Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Assuming you created a society, what political philosophy would you use and why?

Or would you create one of your own? If so, what would it be like?

My ideal society would be one of Market Anarchy.

Originally posted by Bardock42
My ideal society would be one of Market Anarchy.

*opens mouth*

*closes mouth*

Actually kinda hard to beat that. I'll put a vote in for Benevolent Facsim though.

Originally posted by Advent
Assuming you created a society, what political philosophy would you use and why?

Or would you create one of your own? If so, what would it be like?

The political philosophy i'd use would be to encourage every man woman a child, no matter the ilk, to commit to all and especially the most effective forms of public service for the betterment of human and land. I wouldn't force it on them as an obligatory statue but remind them that it is their birthright.

I'd severely penalize corruption (ending slaps on the wrists for the rich) and consolidate bureaucracy so that red tape isn't an issue. I'd aggressively encourage business ethics and make it taboo to commit any wrongdoings of that type. I'd also encourage corporations to serve as beacons and examples of benefiting society and land being that they singularly have the most resources. Again. Not by force. Nature will force then to do so though. They'll see how other corporations benefit from benefiting society and will follow suit. There's more and i know my vision sounds socialist and utopic but i see my society seamlessly meshing all there economies (comm. socialist and capitalist) into a nice well oiled machine unlike what we have now, that benefits everyone involved and not just the top few.

technocratic anarchy

Absolute Theocracy...with a population of about 200 like minded people.

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
Absolute Theocracy...with a population of about 200 like minded people.

You just described a cult.

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
Absolute Theocracy...with a population of about 200 like minded people.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
You just described a cult.

I was thinking the Vatican...but...the point stands.

liberal socialism {if u can call it a POLITICAL, and not economical philosophy} citizens can own private property for personal satisfactio etc, but thet can not TRADE with private property that they own.

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
I was thinking the Vatican...but...the point stands.

Broke my chair . . .

Lower chamber: Democracy
Upper chamber: Meritocracy
Monarch representing constitution.

Constitution:

1. No one shall take anyone's right to live
2. No one shall force anyone to do something against their will
3. No one shall steal anyone's money, property, or anything else they earned.
4. Anyone can be a member of government
5. Monarch must only represent the connstitution
6. Government, Millitary etc. shall be subjects to Monarch and Constitution
7. All criminals shall be rehabilitated only! How they are rehabilitated, is up to the rehabilitators.

(applies to everyone: members of government as well as citezins and the monarch)

That's a draft anyway.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Broke my chair . . .

Sudden Weight Increase?

Originally posted by lord xyz
1. No one shall take anyone's right to live


When is someone alive?

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
When is someone alive?

depends, is a person the cells that compose their body or the experience inside the head

Originally posted by lord xyz

7. All criminals shall be rehabilitated only! How they are rehabilitated, is up to the rehabilitators.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Bernardo

Originally posted by inimalist
depends, is a person the cells that compose their body or the experience inside the head



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Bernardo Exactly. He hasn't murdered again since his release. (Or his wife, anyway).

Originally posted by lord xyz
1. No one shall take anyone's right to live

No abortions!

Originally posted by lord xyz
2. No one shall force anyone to do something against their will

Abortions for everyone!

Originally posted by inimalist
depends, is a person the cells that compose their body or the experience inside the head



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Bernardo

That is why I am asking him...

Originally posted by lord xyz
Exactly. He hasn't murdered again since his release. (Or his wife, anyway).

dude, no

karla homolka wasn't rehabilitated, she got out on a plea bargain and remains an embarassment to the Canadian justice system.

even if she doesn't kill or rape again, she poses an unreasonable threat to the population. That people keep giving her picture to the media probably helps prevent that as well.

oh... homolka drugged her sister to let bernardo take her virginity... remember, she wasn't rehabilitated, she played the justice system.

and she has an ECE degree.

Originally posted by inimalist
dude, no

karla homolka wasn't rehabilitated, she got out on a plea bargain and remains an embarassment to the Canadian justice system.

even if she doesn't kill or rape again, she poses an unreasonable threat to the population. That people keep giving her picture to the media probably helps prevent that as well.

oh... homolka drugged her sister to let bernardo take her virginity... remember, she wasn't rehabilitated, she played the justice system.

and she has an ECE degree. What do you suggest to avoid people playing the justice system.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
No abortions!



Abortions for everyone! This goes to the argument, foetus' don't have the right to live, and I agree, since they're life is dependant on the mother, therefore it's actually the mother's decision.

Localism, in a small rural town. Everything is locally produced and locally consumed. That's what makes a good, stable, functioning economy.

Originally posted by Stealth Agent
Localism, in a small rural town. Everything is locally produced and locally consumed. That's what makes a good, stable, functioning economy. Maybe stable and functioning, good...I don't know.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Maybe stable and functioning, good...I don't know.

outside the influence of the demoralized america, kept with good homeley traditions. A small society where everybody pretty much knows who everybody else is by first name.

Originally posted by Stealth Agent
Localism, in a small rural town. Everything is locally produced and locally consumed. That's what makes a good, stable, functioning economy.

what about communities that lack certain fundamental resources?

like, there ain't a coal mine or oil field in my neighborhood.

Originally posted by Stealth Agent
outside the influence of the demoralized america, kept with good homeley traditions. A small society where everybody pretty much knows who everybody else is by first name. Again, it wouldn't be an economy that would offer you much. It might be functioning and it might be stable, but you would have to give up so many luxuries it would be hardly enjoyable for anyone that lived in a modernized country.

Meritocracy.

Or benevolent dictatorship. I'll be Dear Leader.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Maybe stable and functioning, good...I don't know.

Depends...is inbreeding good or bad?

Originally posted by Stealth Agent
outside the influence of the demoralized america, kept with good homeley traditions. A small society where everybody pretty much knows who everybody else is by first name.

And last name, because it'll take about 150 years for them to all be one big family.

My political philosophy would be true communism. Communism isn't actually a bad thing, it's just that nobody thinks it can be done. But if it COULD be done, the world would sure be different.

A general misconception is when people think communism or socialism, they think state communism or state socialism. Very different.

Dictatorship.

But I'd tell everyone its Democracy.

Originally posted by Advent
Assuming you created a society, what political philosophy would you use and why?

Or would you create one of your own? If so, what would it be like?

Egalitarian hunter-gatherers.

I hope you all will excuse me for being cliche, but capitalism for economics and democracy as your political philosophy seems to be the best, and history backs this up.

Overall I think a benevolent dictatorship could be better, except that there isnt really anyone who I would trust with the job. Except perhaps myself .

^capitalisn has only succeeded with huge nations who have the power and resources to STEAL the resources of the world to fill in the holes for the extravagances/lazyness of its citizen in creating resources/raw material.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
^capitalisn has only succeeded with huge nations who have the power and resources to STEAL the resources of the world to fill in the holes for the extravagances/lazyness of its citizen in creating resources/raw material. Which ones?

Originally posted by leonheartmm
^capitalisn has only succeeded with huge nations who have the power and resources to STEAL the resources of the world to fill in the holes for the extravagances/lazyness of its citizen in creating resources/raw material.

Steal? I was under the impression that we(the U.S.) and other capitalistic nations pay for our goods?

I was under the impression that the US is only marginaly capitalist.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I was under the impression that the US is only marginaly capitalist.

Officially the U.S. has a capitalist mixed economy. So yes it does borrow some other principles from other economic philosophys but it is mostly capitalist. Or atleast that was my impression, Im no expert on this kind of stuff so I could be wrong.

Originally posted by Great Vengeance
Officially the U.S. has a capitalist mixed economy. So yes it does borrow some other principles from other economic philosophys but it is mostly capitalist. Or atleast that was my impression, Im no expert on this kind of stuff so I could be wrong. Well, a country with a government spending of over 3 trillion a year and the highest per capita spending on national healthcare.

Nah, not really.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Well, a country with a government spending of over 3 trillion a year and the highest per capita spending on national healthcare.

Nah, not really.

Well you have to take into account that we also have the most GDP aside from the EU by a huge margin, even during recession. Your right that the U.S. does borrow some principles from socialism, though you would be hard pressed to show that the U.S. was on the whole more socialist as opposed to capitalist.

Originally posted by Great Vengeance
Well you have to take into account that we also have the most GDP aside from the EU by a huge margin, even during recession. Your right that the U.S. does borrow some principles from socialism, though you would be hard pressed to show that the U.S. was on the whole more socialist as opposed to capitalist. Sure, it's just not really capitalist. It's a weird monstrous ideology mish-mash.

theres a nice quote "resources are not made without labour". putting simply, with the way the economy works globally, does the american public labour in the creation of RESOURCES{not useless luxuries} which can PAY for its rather nice average living standards when compared with the wrest of the world? simply, no. unfair market practices{due to large political/military sway in the world}, funding instability throughout the world and then using it to STEAL resources out of the area{itself or through one of the agressor groups/puppet governments, etc} or simply bargaining on the basis of military support etc{saudia etc} or employing foreign extremely cheap labour{or illegal immigrant labour}- good examples- africa/central asia/iraq/afghanistan etc. among other things, helps PAY for america's economy, and leaves the wrest of the third world poorer and more chaotic. i do not beleive CAPITALISM is responsible for the significantly nicer lifestyles of people in america{there are otherexamples though of countries doing the same}.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
theres a nice quote "resources are not made without labour". putting simply, with the way the economy works globally, does the american public labour in the creation of RESOURCES{not useless luxuries} which can PAY for its rather nice average living standards when compared with the wrest of the world? simply, no. unfair market practices{due to large political/military sway in the world}, funding instability throughout the world and then using it to STEAL resources out of the area{itself or through one of the agressor groups/puppet governments, etc} or simply bargaining on the basis of military support etc{saudia etc} or employing foreign extremely cheap labour{or illegal immigrant labour}- good examples- africa/central asia/iraq/afghanistan etc. among other things, helps PAY for america's economy, and leaves the wrest of the third world poorer and more chaotic. i do not beleive CAPITALISM is responsible for the significantly nicer lifestyles of people in america{there are otherexamples though of countries doing the same}.


Yeah, but you have no idea what you are talking about.


You also, for some reason, say things like "wrest".

^why open your mouth when you have nuthing valuable to add? pure cynicism i guess? or a heigtened sense of your place in the world maybe? youre wrong either way, so it doesnt matter.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
^why open your mouth when you have nuthing valuable to add? pure cynicism i guess? or a heigtened sense of your place in the world maybe? youre wrong either way, so it doesnt matter. I did not actually open my mouth when typing that.

And it's because you posted something stupid in a very stupid way.

^or sumthing that a stupid person can not accept. as i said, either way, it doesnt matter to sum1 who can not understand a parallel or a non literal analogy.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
theres a nice quote "resources are not made without labour". putting simply, with the way the economy works globally, does the american public labour in the creation of RESOURCES{not useless luxuries} which can PAY for its rather nice average living standards when compared with the wrest of the world? simply, no. unfair market practices{due to large political/military sway in the world}, funding instability throughout the world and then using it to STEAL resources out of the area{itself or through one of the agressor groups/puppet governments, etc} or simply bargaining on the basis of military support etc{saudia etc} or employing foreign extremely cheap labour{or illegal immigrant labour}- good examples- africa/central asia/iraq/afghanistan etc. among other things, helps PAY for america's economy, and leaves the wrest of the third world poorer and more chaotic. i do not beleive CAPITALISM is responsible for the significantly nicer lifestyles of people in america{there are otherexamples though of countries doing the same}.

No offense intended, but your post is rather hard to read. And alot of it begs proof. It is true though that many American corporations exploit the underdeveloped nations, however that isnt the fault of Capitalism...the corporations themselves are morally corrupt. And if the underdeveloped countries actually had a solid government with a working economy than they wouldnt be exploited as easily.

Besides I wasnt arguing about which type of economy is the most morally righteous. Socialism would probably win in that kind of debate. I was arguing about which economy can bring the most prosperity to its people. And looking at early Mercantilism, all the way up to modern day America, the use of Capitalist principles have proven essential to a healthy and prosperous economy. Infact I cant recall of any nation that has abandoned the principles of Capitalism and remained stable for long periods of time.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I did not actually open my mouth when typing that.

And it's because you posted something stupid in a very stupid way. Bit pernickety are we?

corporation are a central part of capitalism and exist because of it. and that part about the underdevelped countries having a stable economy, is, well, unbeleiveably wrong. its like saying, "well, if you were stronger, you wudnt have gotten raped". the blame isnt on the victim.

as i said, the kind of economy which can bring most welfare is liberal socialism{i.e. people can own private property but cant TRADE with it}. and the whole point was to show that the success atributed to CAPITALISM, is more due to stealing to fill in the gaps in the economy, as opposed to the benefits, capitalistic practices bring.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
corporation are a central part of capitalism and exist because of it. and that part about the underdevelped countries having a stable economy, is, well, unbeleiveably wrong. its like saying, "well, if you were stronger, you wudnt have gotten raped". the blame isnt on the victim.

as i said, the kind of economy which can bring most welfare is liberal socialism{i.e. people can own private property but cant TRADE with it}. and the whole point was to show that the success atributed to CAPITALISM, is more due to stealing to fill in the gaps in the economy, as opposed to the benefits, capitalistic practices bring. That's ridiculous. Where do they get the property from? Who gets better property than others?

And you didn't "show" anything. You just said something, that is untrue.

property, they get from the government, which owns everything.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
property, they get from the government, which owns everything. And who gets the better property and why?

you BUY propert based on what you earn, which is based on the labour you put in to the government. property isnt merely DISTRIBUTED.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
you BUY propert based on what you earn, which is based on the labour you put in to the government. property isnt merely DISTRIBUTED. But you can't sell that property again? What about loans? Who decides how much a property is worth? And what if two people would like the same property.

Is this about all forms of property or only real estate?

its about PRIVATE property. not just real estate. were talking ownership rights here, not the real estate business. on real state, specifically, compromises can be reached depending on who applied for the property first, and ofcourse, the government can decide how much a location is worth. loans would be a possibility{albeit not encouraged in socialism} from the state bank owned by the government, personal loans would be more illegal than anything. and yes, you MAY sell that property back to the government or perhaps sell it to another person for the SAME price you initially bought it for{or lesser for sumthing like a car} and inform the government, since people cant trade, there are no PROFITS which can be made and hence no money which one can make without putting in the labour to earn it. this also finishes inflation so selling off any private property to another person can NOT gain you a profit even if it is in mint condition or the type of property that doesnt devalue with time{as opposed to sumthing like a car i suppose which is devalued} and ofcourse, since such transactions have to be reported to the government, it can be made sure that no1 has netted a PROFIT. basically, people have to work for what they earn, but can still have the satisfaction of personal ownership of private property{which is absent from traditional communism, where the government owns EVERYTHING which you posess} without having the drawbacks of capitalism which come from trading{and hence, earning money without putting in the labour}. its called liberal socialism, and is a concept brought into light {from my own personal knowledge} greatly by bertrand russel.

This sounds great. A benevolent dictatorship built around a Meritocracy would be an interesting and potentially outstanding form of government. However, what is said above is pretty correct, I wouldn't trust that many people to have the power of a dictator, excepting of course myself. And even then I'd be pretty paranoid.

On a less serious note, a society built around Survival of the Fittest or Tyler Durdens concepts would also be an 'interesting' place to live.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
its about PRIVATE property. not just real estate. were talking ownership rights here, not the real estate business. on real state, specifically, compromises can be reached depending on who applied for the property first, and ofcourse, the government can decide how much a location is worth.

How would people make money? Managers in specific. Or entreperneurs as we know them now. Actually how would anyone make money...and who would decide how much...and what gets sold to whom?


Originally posted by leonheartmm
loans would be a possibility{albeit not encouraged in socialism} from the state bank owned by the government, personal loans would be more illegal than anything. and yes, you MAY sell that property back to the government or perhaps sell it to another person for the SAME price you initially bought it for{or lesser for sumthing like a car} and inform the government, since people cant trade, there are no PROFITS which can be made and hence no money which one can make without putting in the labour to earn it.

How would it be "private property". It's just like paying one large fee for renting a house. Or anything.

Also, how would taxes work. And would the government be the only employer?

Originally posted by leonheartmm
this also finishes inflation so selling off any private property to another person can NOT gain you a profit even if it is in mint condition or the type of property that doesnt devalue with time{as opposed to sumthing like a car i suppose which is devalued}

So you can only lose money through private property, not gain? ****ing ridiculous.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
and ofcourse, since such transactions have to be reported to the government, it can be made sure that no1 has netted a PROFIT. basically, people have to work for what they earn, but can still have the satisfaction of personal ownership of private property{which is absent from traditional communism, where the government owns EVERYTHING which you posess}

As would be in your system, just that you arbitrarily call it "private property".

Originally posted by leonheartmm
without having the drawbacks of capitalism which come from trading{and hence, earning money without putting in the labour}.

With drawbacks you mean the immense advantages we gained in the last 200 years through some of the principles of free market economics, I assume?

Originally posted by leonheartmm
its called liberal socialism, and is a concept brought into light {from my own personal knowledge} greatly by bertrand russel.

Woah, don't slander Bertrand Russell with your bogus communism. Prove that he supported such idiocy.

as in managers in certain industries? well they do their job, work, manage and direct people's workload and in doing so, facilitiate the process of resource creation{which requires labour in itself and is hence, a sort of resource itself} which they are paid for. enterpreneurs are different from managers, be specific in what ur asking.

the government would be the only employer, yea. and it isnt like paying one large fee to RENT the house, when your the one who actually own and has all rights to it which the government CANT take away. also, the property would belong to you and your immediete family so its not like it will go back to the government if you die. taxes would work in the same way that they have always worked, you buy sumthing or make some money by labour and a part of it is taken by the government to provide public facilities to you.

r u stupid?! no, infact your not making much sense. you can SPEND money on buying whatever kind of stuff you LIKE from the government. you just cant EARN money without working for it, the way businessmen do {i.e. buy sumthing, then sell it for a higher price, easily seen in the real estate business}

no i dont, you pay for sumthing, then its YOURS, "NOT" the governments. any land, property/car/house/gadgets that you have bought are YOURS, and the government posesses no right over them, other than stopping you from TRADING them with sum1 else. basically, anything you need to posess for PERSONAL satisfaction, you can own, but if your intentions are to not utilise it personally and infact use it to earn money for which you didnt put in labour, THEN the government stops you.

no by, drawbacks, i mean people earning the limited resources available without putting in the work to desrve them, and as a result, the amount of resources available to the people who DO labour to produce them, getting thinner. its like the concept of printing fake money. since money represents resources, one who prints fake money, gets RESOURCES at his hand which he didnt labour for, and as a result, the moeny in the hand of the blue collar workman is devalued{hence, diminishing the resources that he had for personal use}. thats basically what the stock market represents. buying and selling at{usually} higher prices to get more in your pockect when you didnt actually change the product or contribute anything in the world as far as USEFULLNESS goes. basically, the drawback of resource ineficiency/demotivation for labourers and unfair distribution of recources.

please, dont pretend you know much about bertrand russel, if u did, u wudnt think capitalism was as nice as you do. and yes he most definately did say that this kind of liveral socialism was what he thought the best kind of economic/political system, other than his ideological utopia of anarchism. i read it a while ago and even though i have most of his books, its gonna take a while to find it again.

Originally posted by Darth Exodus
This sounds great. A benevolent dictatorship built around a Meritocracy would be an interesting and potentially outstanding form of government. However, what is said above is pretty correct, I wouldn't trust that many people to have the power of a dictator, excepting of course myself. And even then I'd be pretty paranoid.

On a less serious note, a society built around Survival of the Fittest or Tyler Durdens concepts would also be an 'interesting' place to live.

Yeah a meritocracy has always been an interesting idea to me. But the problem remains of what a proper criteria would consist of. Intelligence tests? Intelligence is only one factor in good leadership. And accurately determining the moral integrity of an individual would be nearly impossible. Still....I dont suppose that it could be more flawed than letting the ignorant masses decide our leaders.

Also Capitalism is pretty much survival of the fittest on an economic scale. If you mean complete survival of the fittest with no laws, well.... that would be rather brutish wouldnt it?

Yeah, I had the idea of evaluations based to a number of applicable attributes, but then the concept would fall to curruption without a really strong leadership.



This shouldn't really be a problem provided carefull monitoring. Plus this would be no more problematic than it is in modern society. And anyway, sometimes morals really do hold you back, as long as the person doesn't harm society, it shouldn't be that bad.



Yeah!! Some agrees with me!! Take that public opinion!!!



Interesting though. But yeah, I'd be dead by now if that was the case.

Originally posted by Great Vengeance
Yeah a meritocracy has always been an interesting idea to me. But the problem remains of what a proper criteria would consist of. Intelligence tests? Intelligence is only one factor in good leadership. And accurately determining the moral integrity of an individual would be nearly impossible. Still....I dont suppose that it could be more flawed than letting the ignorant masses decide our leaders.

Or be our leaders . . . or really do anything at all. Still you have to accept that they're there and give them some sort of hole to dig themselves into before the purgings begin.