A New Frontier

If you don't feel like reading all of this just start after the stars. I just want to have fun and write a background history for this 😛

In the distant future space travel is made possible for ordinary people. Going into space is as easy as buying a yacht and sailing the ocean. However there is still much space that is uncharted.

You and a couple of your adventure lusting friends buy a spaceship and set out on an exploration adventure, going past known space.

You enter a uncharted galaxy with new planets still undiscovered. You decide to explore some of these planets. You find a planet with an atmosphere the same as Earth. The planet is 90% water but has a grand island. The entire planet is abundant with life. There are land animals, carnivores and herbivores alike. Animals in the sea. There is an intelligent amphibious species which has great underwater cities and some small scattered towns on the coasts of the island.

The island has a land face as diverse as North America. It has mountain ranges, massive plains, cold wooded areas and even tropical rain forests. The majority of the island has a climate which changes with the seasons. Seasons similar to Earth, temperate springs, potentially scorching summers, windy falls, and sometimes harsh winters. It is abundant in resources, it seems to be the perfect vacation spot.

You head back to Earth, making sure to carefully map your path back. When you get to Earth you seek funding so you can colonize the new planet. Brazil, now one of the top world powers, decides to fund you. They give you a much larger space ship (imagine something like Star Trek), much needed supplies, and variety of colonists (workers and thinkers, men, women and children, theists and atheists, selfish and selfless, good and evil) willing to make the journey away from the increasingly crowded country of Brazil. Brazil is only interested in the further exploration of space. They allow you to do what you wish on this planet and you need not report to them as if you were a colony of Brazil, however they only ask free access to your planet as a space port so that they may explore further into space than any other country on Earth.

**************************************************
So you now have your own Planet, your own island, equivalent to that of the Americas before the imperialism of Europe took over. Wild and untamed, you settle there and begin your new life as leader of the colonists.

So here comes the philosophy. What do you do next? Here's a couple of questions to get the discussion started.

What sort of exploration and colonization do you do?
How much of this land do you take as your own?
How much do you leave alone so the land and the native species can continue to prosper?
Do you make an effort to connect with the amphibious species who obviously is the planets current ruling species?
Do you attempt to control them like colonists did with natives in the Americas?
Do you consider what sort of implications your presence has on the unintelligent native species or do you not care?

What sort of political philosophies do you apply to your rule?
Do you rule as a king where your word is law?
Do you set up a democratic system where the colonists directly choose what the fate of your society will be?
Do you appoint leaders for different regions of your new world who come together as a committee to decide different things?
Do you not set up a law system at all and allow an anarchistic society where the only law is to do what is "right"?

How does the economy of your new world work?
Do you cut your new planet off from Earth and industrialize, working from the examples of the World Powers back on Earth?
Or maybe feed off the abundant resources of the new planet and use agriculture to meet the needs of the people? Sharing the land as if it belonged to no one but yet everyone.
Do you use the new planet as currency and keep ties with Earth? Maybe exploiting the massive sea filled with life as a fishing market and trade with Earth.

What works? What doesn't? Remember that your colonists will have opinions of their own and that you'll have to work with these conflicting opinions in order to make this work. Making those that disagree with your way of ruling leave is NOT an option. These people have left there lives on Earth for whatever reason and going back is not an option for them.

There is no right or wrong answer but debating is encouraged if you see flaws in someone else's philosophies.

Disclaimer: I'm still a relative noob here. Please don't castrate me if this has been done. I'm kind of hoping I put it in a new way so that if it has been done we can still discuss this. Plus, the Philosophy board has been kinda quiet. Maybe this will liven things up.

WOW

Lets see governmentally I would have to go with a democratized socialism (everyone has equal rights and responsiblities based on what they are capable of, all decisions are made by majority rule) although I would maintain a position of power.

I would not instate a religion (nor would I forbid worship though extremism would be held in check).

I would avoid industrialization to keep the planet's environs in good shape.

As for the native society I would maintain good reltions with them (unless they became beligerent in which case I would crush them) and hopefully make exchange of materials and ideas.

What sort of exploration and colonization do you do?
explore a lot, colonize: just what I need
How much of this land do you take as your own?
Just what I need, but I have to ask the natives first
How much do you leave alone so the land and the native species can continue to prosper?
Everything I don't need
Do you make an effort to connect with the amphibious species who obviously is the planets current ruling species?
Yep, Ofcourse
Do you attempt to control them like colonists did with natives in the Americas?
Nope, a stable and friendly relationship works better
Do you consider what sort of implications your presence has on the unintelligent native species or do you not care?
I try to consider

What sort of political philosophies do you apply to your rule?
Do you rule as a king where your word is law?
No, I don't.
Do you set up a democratic system where the colonists directly choose what the fate of your society will be?
No, not really that either :/
Do you appoint leaders for different regions of your new world who come together as a committee to decide different things?
Yes, but that's not everything.
Do you not set up a law system at all and allow an anarchistic society where the only law is to do what is "right"?
Ofcourse not!

How does the economy of your new world work?
Do you cut your new planet off from Earth and industrialize, working from the examples of the World Powers back on Earth?
I'll trade with earth. Chances are this planet has something earth doesn't have. But seeing as that I will probably be in the weaker position I have to be careful about not overprizing my stuff.
Or maybe feed off the abundant resources of the new planet and use agriculture to meet the needs of the people? Sharing the land as if it belonged to no one but yet everyone.
Might work. Tho I think people do better if they have their own plots of land as well.
Do you use the new planet as currency and keep ties with Earth? Maybe exploiting the massive sea filled with life as a fishing market and trade with Earth.
I would trade with earth but not exploit this planet.

What works? What doesn't? Remember that your colonists will have opinions of their own and that you'll have to work with these conflicting opinions in order to make this work. Making those that disagree with your way of ruling leave is NOT an option. These people have left there lives on Earth for whatever reason and going back is not an option for them.

There is no right or wrong answer but debating is encouraged if you see flaws in someone else's philosophies.

I know I gave short and pretty unclear answers, however I like this thread but I don't have the amount of time right now to make a decent answer (certainly not about politics) I'll do that after my exams are over.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
WOW

Lets see governmentally I would have to go with a democratized socialism (everyone has equal rights and responsiblities based on what they are capable of, all decisions are made by majority rule) although I would maintain a position of power.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I would not instate a religion (nor would I forbid worship though extremism would be held in check).

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I would avoid industrialization to keep the planet's environs in good shape.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
As for the native society I would maintain good reltions with them (unless they became beligerent in which case I would crush them) and hopefully make exchange of materials and ideas.

Originally posted by Marxman
What about the minority. Since majority rules, the minority would not be as equal.

the concept would be that no person, other than me, has more power than any other individual

Originally posted by Marxman

Easier said than done, I would think.

not really I wouldn't take any effort at all to say worship what you want too just dont force others to agree with you or you will be . . . taken care of 😈 .

Originally posted by Marxman

Many people believe that without industrializing an economy that you will never be able to make any progress. Without progress you will be caught in the same state you are currently in, never able to change you status, or eventually fail and be forced to abandon this new world.

You're right totally forbiding industry was a bad idea

Progress would be made through trade and development of technology that was minimally destructive to the environment. I would place strict building codes and encourage the use of futuristic high efficiency antimatter engines.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
the concept would be that no person, other than me, has more power than any other individual

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
not really I wouldn't take any effort at all to say worship what you want too just dont force others to agree with you or you will be . . . taken care of 😈 .

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
You're right totally forbiding industry was a bad idea

Progress would be made through trade and development of technology that was minimally destructive to the environment. I would place strict building codes and encourage the use of futuristic high efficiency antimatter engines.

Originally posted by Marxman

Yea, but we already have freedom of religion in this country and look where that's getting us. People demand that their religion be made into law, even though others don't agree with their beliefs. With some religions come the obligation to convert others, to "save" humanity. Religion would only lead to problems in this new world. What do you do with the intelligent life forms discovered? Do you allow them to continue with whatever religion they have as well? Are they even considered citizens with the same rights? Do you spread your own religion in order to save these people?

urge to use Despotism rising

Originally posted by Marxman

Industrialization doesn't necessarily mean a polluting factory. It can mean that you're using mass production instead of specialization. Like a shoe maker would be a specialist. A shoe making factory would be an industrialization of that.

hmm . . .

running a planet is tough

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
urge to use Despotism rising

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
hmm . . .

running a planet is tough

Congrats, Marxman, on this well-considered scenario.
Thus, I apologize for my brief answer: I'm not comfortable with how humans are about to barge in. What do the natives think about this? How do they feel about it? (How would humans respond if an alien species was gonna do this to us?)

I guess the first thing I would do then, before planting root, is get the natives' POV. Are they cool with us coming or not? I would prefer some kind of agreement with them before I started beaming my stuff down.

Originally posted by Mindship
Congrats, Marxman, on this well-considered scenario.
Thus, I apologize for my brief answer: I'm not comfortable with how humans are about to barge in. What do the natives think about this? How do they feel about it? (How would humans respond if an alien species was gonna do this to us?)

I guess the first thing I would do then, before planting root, is get the natives' POV. Are they cool with us coming or not? I would prefer some kind of agreement with them before I started beaming my stuff down.

Did the European colonists have a right to barge in on the Americas like they did? No. Human imperialism is a plague that, in this scenario, is beginning to spread throughout the universe.

But nonetheless, you have discovered this planet and revealed its location to the rest of the world. If you don't colonize it, someone else will. Now you have the responsibility to colonize it in a way that you can live WITH the native species.

Originally posted by Marxman

But nonetheless, you have discovered this planet and revealed its location to the rest of the world. If you don't colonize it, someone else will. Now you have the responsibility to colonize it in a way that you can live WITH the native species.

I suppose one could get tons of illegal weapons and obbsessively protect the planet from all interference rather than let it be colonized

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I suppose one could get tons of illegal weapons and obbsessively protect the planet from all interference rather than let it be colonized

Originally posted by Marxman
How realistic is it for you to get enough weaponry to go against entire countries?

Nope 😆

What sort of exploration and colonization do you do?

I take what I need and make it look impressive, try to draw more people there and live a good life

How much of this land do you take as your own?

Whatever I, my loved one's, friends and the people I consider equal need.

How much do you leave alone so the land and the native species can continue to prosper?

Are the native species human? If so as much as they need, and as much as I can give them. I would prefer to live in peace. If animals then nothing more then what they need to breed eat sleep and make more meat for me.

Do you make an effort to connect with the amphibious species who obviously is the planets current ruling species?

If they rule the planet then hell yes, I would be insane not too... Great way to start building a power base, just taking land can get you ****ed in the end.

Do you attempt to control them like colonists did with natives in the Americas?

I certainly wouldn't mind, but I wouldn't actively try to do so unless I would have a chance of succeeding which is doubtful.

Do you consider what sort of implications your presence has on the unintelligent native species or do you not care?

Seeing as the people can learn I don't care, my superior technology will help them improve their lives and I will share it with them, for a price of course but that's just how capitalism works.

What sort of political philosophies do you apply to your rule?

I do what I think is best, I allow the people to govern many aspects of their lives but ultimately the decision would be with me. I would set up lower organs of government elected by the people to take tasks off my hands, while still keeping the control over this organ and would keep the power to overrule it on any and all matters. The Military would be completely in my control and not in the hands of the democratic part of government.

A small council of special selected elected representatives could have some influence and decide on policy, but I would select which one's, and this is just to make governing easier for me.

Do you rule as a king where your word is law?

Yes.

Do you set up a democratic system where the colonists directly choose what the fate of your society will be?

Their choices will decide on a great many aspects of their lives, not everything though.

Do you appoint leaders for different regions of your new world who come together as a committee to decide different things?

That is where the people start making their appearance, the leaders however would answer to me.

Do you not set up a law system at all and allow an anarchistic society where the only law is to do what is "right"?

Ha, like that would work. Besides how would you morally classify what is right or wrong? Unless you would use something like a religion and I would hate to give the power to a religious organization.

How does the economy of your new world work?

Capitalism, the only system that would work. Controlled by the government when necessary to make sure company's focus more on long time efforts then short time. As to make sure my nation will prosper for longer then a few years.

Do you cut your new planet off from Earth and industrialize, working from the examples of the World Powers back on Earth?

No, I wouldn't cut myself off from earth although I would definitely take their technology and use it on my own planet.

Or maybe feed off the abundant resources of the new planet and use agriculture to meet the needs of the people? Sharing the land as if it belonged to no one but yet everyone.

If everyone would work equally for it then yes, if it would make sure that we would have everything necessary and a high standard of living with increasingly good technology then yes, but it won't. So no.

Do you use the new planet as currency and keep ties with Earth?

Not as a currency definitely as a way to make money and become more powerful

Maybe exploiting the massive sea filled with life as a fishing market and trade with Earth.

Depends, if there are cute sea animals or not. I would prefer not to destroy any species of animals, so unless I could somehow control the market and make sure that certain types of fish don't die out I wouldn't do it. If I could however I sure as hell would.

What I could also do is make certain area's off limits try breeding the fish there and eating them like crap.

Mass breeding is obviously the best solution to any kinds of problems with wild life here, it would just require us to get some of those bastard animals into captivity.

Originally posted by Fishy
What sort of exploration and colonization do you do?

I take what I need and make it look impressive, try to draw more people there and live a good life

Originally posted by Fishy
How much of this land do you take as your own?

Whatever I, my loved one's, friends and the people I consider equal need.

Originally posted by Fishy
How much do you leave alone so the land and the native species can continue to prosper?

Are the native species human? If so as much as they need, and as much as I can give them. I would prefer to live in peace. If animals then nothing more then what they need to breed eat sleep and make more meat for me.

Do you make an effort to connect with the amphibious species who obviously is the planets current ruling species?

If they rule the planet then hell yes, I would be insane not too... Great way to start building a power base, just taking land can get you ****ed in the end.

Do you attempt to control them like colonists did with natives in the Americas?

I certainly wouldn't mind, but I wouldn't actively try to do so unless I would have a chance of succeeding which is doubtful.

Do you consider what sort of implications your presence has on the unintelligent native species or do you not care?

Seeing as the people can learn I don't care, my superior technology will help them improve their lives and I will share it with them, for a price of course but that's just how capitalism works.

Originally posted by Fishy
What sort of political philosophies do you apply to your rule?

I do what I think is best, I allow the people to govern many aspects of their lives but ultimately the decision would be with me. I would set up lower organs of government elected by the people to take tasks off my hands, while still keeping the control over this organ and would keep the power to overrule it on any and all matters. The Military would be completely in my control and not in the hands of the democratic part of government.

A small council of special selected elected representatives could have some influence and decide on policy, but I would select which one's, and this is just to make governing easier for me.

Do you rule as a king where your word is law?

Yes.

Do you set up a democratic system where the colonists directly choose what the fate of your society will be?

Their choices will decide on a great many aspects of their lives, not everything though.

Do you appoint leaders for different regions of your new world who come together as a committee to decide different things?

That is where the people start making their appearance, the leaders however would answer to me.

Do you not set up a law system at all and allow an anarchistic society where the only law is to do what is "right"?

Ha, like that would work. Besides how would you morally classify what is right or wrong? Unless you would use something like a religion and I would hate to give the power to a religious organization.

Originally posted by Fishy
How does the economy of your new world work?

Capitalism, the only system that would work. Controlled by the government when necessary to make sure company's focus more on long time efforts then short time. As to make sure my nation will prosper for longer then a few years.

Do you cut your new planet off from Earth and industrialize, working from the examples of the World Powers back on Earth?

No, I wouldn't cut myself off from earth although I would definitely take their technology and use it on my own planet.

Or maybe feed off the abundant resources of the new planet and use agriculture to meet the needs of the people? Sharing the land as if it belonged to no one but yet everyone.

If everyone would work equally for it then yes, if it would make sure that we would have everything necessary and a high standard of living with increasingly good technology then yes, but it won't. So no.

Do you use the new planet as currency and keep ties with Earth?

Not as a currency definitely as a way to make money and become more powerful

Maybe exploiting the massive sea filled with life as a fishing market and trade with Earth.

Depends, if there are cute sea animals or not. I would prefer not to destroy any species of animals, so unless I could somehow control the market and make sure that certain types of fish don't die out I wouldn't do it. If I could however I sure as hell would.

What I could also do is make certain area's off limits try breeding the fish there and eating them like crap.

Mass breeding is obviously the best solution to any kinds of problems with wild life here, it would just require us to get some of those bastard animals into captivity.

Besides the obvious immorality of the whole idea, what happens when there's nothing left? Capitalism requires the constant increase of capital. What do you do once you've built all over this tiny island, corralled all the animals into zoos, and sapped every resource from the planet? What happens when there's no more room to expand? No more capital to gain? This is part of the reason your people left Earth in the first place.

How do you plan for the long haul? Capitalism only satisfies there here and now. Immediate gratification. Yea, sure there's the idea of investments but those are usually, if not always, gambles, depending on variables that you have no control over. Furthermore, its dependent on competition. There can be no winner unless there is a loser. If you're getting rich, someone's getting poor. That can't be good for the economy of a young society.

Originally posted by Marxman
The more people you draw to your new planet the more land you're going to need. Where does it end?

At the same place the planet ends, of course there is going to be a limit to the amount of people allowed there. But I would first need people to be able to decide what is enough and to much. If however I would notice that there is to much I would make immigration harder and try to focus more on getting certain types of people there instead of just anybody. At first however I would need everybody.

And who falls into the category of unequal and what are they entitled to?

People that hate me, want to overthrow me, stick to ancient technology and try to fight me when I did not start it. They would not be helped by me at all unless they would surrender and apologise and I would feel no need to make their life any better. Natives attacking me because I took their land is understandable, I'd try to negotiate with them and work out some kind of mutual beneficial arrangement, if that's not possible then they are ****ed not me. Which is why they probably will, because I'll make it very clear that I'll destroy every single last one of them if they don't,

At least you're honest enough to admit that its all about looking out for "number 1". Just one question. HOW DO YOU SLEEP AT NIGHT?
jk 😛

Crawling under the covers putting my head on my pillow and try to stop thinking usually works, but really I only do this because I think it's most beneficial to everybody as a democracy is obviously not working. I would just hope I would not be power hungry and destroy my new world just for my own personal glory and power.

Well it seems to me that you're not being entirely honest here. You give the impression that this is some sort of democracy when in reality its a democratic abomination. You say that the people govern many aspects of their lives but the choice ultimately lies with you. Isn't that just a nice way of saying "You can vote for whatever you want but if I don't like the outcome tough shit"? And what is the purpose of these leaders? Seems to me that they're a front so the people think they have some sort of indirect connection to you. But in reality they're essentially your lap dogs so you can keep better control over your ever-expanding empire.

Half on half, of course the opinion of the people is important. Especially the opinion of the majority, seeing as they are more powerful then I am and therefor pleasing them is very important. Their freedoms would be to decide how to live their lives. Who they want to represent them in some kind of senate. Which would be the governing organisation responsible for almost everything being done except for the outlines or things I take personal interest in.

Consider it a sort of lazyness from me and instead of allowing personal chosen people to run the country for me, I let the people decide who they want to run the country for me when I'm not in the mood to do so. As a result it would also keep me sharp in constant debates with people I disagree with and in contact with the people to explain my decisions and try to keep them happy, because an unhappy population is an disloyal population and that is the last thing I would want.

It's kind of a mix between an authoritarian system and a democracy which in my opinion is probably the best thing out there, as long as you have a strong powerful charismatic caring and intelligent leader to lead the nation.

First let me say, I admire your honesty. Most people I get into debates with sugar-coat capitalism as the saviour from the evils of totalitarian communism. At least you're able to admit its every man for himself when capitalism is applied. But there some flaws that jump out at me that I have to address.

Besides the obvious immorality of the whole idea, what happens when there's nothing left? Capitalism requires the constant increase of capital. What do you do once you've built all over this tiny island, corralled all the animals into zoos, and sapped every resource from the planet? What happens when there's no more room to expand? No more capital to gain? This is part of the reason your people left Earth in the first place.

What's so immoral about it? Capitalism does not mean we can not take care of the weak? Just that we try to make sure that the strong stay strong and others become strong. The poor are less important and our primary goal is of course to get them jobs and working. I am not going to give them money land or food for nothing unless they absolutely need it, and if they don't then they should just get a job.

As for the rest I would like animals to live in the wild, as I said. What I wouldn't mind however would be breeding farms for some animals as for us to get food or whatever from them. Meaning that there would be a population of the animals in the wild and a population in zoos and cramped farm rooms. People come first.

How do you plan for the long haul? Capitalism only satisfies there here and now. Immediate gratification. Yea, sure there's the idea of investments but those are usually, if not always, gambles, depending on variables that you have no control over. Furthermore, its dependent on competition. There can be no winner unless there is a loser. If you're getting rich, someone's getting poor. That can't be good for the economy of a young society.

Why not? A young society growing on the very idea's of power and wealth would attract those same people looking for the same thing. At the same time it would attract poor people with no life in the old world that would seek one in the new. Those people could be used as the working class, thus immediately creating a society of rich and poor people. At first it would also attract primarily the kind of people that are capable of working and those that just want to get really rich, and that is exactly what a starting nation would need if it wants to get a lot of capitol. At the same time there would be me telling the company's to focus on long term efforts think of the environment the animals and the workers but also to look above and beyond and take risks instead of just the safe routes and invent new things as those bring money too. It would probably be a fragile hard to run economy but capitalism has it set backs as it does not look at the long term thing and it needs too, but other structures just don't get the best out of people.

A government run capitalistic market could indeed bring forward the best of both, or the worst in which I'd go bankrupt and would probably be killed or arrested or whatever but hey I personally think it's worth taking the risk.

Originally posted by Fishy
At the same place the planet ends, of course there is going to be a limit to the amount of people allowed there. But I would first need people to be able to decide what is enough and to much. If however I would notice that there is to much I would make immigration harder and try to focus more on getting certain types of people there instead of just anybody. At first however I would need everybody.

Originally posted by Fishy
People that hate me, want to overthrow me, stick to ancient technology and try to fight me when I did not start it. They would not be helped by me at all unless they would surrender and apologise and I would feel no need to make their life any better. Natives attacking me because I took their land is understandable, I'd try to negotiate with them and work out some kind of mutual beneficial arrangement, if that's not possible then they are ****ed not me. Which is why they probably will, because I'll make it very clear that I'll destroy every single last one of them if they don't,

Originally posted by Fishy
Crawling under the covers putting my head on my pillow and try to stop thinking usually works, but really I only do this because I think it's most beneficial to everybody as a democracy is obviously not working. I would just hope I would not be power hungry and destroy my new world just for my own personal glory and power.

Originally posted by Fishy
Half on half, of course the opinion of the people is important. Especially the opinion of the majority, seeing as they are more powerful then I am and therefor pleasing them is very important. Their freedoms would be to decide how to live their lives. Who they want to represent them in some kind of senate. Which would be the governing organisation responsible for almost everything being done except for the outlines or things I take personal interest in.

Consider it a sort of lazyness from me and instead of allowing personal chosen people to run the country for me, I let the people decide who they want to run the country for me when I'm not in the mood to do so. As a result it would also keep me sharp in constant debates with people I disagree with and in contact with the people to explain my decisions and try to keep them happy, because an unhappy population is an disloyal population and that is the last thing I would want.

Originally posted by Fishy
It's kind of a mix between an authoritarian system and a democracy which in my opinion is probably the best thing out there, as long as you have a strong powerful charismatic caring and intelligent leader to lead the nation.

Originally posted by Fishy
What's so immoral about it? Capitalism does not mean we can not take care of the weak? Just that we try to make sure that the strong stay strong and others become strong. The poor are less important and our primary goal is of course to get them jobs and working. I am not going to give them money land or food for nothing unless they absolutely need it, and if they don't then they should just get a job.

Originally posted by Fishy
As for the rest I would like animals to live in the wild, as I said. What I wouldn't mind however would be breeding farms for some animals as for us to get food or whatever from them. Meaning that there would be a population of the animals in the wild and a population in zoos and cramped farm rooms. People come first.

Originally posted by Fishy
Why not? A young society growing on the very idea's of power and wealth would attract those same people looking for the same thing. At the same time it would attract poor people with no life in the old world that would seek one in the new. Those people could be used as the working class, thus immediately creating a society of rich and poor people. At first it would also attract primarily the kind of people that are capable of working and those that just want to get really rich, and that is exactly what a starting nation would need if it wants to get a lot of capitol. At the same time there would be me telling the company's to focus on long term efforts think of the environment the animals and the workers but also to look above and beyond and take risks instead of just the safe routes and invent new things as those bring money too. It would probably be a fragile hard to run economy but capitalism has it set backs as it does not look at the long term thing and it needs too, but other structures just don't get the best out of people.

Originally posted by Fishy
A government run capitalistic market could indeed bring forward the best of both, or the worst in which I'd go bankrupt and would probably be killed or arrested or whatever but hey I personally think it's worth taking the risk.

Originally posted by Marxman
[B]Sounds like another country I know. America. Immigration was great when it was white people moving in. As soon as the brown people wanted a piece immigration was a problem. Please don't tell me you're modeling your society after America. 👇

I'm not going to close the border when black people start coming, I'm going to limit the amount of people that can go through the border when we start having huge unemployement figures of people who can still work. When that happens I'll only allow people in that are useful. If we need more doctors for instance I'll only let people that are studying to become a doctor or are already a doctor come in, depending on how much need we have for them.

You're sounding more and more like a tyrant. Its inevitable that you'll have people that hate you. They may not necessarily attempt to overthrow you but you'll have those who disagree with you nonetheless. Are you going to kill all political opposition? I see a revolution ending your rule pretty quickly.

Political opposition is not something to be feared it's something to applaud greet and debate with. Killing political opposition makes people scared of you, and scaring people only works so long. So I would go for another route and work more towards talking with them and learning from them. Admitting you are wrong and taking idea's from your opposition could only ever hurt in a democracy.

Why wouldn't a democratic system work. Believe it or not, you may not always know what's best. The people have a better idea of what is needed than a ruler high on his throne. You can't possibly understand what the working class goes through if you're comfortable in your castle (or whatever building you'll have built for you).

Is that so? The working class right here in this country voted into office three party's that should never have entered.

The first is a communistic like party who according to all independent researches on political plans would bankrupt the country in 10 years and create massive conflict and international legal problems if they could execute their plans.

They also elected a far to right wing party whose only solution is to kick out all the immigrants and that would make us richer, better more able to handle everything. But according to every independent research organization we need a lot of those people and what he would do would just hurt the economy. And thus the very people that vote for him.

The third is a party that only cares about animals, but that could just be a trend and not to be taken to seriously.

The people have no clue on what is good for them unless they actually start reading political plans and start understanding what the hell party's are about. That's what I could make sure off. The second elections would be run like they are in the US or even something close to that I could stop the political party's tell them to act normal and start using actual points to convince the people instead of fear mongering and insults. A democracy only works if the people are smart enough to vote, and they generally are not.

Ok, so keeping the people satisfied to avoid an uprising by actually listening to them once in a while. Fair enough. But to what extent? What sort of things would you take personal interest in? Give me an example of something you would have absolute say in, regardless of the people's opinion.

Euthanasia, the death penalty, abortion, gay marriage, the military, foreign politics, my own power, how elections would be fought on issues and not popularity, large scale economical decisions. Like for instance are we going to decrease military budget and increase health budget or remove budget from schooling to spend more on foreign aid?

But what is really important here is how well I could listen to criticism if people fight on points and they make a better point then I do the question would be how I would react to that, would I stay stubborn and refuse to admit my mistake or would I admit my mistake and use their knowledge to improve things and actually do what is best even if I didn't agree with it at first. I think I would.

Here's an example of not planning for the future. This system is left wide open for abuse. I'm not questioning your good intent for your new society. But what happens when you're dead and gone? Who's to say your successor will have the same integrity and strength of character? This is how, IMO, a dictatorship is born. The creator of a totalitarian government begins with good intentions. Then he is either corrupted by his power or his successor is already corrupted, and abuses the power he has. What will you do to make sure this doesn't happen to your society?

Poor planning? Why? The first thing would always be to make sure the system would become democratic upon my death, this is to make sure that if I die the people will get the power and not my second in command who happens to like killing me.

Then if I grow older and death comes close or a real possibility I could always change that, I could appoint on heir that I personally feel confident in or somebody the people like.

There may be some type of effort to help the poor but the fact still remains that Capitalism is a system relying in competition. The rich only get rich by exploiting the poor, the working class. To make a profit, they must charge more than they are paying. To make a product it takes resources and workers to make. The producer must buy the resources and pay the workers and then charge that plus more to make any money from it. The workers, then have to buy things that cost more than they're being paid. How someone can see that as fair, I'll never know.

How can one not? The hardest workers and the smartest can get most, it relies on the system of the powerful getting more powerful and the weak getting weak. It's called evolution. If you are smart enough to work your way up then you should be able too, if you can't then you won't. You will be taken care off but the fact is a society should be build on the best qualities of the strong not on the qualities of the weak. The weak should just be taken care off, but nothing more.

Anything else will simply not work. I wouldn't go to any kind of schooling if it had no impact on what job I would get or on my salary, hell why would I even work when my next door neighbor who invents all kinds of really cool stuff lives in the same dumb as I do? It makes no difference what I do. And my neighbor would likely realize that too and stop inventing all this really cool money making stuff.

The only way to make people work is to reward them for doing so and punishing them for not.

I agree with you there. I don't really see the point in considering animals as our equals. Yes, they deserve to be treated humanely (i.e. ability to roam freely, killed with little or no pain involved, etc) but in the end I like my burgers and wouldn't want that taken away 😄

See, I do have good idea's 🙂

Actually you're 50% right. For your economy to boom at this early stage, you'll need to have a upper and lower class. But its not the "boss" class and the working class. The upper class would be completely exploiting the working class, worse than the capitalist society today. Think about it, most societies were built off free labor. Medieval Europe had kings commanding their serfs. Early America was ran on slavery. After a revolution, these societies converted to capitalism, and instead of kings and serfs we have bourgeois and proletarians. Instead of free labor, they are paid minimum wage. Not much better, eh?

Of course it's better, people with minimum wages don't deserve more that much is clear otherwise they would have it. As long as they can have their lives medical care and schooling for their children I'm happy. If the money making class makes millions of them then that credits them. Of course I would ensure that the poorest class in my country would be able to actually have a roof over their heads, food, schooling and medical care so there lives aren't all that bad and far better then with slaves.

They are not going to be equal to directors and whatever though. Having everybody equal does not motivate you to move above and beyond yourself. Besides my stuff would suck too, and I wouldn't want that.

Good luck with that 😉 I, myself, would take a more stable route. I'll post my ideas on this soon enough. I just want to get more feedback from other people before I post my own opinion.

I don't see how you would want to create a working economy without capitalism but if you figure it out, please do share. I would like to know.

Originally posted by Fishy
I'm not going to close the border when black people start coming, I'm going to limit the amount of people that can go through the border when we start having huge unemployement figures of people who can still work. When that happens I'll only allow people in that are useful. If we need more doctors for instance I'll only let people that are studying to become a doctor or are already a doctor come in, depending on how much need we have for them.

Originally posted by Fishy
Political opposition is not something to be feared it's something to applaud greet and debate with. Killing political opposition makes people scared of you, and scaring people only works so long. So I would go for another route and work more towards talking with them and learning from them. Admitting you are wrong and taking idea's from your opposition could only ever hurt in a democracy.

Originally posted by Fishy
Is that so? The working class right here in this country voted into office three party's that should never have entered.

The first is a communistic like party who according to all independent researches on political plans would bankrupt the country in 10 years and create massive conflict and international legal problems if they could execute their plans.

They also elected a far to right wing party whose only solution is to kick out all the immigrants and that would make us richer, better more able to handle everything. But according to every independent research organization we need a lot of those people and what he would do would just hurt the economy. And thus the very people that vote for him.

The third is a party that only cares about animals, but that could just be a trend and not to be taken to seriously.

The people have no clue on what is good for them unless they actually start reading political plans and start understanding what the hell party's are about. That's what I could make sure off. The second elections would be run like they are in the US or even something close to that I could stop the political party's tell them to act normal and start using actual points to convince the people instead of fear mongering and insults. A democracy only works if the people are smart enough to vote, and they generally are not.

Now I'm not saying that everyone is capable. We are all obviously unequal by birth in many different ways. Some people are just smarter, stronger, etc. That doesn't mean you can't give them the chance.

If the people make a mistake then that's their problem. Making it easier for the people to correct their mistakes can be a way to help this. Making an easier impeachment process, etc.

Originally posted by Fishy
Euthanasia, the death penalty, abortion, gay marriage, the military, foreign politics, my own power, how elections would be fought on issues and not popularity, large scale economical decisions. Like for instance are we going to decrease military budget and increase health budget or remove budget from schooling to spend more on foreign aid?

Originally posted by Fishy
But what is really important here is how well I could listen to criticism if people fight on points and they make a better point then I do the question would be how I would react to that, would I stay stubborn and refuse to admit my mistake or would I admit my mistake and use their knowledge to improve things and actually do what is best even if I didn't agree with it at first. I think I would.

Originally posted by Fishy
Poor planning? Why? The first thing would always be to make sure the system would become democratic upon my death, this is to make sure that if I die the people will get the power and not my second in command who happens to like killing me.

Then if I grow older and death comes close or a real possibility I could always change that, I could appoint on heir that I personally feel confident in or somebody the people like.

Originally posted by Fishy
How can one not? The hardest workers and the smartest can get most, it relies on the system of the powerful getting more powerful and the weak getting weak. It's called evolution. If you are smart enough to work your way up then you should be able too, if you can't then you won't. You will be taken care off but the fact is a society should be build on the best qualities of the strong not on the qualities of the weak. The weak should just be taken care off, but nothing more.

Anything else will simply not work. I wouldn't go to any kind of schooling if it had no impact on what job I would get or on my salary, hell why would I even work when my next door neighbor who invents all kinds of really cool stuff lives in the same dumb as I do? It makes no difference what I do. And my neighbor would likely realize that too and stop inventing all this really cool money making stuff.

The only way to make people work is to reward them for doing so and punishing them for not.

Originally posted by Fishy
Of course it's better, people with minimum wages don't deserve more that much is clear otherwise they would have it. As long as they can have their lives medical care and schooling for their children I'm happy. If the money making class makes millions of them then that credits them. Of course I would ensure that the poorest class in my country would be able to actually have a roof over their heads, food, schooling and medical care so there lives aren't all that bad and far better then with slaves.

Originally posted by Fishy
They are not going to be equal to directors and whatever though. Having everybody equal does not motivate you to move above and beyond yourself. Besides my stuff would suck too, and I wouldn't want that.

Originally posted by Fishy
I don't see how you would want to create a working economy without capitalism but if you figure it out, please do share. I would like to know.

Originally posted by Marxman
Hmm, weird. I guess it'll be easier for you to control something like that, since it's its own planet.

That would make it easier to stop people from entering yes.

Ok, I measured you wrong at first. But can you do that? Most of the things I've been saying to you in this particular debate you haven't really been listening to. It seems like your debating with your mouth open and ears shut. Can you debate with an open mind?

I don't really see how I am not, the things you have said were mostly just disagreeing with me without offering other possibility's or just blank idea's... Of course I'm not just going to accept those without question, you would have to convince me you are right. Facts and statistics usually help with things like that.

I totally agree with you. But that responsibility lies with the leadership of the society. Education, proper campaigns, a system where there's more than Republican and Democrat as choices. These things are essential. If you guarantee that your entire population is properly educated, and made aware of the issues and implications then its possible for the people to make an educated decision.

And that is what I am going to make sure of, political party's will have to fight on issues not on people. Political party's would have to look further then just simple electoral gain but instead look at what they think is best for the country and be fair against their opposition. That obviously doesn't happen in most country's today. Not in the Netherlands and far from it in the US where the elections are run on who is the biggest gun nut in the world. Forcing party's to focus on issues and voters to actually know the points of the party they are voting on makes sure that the will of the people will actually be carried out.

Now I'm not saying that everyone is capable. We are all obviously unequal by birth in many different ways. Some people are just smarter, stronger, etc. That doesn't mean you can't give them the chance.

Who ever said that they wouldn't get a chance? I'm just saying that the political party's would have to focus on the issues instead of the people.

If the people make a mistake then that's their problem. Making it easier for the people to correct their mistakes can be a way to help this. Making an easier impeachment process, etc.

Preventing is better then healing if you ask me. If I force the political party's to focus on the issues and perhaps even make the people take a test before they are allowed to vote (Name 5 or 10 points of the party you are voting for) that would prevent all this crap. Unless of course the politicians were lying, but hey that's why I am a dictator so I can always throw them out. Of course I would only do so if the people think it needs to be done, to prevent them from rebelling and all that crap.

Lol so that leaves like drug policy and what kind of toilet paper they wipe their asses with.

That leaves a hell of a lot more, the leaders they elect into office can of course fill in things and talk to me and try to persuade me on the before mentioned issues. They can also decide on how to execute plans and where budget and things like that go. For instance with the military I could say that I would want to invade the moon, then generals would come up decide how to do it tell me the best approach I would agree and do it. The same goes for politics.

Me deciding that the health care needs to become better leaves the rest with figuring out how to do it. Not to mention that they can always decide a hell of a lot of things and then show me what they want to do, in which case I could agree or disagree with it. It also leaves the entire economy and giving out budget. It's just that I want to know about what will happen and that I can veto it. My knowledge on the subject however would often be far to low to know anything more then removing budget from health care is bad and increasing military spending is unnecessary.

Dude, I'm just saying that it seems like everything you want to have absolute say in are controversial issues that you most likely have already made up your mind about. Can you truly listen to somebody's opinion on gay marriage?

Gay Marriage? No I can't, it's allowed. Period. I will not limit people's freedom on issues like that, if the other people don't like that it will just suck for them. Not my problem. I would be more then willing to listen on issues like foreign policy or domestic policy.

Pretty weak, dude. I don't think this can really hold up and I don't think you do either. I think you just pulled this outta your ass so you have an answer for my criticisms. Your society is headed for dictatorship unless you set up some kind of accountability during your rule.

Explain, as long as I live I will rule, what happens after that will be decided in due time. I can not decide in advance because I simply don't know everything. In a perfect society I would get a son or a daughter that is smart intelligent just and kind charismatic and charming and able to convince the people he or she is right and continue my rule once I'm gone with the people happy. But that will probably not happen so I have to keep my options open. Giving the power to the people upon my dead just ensures that somebody won't take over from me without me allowing it.

The semi-democratic government also ensures that there is at least some experience with elections and stuff, also the transition will likely not go smooth.

Ok I see there's no changing your mind about this. I just hoped that we have some how come to a point where we are past hording of material goods. It seems we never will.

People will never stop caring about material goods, if you think that a communistic system or one where we don't care about material will ever work then you are dead wrong. Besides if my country was filled with people like that it wouldn't really prosper.

But most minimum wage jobs don't offer things like this. Minimum wage jobs are usually part-time jobs too, and most of the time businesses aren't required to give benefits such as medical, dental, and the like. A lot of these discount big-time businesses like Walmart and Target hire only part-time and get away with not giving the majority of their employees these types of benefits. Is this one of those things you'd have absolute say in? They won't like that. It'll be hard to attract those businesses that can pay that top dollar to support your economy.

They don't in the United States, they do in the Netherlands. Of course all people will get those things the state will make sure of it. I have said that a few times already, the state will take care of those that can't take care of themselves. If people are working at company's we would also hold the company's accountable and make laws that force them to help pay for their employees. It will still attract company's because we simply have a huge ass market for company's, and people will still start new company's. So no real problem, besides no matter how much I love economical gain it should not be our primary concern. The people will still have to go first.

What do the directors do without their laborers? Not a damn thing. Its a balance that needs to be recognized.
Ok I guess I've stalled long enough. I'm tired right now so I'll post that up tomorrow.

A director however has more responsibility, a higher education and often believe it or not a more challenging job with far more at risk then with common laborers. There is no reason to become a director and get all that responsibility if there isn't any possibility of reward. Just a lot of risk.

Stimulating the people is very important.