What political philosophy would work best in your ideal society?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 .

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 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.

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.

And accurately determining the moral integrity of an individual would be nearly impossible.

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.

Still....I dont suppose that it could be more flawed than letting the ignorant masses decide our leaders.

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

If you mean complete survival of the fittest with no laws, well.... that would be rather brutish wouldnt it?

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.