Would you rather have your government retarded or evil?
27 replies, posted
It's a reasonably simple question.
Who would you rather have in charge:
a fundamentalist christian party, who outlaw abortion, stamp on stem cell research etc., fight against LGBT rights, get rid of environmental legislation/denounce climate change and teach creationism in schools BUT generally don't bow down to lobby groups, stand up for the small business owner and maintain free speech...
or
...a corporate sellout party who quietly revises the definition of freedom behind the scenes, manipulate the media to support their interests, censors the internet, raise taxes on the middle classes and cut them for the rich and generally gain vast material wealth from your suffering BUT has views which are supported by science, allow abortion (if you have the cash), spend on stem cell research and educate about racism and LGBT issues?
I realise there's a lot of overlap. In fact, I think some of the issues are inextricably tied together. One similarity I see is that both types of terrible government will invariably work on misinformation, requiring a majority of docile, deluded and ignorant citizens to function without impedance. A free internet may slowly educate the populace, no matter their country, making the retarded government in particular unsustainable in the long term. Also I think stupid rules are often inherently evil - for instance, restricting freedom for gays is restricting freedom, plain and simple.
Which one is worse though? I can't come to a conclusion.
Retarded.
Doin' it wrong but trying to do it right is likely a lot better than actively doing the wrong thing.
Trick question, they're the same thing!
It's a tough question though. I'm tempted to say I'd rather have an evil government, because I would imagine that they would at least have proper goals. But I could be wrong
I'm starting to agree with you. Plus, I think a retarded government could be more easily disposed of.
[editline]22nd December 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=The DooD;33838728]Trick question, they're the same thing[/QUOTE]
This too. There's so much overlap I started to feel kind of stupid writing the damn thread.
Dunno if I can answer that. Our government is both.
I was going to say, some real life examples of a retarded government and an evil government would be good. Although the Third Reich as an evil government probably beats anything that retarded governments can come up with, unless they made it illegal to live or something.
Florida's bestiality law that made sex illegal would be a good example.
[QUOTE=Beefbars;33838770]Dunno if I can answer that. Our government is both.[/QUOTE]
I'd say they're less evil and more retards for hire
[QUOTE=The DooD;33838835]I was going to say, some real life examples of a retarded government and an evil government would be good. Although the Third Reich as an evil government probably beats anything that retarded governments can come up with, unless they made it illegal to live or something.[/QUOTE]
Yeah. I couldn't stop thinking of the US government when typing up this thread. While at present it seems to be mostly just retarded (possibly just pandering to retards for votes), it looks like it's also in danger of becoming evil (SOPA, NDAA etc.).
Examples of evil governments would be any fascist regime ever, some relevant examples being Egypt (peri- and possibly post-Mubarak) and Syria, while an example of a retarded government might be Italy (also pretty damn corrupt)
see, the issue is so much more complex than 'evil vs. retarded', sometimes they're just bolstered by apathy
Lol OP is basically asking republicans vs. democrats
[QUOTE=SomeRandomGuy16;33839842]Lol OP is basically asking republicans vs. democrats[/QUOTE]
except that Democrats aren't this evil party trying to cut taxes on the rich destroy our freedom.
Probably the first option. Sure, you're not going to be agreeing with the government on many things but from what the OP is describing of it, you'll probably have a higher quality of life. As long as plenty of small and medium businesses exist there will be plenty of competition and a healthy economy as a result, which would benefit everyone. Freedom of speech goes without saying, and not bowing down to lobby groups would presumably mean looking at what the issue is and making a decision that doesn't harm the interests of citizens as a result of improving the standing of a corporation.
Both.
That way when they try to do evil, they're too retarded and they end up doing good, so it's a win-win.
evil
Evil = corrupt?
If so, retarded. Although our governement is [I]supposed[/I] to be a democracy, so in a perfect world, even a retarded government would still execute the desires of the people. Evil government would not and would run off and do their own shit.
I don't know, actually. It sort of depends on the country. If you where to have a country with lots of people and a poor military service, then it wouldn't be [I]too[/I] hard to have a successful revolution and fix that government, but if it had a good military or not very many citizens, then it would be best to just have a government that sucks at their job.
Depends on the system really, but overall I'd choose [I]evil[/I] if it didn't mean [I]corrupt[/I] because morality is subjective and ignorance is bliss. Nazi Germany, for all its sins, accomplished some great things as did the Soviet Union.
Retarded, I've been living in one for at least 12 years now and at least it's fixable if you get the right people.
yes to answer the OP, i would rather have the democrats be in charge
Well my government is already retarded so...Evil.
Purely evil versus pants-on-head retarded.. hmm
I'm gonna go with pant's-on-head retarded, at least they don't make shitty decisions so they can be evil.
The first one you described is horrendously oppressive on both a material and individual level, whereas the second is oppressive probably on both levels but not quite so much (especially the individual level).
A theocracy oppresses you individualistically because it inflicts such deep values to you. I see this sort of thing as the worst kind of oppression.
While the latter would subtly prescribe values I imagine it would be in a less obtrusive way.
I'd rather have the corporate sellout party. At least they will be willing to advance human knowledge and technological progress, and that would eventually change things.
The Religious party however is reactionary, and I absolutely despise reactionaries.
Me, personally? Retarded. Due to the fact that I will live higher quality.
But, for the sake of humanity and my opinion of the bigger picture? Evil. While it might not be fair or moral, they have the correct interests in mind and with them simply having the ability to assert control over people means they are very smart people that can keep a guiding hand over humanity.
My government's already retarded.
We're blocking websites, but only ones nobody really uses or even heard of.
Weed's illegal to carry, sometimes grow, but if you've already smoked it it's cool because it was self-medicating AKA "for personal usage".
A rape sentance (Just the one, no violence or anything incl.) is like 3 months in prison, yet carrying a knife longer than 6cm is like 2 months.
Seriously, fix up the priorities Denmark.
[editline]23rd December 2011[/editline]
I have to admit though, I'd prefer retarded. Atleast then you know you're somewhat safe.
Probably retard because they might be more open to change while the super rich are dictating what happens next in the evil government.
I would say...retarded,since people could easily influence them.
Sadly enough,America's got both retarded and evil government.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.