you to do this - because I do expect sufficient reason why all companies will benefit.

"You will have to show me how its current status is the result of capitalism, to which I would challenge you to do. Edric has not done so, but maybe you can."

"The entire sum of your argument rests on this one assumption"

Not quite. My argument is that Capitalism will neither get us out of this rut, let alone keep us out of it.

Hence

"You will have to show me how its current status is the result of capitalism"

Is also false.

"You will have to show me how its current status is the result of capitalism"

That would take too long for the moment; besides, it is of little relevance - we need to think about what we can do from this point onwards. Pointing fingers gets us nowhere, unless it's pointing to our progress in the future, rather than taking it out on people who made mistakes in the past.

We need to think....

- We have a problem (on this, we are agreed)

- Therefore, we need a solution

Research...

- What solutions are there? (Let us assume we have two possible candidates as solutions, mine and capitalism. )

- What are the strands and causes of the problem?

- Lack of facilities (water, food, medicine) in poor countries

- Poverty of poor countries

- Money of the poor countries not being worth a great enough percentage of the world's resources to buy enough

- Difference in wealth between rich and poor

- Damage caused to the environment

- Misuse of resources

- I don't think I need to carry on... we agree that this is a bad thing.

Then, we think...

- How do the council systems solve this problem?

- Total re-evalution of economics, value, currency, and work

- Those who work well in poor countries will get as much as those same would in rich countries

- This will provide sufficient investment and monies for these people to buy the basics like food, clean water, and basic healthcare.

- Those who leech off the system by profiting from money-dealing and producing nothing will have no choice but to stop doing so.

- Far fewer people will be profiting from inputting nothing into society

- There will be less waste of the world's resources.

- Removal of effects of greed from decision making.

- Better decisions

- Better managent of the resources and capabilities of government

- Greater benefit from the capabilities of the community.

- How does capitalism solve this problem?

- People who have enough money to invest can take for themselves more money (ie a greater percentage of the world's resources).

- So what?

Then we consider the other effects of the systems...

Can we now focus on this, rather than continuing to question the previous section?

"Because I want to be free to decide what is best for me, and not a government or Nema or Edric that doesn't have a clue about me or what I want. And I believe that others should have the freedom to make that same choice."

But what's best for you may not be what's best for averyone else. And if you are the one with the purse-strings, then you'll do what's best for you, despite the fact that it could be worse for many others. You might not wish to take that into consideration. And it is failing to do take such things into account indirectly affects people's 'rights'. The stock market is a system by which such culpability is hidden in most cases. It' just in a few, high-profile cases that it is not.

What's best for the investor is far less important that what's best for the community and what the best use of the money is.

My system is about making the right decisions for all. Capitalism seems to be about making the decisions most profitable for those who happen to be in control, rather than anyone else.

[emprworm]

Regarding the environment: if a law is passed regarding the environment, then it doesn't matter what each individual person thinks, he must obey the law. Capitalism does not give Individual opinions the liberty to override law.

I'm saying that co-operation is superior to competition, and that competition should only be undertaken when it has been assessed that competition would aid co-operation.

We won't all think alike, we will instead have the same aim in mind. Different ideas will, of course compete, in one sense.

I do not agree with this. Cooperation and competition both have equal value. Without cooperation, little could be actually accomplished. Without competition, little could actually be improved.

Competition drives us. It is the primary motivating force in all humans. people work together in teams and compete in cooperation. Both of those principles work together in beautiful harmony. Let me illustrate to you the immense value of the fertile soil known as competition.

Imagine that tomorrow we were informed by scientists that an Asteriod 1000KM wide was going to hit earth in 5 years with a 90% probability. What would happen? The scientists and nations of the world would work together and COMPETE against the absolute deadline to produce new technology that the world has never seen before in order to save themselves. Competition AND cooperation would be fierce because what is at stake is simply the entire existence of humanity. It would be humanity vs. the asteriod. But note those two little letters "VS".

Without the "VS" in Humanity Vs. Asteriod, there would be no progress. It is only because of the VS, that progress is made.

Competition comes in various forms: we compete with our environment, with other people, with ourselves, with history, with philosophies- just to name a few. THese must never be eliminated. Competing with people, like competing with the environment is not bad in and of itself. It COULD be bad, but it is not necessarily bad. Just like cooperation could also be bad (i.e the tremendous efficiency of the cooperation amongst the Third Reich)

The weakest form of competition, I argue, is with yourself. This is usually a very weak motivating force, as psychology tells us. Only the rare type A (i believe it is type A) personality trait has the ability to find internal motivation. MOst people just dont have it. I am one of those people. I got good at this game, for example, only because I played others that were better than me. Having played against the computer alone, I would suck- really bad.

When I play a 4 player game, I am even better when I have a good TEAMMATE. We cooperate to play the best we possibly can. But unless we are competing against another good TEAM, the game is boring for us because we will win- but for them, in their defeat, they will learn. They will gain insight and knowledge and through their defeat, they will grow.

I want to regulate the way people make decisions over *others'* lives, so that they come out with unbiased decisions. It's a choice of either a case of infringement of someone's 'right' to be greedy, or a case of allowing people to be corrupt, thus producing bad decisions.

Remember, all I'm doing is swapping the decision making around so that people don't decide over something they are involved with enough to be manipulative over the decision. I'm not trying to force everybody to conform in their mindset.

not sure exactly what you mean here. Give me a practical example of this philosophy in action before I comment.

The point is, that we already try to stop people killing others by discouraging it, partly by making it illegal, with punishments attached. We should have far better systems of prevening effects of one of the fundemental problems of this world - greed.

Greed is a bad problem indeed. One that cannot be controlled through government. People will always want more. They will always complain and whine. If everyone in society has exactly the same amount of wealth, they will not be content. If you think they will be, you are delusional. Rich people are not content, poor people are not content. Being content is a spiritual condition of a person that can only take place internally through conviction and belief. It is not a condition of material wealth. You think that curing greed is going to happen through redistribution of material items- basically give everyone material things to control their lust for material things. Not going to happen. This is the fundamental reason why I think your government is destined to failure. I like the part of your system that grants everyone food, water, health care, and housing. But because you focus on human greed, and because I know that human greed cannot be satiated by material items or government policies, but is instead a personal spiritual issue, I am convinced your system is doomed before it even begins.

"no i wont. the wealth does not belong to me. There is no such thing as wealth in your system. i read it and I see no allowance for wealth. private property is a deception."

For you to state this, and for me to nullify your comment, we also need to know what we each mean by ownorship... I'll come onto that in another post, I think. Suffice to say thay all my money says "I promise to pay the bearer, on demand, the sum of".

the issue of private property is one of the most important issues to me. one that niether you, earthnuker or edirc have explained very well.

Stop viewing statistics in isolation!

There is no way you can possibly use the US as a model of how everyone wins! Everyone in the US may indeed win, but the US is only one cog in the system of capitalism that is, simply speaking, the world.

ahh, here is where you are wrong. you accuse the US of economically oppressing the world. You cannot do this without showing me how this is the case. US capitalism is very young system. the worlds poverty has been around LONG BEFORE the US even got here- this makes it impossible that the US is the causual agent for it. It *IS* a closed system. I *CAN* look at it in isolation- its only been here for about 100 years!! Thats virtually NOTHING. Third world poverty already existed prior to US capitalism. This means the US success is in isolation. Your continued claims that US capitalism requires third world oppression is rediculous. People just hate the US is all and enjoy blaming them for the worlds problems. This, too, like greed, is part of the human condition- just blame someone else for everything. I need to see the proof of that. Sorry, I reject your claim that the US success is at the worlds expense. You have some evidence to show me. Until then, I do not accept your claim. Conisdered----and rejected.

Not quite. My argument is that Capitalism will neither get us out of this rut, let alone keep us out of it.

you might be right. but i am not convinced yours will. heck I am not even convinced ANY government can. I think you are citing a spiritual problem, one that no government can cure.

[nemafakei]

"the issue of private property is one of the most important issues to me"

That came out oddly, given some of your previous comments. I know what you mean... but I need time to work out a coherent way of explaining what ownership means. (Think 'stewardship' concept (as per general current christian thinking?) and you have the general idea)

"if a law is passed regarding the environment"

The whole point of the political system is to ensure that these laws are passed - in present systems, it is not happening (well... certainly not fast enough) to compensate for the speed of destruction.

"Capitalism does not give Individual opinions the liberty to override law"

But individual countries, that's different? Or are you suggesting that this also changes?

"Cooperation and competition both have equal value"

Hm. Perhaps they have equal value, but competition is only right in for the purpose of co-operation... 'friendly compatition', by all means, but only when the competitors are prepared to bow to the greater public need (ie an inferior product which is winning solely due to better publicity should step aside when a total improvement is made).

"this makes it impossible that the US is the causual agent for it."

Not the initial one, certainly... perhaps a ractor in the retention of poverty. But causalty is irrelevant.

"It *IS* a closed system"

It trades, and relies on it. That is that I mean by unisolated.

"You think that curing greed is going to happen through redistribution of material items"

Not necessarily, not totally, and not likely.

My system is such that the governmental decisions (ie all major decisions) cannot be biased by greed, as they are today. Also...

"Give me a practical example of this philosophy in action before I comment"

eg Currently, there are many German nuclear power stations on the border with the Netherlands. This may well be almost purely because the Germans want as little of their own land to be devalued, or their property endangered. This is obvious self-interest by politicians who don't want to become unpopular. It is not logical because more Dutch are inconvenienced than germans would be if the plants were put in unpopulated areas of germany (more so than W. germany as now, but less so than Holland)

The Dutch, meanwhile, have no recourse, despite their unfair treatment.

In my system, some Irish geographers might look at the problem of location of nuclear power plants in Germany, and decide whereabouts it is most logical to place them (perhaps in the mountains, where there are fewer people, of any nationality). They will be unbiased in the matter. Hence, the decision is more likely to be a good one.

Note also that the people will have gone through a selection process to make sure they are competent decision-makers in such fields.

[emprworm]

That came out oddly, given some of your previous comments. I know what you mean... but I need time to work out a coherent way of explaining what ownership means. (Think 'stewardship' concept (as per general current christian thinking?) and you have the general idea)

i didnt mean it to, but I have said this many times in this thread. The most important issues to me in a government are:

objective moral law

freedom

private property

And private property is one of those most important issues. Other things are important too, but not as much as these three.

The whole point of the political system is to ensure that these laws are passed -

they are passed in our system just fine.

but competition is only right in for the purpose of co-operation... 'friendly compatition', by all means, but only when the competitors are prepared to bow to the greater public need (ie an inferior product which is winning solely due to better publicity should step aside when a total improvement is made).

i can go along with most of this. But if you have one company making computer chips only, we would proabaly be at pentium 75mz. If you have 2 companies making computer chips, with extra rewards given to the team that makes the fastest chip, then we get 2.8 GZ machines. The team that makes the slower chips doesn't lose, becuase their chips sell for less money. There is a winner, and a winner. No losers. I just don't see where the "evil" is in this lovely capitalistic picture.

eg Currently, there are many German nuclear power stations on the border with the Netherlands. This may well be almost purely because the Germans want as little of their own land to be devalued, or their property endangered. This is obvious self-interest by politicians who don't want to become unpopular. It is not logical because more Dutch are inconvenienced than germans would be if the plants were put in unpopulated areas of germany (more so than W. germany as now, but less so than Holland)

The Dutch, meanwhile, have no recourse, despite their unfair treatment

ok, i see your point here. BUt if the land does indeed belong to Germany, why are they wrong? I agree their motives are bad, but does that mean they should not own any land?

[nemafakei]

"but does that mean they should not own any land?"

Not own any land? What? Remember it is not even the German goverment who owned the land until they issued compulsory purchase orders to those who did.

This example was to show why the unbiased system of government I have is better than the biased one.

"The team that makes the slower chips doesn't lose, becuase their chips sell for less money"

Yes, yes, I'm not saying that there should be a single team of designers and one design of every type of product from which to base everything. I'm saying that the two teams should swap their designs and such information as well, in case one can pick up tips and ideas from the other. Then, they can combine their efforts while still . Can you imagine that happening today?

"they are passed in our system just fine"

By this, I take it you mean the environment is not a problem, since governments are and will continue to make the correct decisions about it? That's hardly solid ground!

Next issues...

- Objective moral law

Yes. The whole council system - unbiased, objective, and inherently moral.

There will be probably be a generic starting-off set of laws (esp. for simple criminal law), which will definitely be built on, altered, amended, and so on over time.

- Freedom

This is as the same as the law process, really. Councils are not going to pass laws banning papers for stating the truth, or allowing arbitary arrest. People will be able to choose where they work, where they live (if they can afford it, of course - they'll have to work to earn it).

- Private property

People will earn money from work. This money is issued and recorded by the government. This money can buy food, clothes, and luxuries, rent houses (probably not buy them, but retaining them through families etc will usually be possible).

[Anathema]

Nema, you mean that your government is essentially a company that runs everything, and determins wages? It would still compete with other countries.

[nemafakei]

My country? This is a system designed for the world.

[Acriku]

In Butlerian Jihad you would then be competing against either Synchronized Worlds (bots) or League Nobles planets thingies (humans, woo! Go humans!)

[nemafakei]

True, but we've still got a bit of time before that happens - I reckon we'd be better served designing a system for humans for the forseeable future than for cymeks and people in the unforseeable future...

Probably.