1
   

Perfect Government?

 
 
roger
 
  1  
Reply Thu 21 Apr, 2011 12:24 pm
@hamilton,
hamilton wrote:

. . . All the power goes to the people, in a way that all are equal. . . .


And how does this differ from the classic "Two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner?
hamilton
 
  1  
Reply Thu 21 Apr, 2011 03:37 pm
@roger,
in this case, this is a majority oppressing a minority. total equality does not really involve that.
hamilton
 
  1  
Reply Thu 21 Apr, 2011 07:03 pm
@hamilton,
in this case, it would be wolves (or sheep) choosing who is for dinner.
0 Replies
 
Fido
 
  2  
Reply Fri 22 Apr, 2011 02:38 pm
@roger,
roger wrote:

hamilton wrote:

. . . All the power goes to the people, in a way that all are equal. . . .


And how does this differ from the classic "Two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner?
People do have a way of feeding on the less intelligent, but it is only because they choose to, and not because those they feed on are sheep... Jefferson said in old age that people are not born with saddles on their backs and those who choose to ride them are not born with spurs... The difference between one and another is slight, but the world changes in time out of slight differences.. If people are bound and determined to master each other and enslave who they can then make all aware of the fact, and rather than justifying it, free the slaves and tear down the tyrants periodically and let people start fresh... In spite of what is commonly said, those who have the money now will not have it next... Those people made ill by want, by pain, and by misery will out of neurosis seek power over others, and their children raised in suxury will seek in vain the meaning of it all... Look out for the hungry...

There is an old saying that if you put a begger in the saddle he will ride the horse to death... To take power from the wealthy is not to give it to life's beggers... Democracy is the best protection from tyrants on either end of the continuum because it gives justice to all, and sees justice as a universal right... And it is...

The object is not just to take wealth and power from the few, but for all to understand how much that wealth and powr in the hands of a few is destructive of the society, and corrosive to all morals... We must spread wealth and power evenly because there in all hands it can do little damage...
hamilton
 
  1  
Reply Fri 22 Apr, 2011 06:24 pm
@Fido,
if the wealth and power is spread, but people banned together, wouldn't it open the way for a new tyranny?
0 Replies
 
hamilton
 
  1  
Reply Fri 22 Apr, 2011 06:35 pm
@Fido,
"We must spread wealth and power evenly because there in all hands it can do little damage... "
you really are a democrat...
the thing is, in order to have that work, it must be worldwide, for where there is inequality, there is potential conflict. but even then, it would destroy growth. that's how communism had it. cut off the tops of grass that grows above the lawn.
but then again, if the whole lawn grew overnight...
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 22 Apr, 2011 06:48 pm
@Fido,
Fido, It has nothing to do with "less intelligent." That's the reason why highly educated and scholarly people belong to both parties. If one was to measure their IQ, I'm sure they are pretty much equally represented. It should be about making life comfortable and safe for all of our citizens, but politics will not allow that to happen.

Look what the GOP is now fighting for; destroy public unions, further reduce taxes for the rich, support all wars, destroy Medicare and Medical, destroy Planned Parenthood, and privatize social security.

When you ask them what ever happened to the job creation they promised during the last campaign, they'll say cutting taxes for the rich will create jobs.

And the GOP has at least a 50/50 chance of winning the next election. Look at their top contenders; Palin and Gingrich. Forget Trump; he'll spend his money and lose.
0 Replies
 
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Sat 23 Apr, 2011 11:04 am
@hamilton,
hamilton wrote:

"We must spread wealth and power evenly because there in all hands it can do little damage... "
you really are a democrat...
the thing is, in order to have that work, it must be worldwide, for where there is inequality, there is potential conflict. but even then, it would destroy growth. that's how communism had it. cut off the tops of grass that grows above the lawn.
but then again, if the whole lawn grew overnight...
If you want to see wealth in its proper perspective you must look at honor societies with honor economies... Money is our equvilant of honor, but in honor societies people actually had to deserve their honor, and they had to buy it in some fashion from the rest of society, with service... People in those societies which were very democratic and always communistic were no different from people today in their seeking after distinction... They did not want to be just anybody, but some body, heroic, and mythic... Socialism equalized resources, and it regulated behavior in regard to resources, but it never robbed the individual of his individuality... In fact, though we make a myth of the individual in our glory of outlaws, their individuals were true individuals, each distinctive in name, and dress, and each proud of his courage and exploits... Our individuals are gutless, and they all buy off the rack, and follow the fashion... Not one of them would have the courage of even the least of men from days past... You mis understand socialism because you are miseducated about socialism by people who simply do not want you to have any understanding...
hamilton
 
  1  
Reply Sat 23 Apr, 2011 05:50 pm
@Fido,
You mis understand socialism because you are miseducated about socialism by people who simply do not want you to have any understanding...
please no call me dumb...
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 23 Apr, 2011 05:51 pm
@hamilton,
"Miseducated?"
hamilton
 
  1  
Reply Sun 24 Apr, 2011 07:20 am
@cicerone imposter,
well, fine. that was my awful sense of humor. in reality, im not really that politically savvy. but people dont need to know what politics are, they just need to know what politics should be.
hamilton
 
  1  
Reply Sun 24 Apr, 2011 07:21 am
@hamilton,
i think that either complete power to the government, or anarchy (with some restraint) is the answer.
hamilton
 
  1  
Reply Sun 24 Apr, 2011 07:32 am
@Fido,
the problem with democracy, is that there is always an opportunity for a majority to oppress a minority. in a republic its the other way around.but when it is anarchy with some form of restraint on people, it ensures equality, which is the most important thing in a government. the alternative would be communism, with a select group of leaders, with no way of receiving bribes, or any corruption. the only problem would be election. if chosen at birth, though, it would ensure that they are well educated, and guided, so long as the teachers are not power hungry (trying to influence them) another method for the education that could stop corruption would be that the leaders are isolated from birth, and keep getting new teachers, and are taught how to lead in a fair way. to be chosen, they could be volunteered by families, tested, and if they succeed, then they are taken away from the families. this may seem cruel, but it seemed to work well for Jedi, and the only reason they failed was that goddamn anikan skywalker, and palpatine. the system seemed to be pretty golden. sorry if this is a bit unimaginative, but it does kind of make sense.
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Sun 24 Apr, 2011 10:26 am
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:

"Miseducated?"
Would you prefer: Propagandized???...

People get fooled... People get misled... They want to believe, and they do not want the hard work of changing their forms... And when people are denied the truth, what ever is conveyed is miscommunication, and it is a positive injury to them since we all need the truth for our personal and social survival... Our whole existence is put at risk by the lies we tell, accept, and repeat... We may at times seek relief from reality, but no one in their right mind seeks the false in preference for the fact... It is suicide and nothing less...
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Sun 24 Apr, 2011 10:28 am
@hamilton,
hamilton wrote:

i think that either complete power to the government, or anarchy (with some restraint) is the answer.
Economic anarchy as capitalism is has control over the government which has complete power over us... Sounds to me like you have your answer...
0 Replies
 
hamilton
 
  1  
Reply Sun 24 Apr, 2011 10:31 am
@Fido,
the problem with democracy is that there is always a majority oppressing a minority, and in a republic, vice versa. if there were a worldwide democracy, we can be sure that there would be a large war, that would split it up, because people would feel so strongly about their actions. that is why as a worldwide government, democracy is not the way to go. we need either complete anarchy, with enough restrictions that there is no abuse of others, or we need complete control over a subservient population, but still not infringing human rights. have you ever seen an uprising of sheep against the Shepard?
0 Replies
 
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Sun 24 Apr, 2011 10:34 am
@hamilton,
hamilton wrote:

the problem with democracy, is that there is always an opportunity for a majority to oppress a minority. in a republic its the other way around.but when it is anarchy with some form of restraint on people, it ensures equality, which is the most important thing in a government. the alternative would be communism, with a select group of leaders, with no way of receiving bribes, or any corruption. the only problem would be election. if chosen at birth, though, it would ensure that they are well educated, and guided, so long as the teachers are not power hungry (trying to influence them) another method for the education that could stop corruption would be that the leaders are isolated from birth, and keep getting new teachers, and are taught how to lead in a fair way. to be chosen, they could be volunteered by families, tested, and if they succeed, then they are taken away from the families. this may seem cruel, but it seemed to work well for Jedi, and the only reason they failed was that goddamn anikan skywalker, and palpatine. the system seemed to be pretty golden. sorry if this is a bit unimaginative, but it does kind of make sense.
No true democracy would think to act without consensus... Look at the Iroquois Confederacy... They would talk out every issue till everyone who cared to had their say, and then in their vote sought complete consensus... They broke for the first time over the American Revolution, and they paid a terrible price for it... Yet before that time they had made themselves the masters of almost every East of the Mississippee nation because they acted as one... We can be, and are being destroyed by halves... There will always be a minority to prey upon and deny rights to no matter how diminished society becomes... Since Unity is one good goal of our constitution, let us pursue it... Get rid of the parties, demand consensus, and protect minority rights always...
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 24 Apr, 2011 10:37 am
@Fido,
Actually, there are many words that fits the description, but I doubt one word tells the whole story. All political systems are not that simple to define; it's very complex based on its history, and how they developed.

Even our so-called democratic republic is in a shambles that our forefathers could not have envisioned, but they produced an excellent instrument in the Constitution. It's people that makes it difficult; its own citizens help destroy the best there is, because they are more than just miseducated. Most do not even understand their own Constitution with varying interpretations and misinformation.

We're even still fighting the Civil War, because people do not know their own history.

Yea, it's complex.
0 Replies
 
hamilton
 
  1  
Reply Sun 24 Apr, 2011 10:40 am
@Fido,
it was because of democracy that we have such a mess in government today. it allowed parties to be formed. the civil war was caused because of democracy oppressing the south. the north (the majority) was beginning to oppress the south(the minority). that is why the south split. they wanted nothing to do with being minority, because they had dug a hole, and their method of getting out was not acceptable to the north.
hamilton
 
  1  
Reply Sun 24 Apr, 2011 10:44 am
@hamilton,
when the north refused to let them go, it was even more oppression. by states rights, the south had every right to secede. but the north needed the south to keep itself afloat, and was afraid that england could move in once the south seceded. the only reason that the north needed the south was to sustain itself. the south wanted none of that. it was already sustaining its own economy, food, and army. but the north insisted upon keeping the south in the "Union"
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Intrinsic Morality - Discussion by iamtooconfused
Why are we here? - Discussion by Herald
What is Real? - Discussion by mars90000000
what is love? - Discussion by hamilton
is peace necessary in a better world? - Discussion by hamilton
infinite possibilities... - Discussion by hamilton
Complete control... what would you do? - Discussion by hamilton
is christianity win-win? - Discussion by hamilton
perfect people? - Discussion by hamilton
if the devil won... - Discussion by hamilton
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 1.59 seconds on 12/04/2021 at 04:34:02