[QUOTE=Binladen34;27076949]If only this were true.[/QUOTE]
I think it's true. Any arguments against this?
People are fundamentally unequal - they shouldn't have equal rights. They should have rights which could adjust them to the society in the best way possible with their current properties.
Sounds a bit like a technocracy.
[URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technocracy[/URL]
I agree with the vid entirely.
Scandinavia is ruled by queens, but governed by the people.
That's funny because no functioning government is just a democracy.
Those who believe that socialism is wrong because of all the bad things socialist stats did in the past should really look at [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-wing_dictatorship]this article[/url]
[QUOTE=Transhuman;27077201]I think it's true. Any arguments against this?
People are fundamentally unequal - they shouldn't have equal rights. They should have rights which could adjust them to the society in the best way possible with their current properties.[/QUOTE]
jesus we have a nazi in the room
That's just stupid. Society wouldn't be formed for the average person, it would be formed for the smartest people, whom more then likely haven't had the same experiences as the average person.
[QUOTE=MagicBurrito;27112748]jesus we have a nazi in the room[/QUOTE]
What makes you think that I'm a nazi?
[editline]1st January 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=Trunk Monkay;27113191]That's just stupid. Society wouldn't be formed for the average person, it would be formed for the smartest people, whom more then likely haven't had the same experiences as the average person.[/QUOTE]
No, it would be formed by smart people based on values which are more or less the same for all people. Smarter people would be able to fulfill those values better due to their superior intelligence.
well then get your ass ready for a shitty life with no rights if you think its going to come true
[QUOTE=MagicBurrito;27114112]well then get your ass ready for a shitty life with no rights if you think its going to come true[/QUOTE]
Troll or a dumb poster? I've checked some posts made by you in the past 24 hours, and you seem to follow almost every aspect of behavior stated by the typical and most commonly used definition of an Internet troll.
Moderators, please look at posts made by him in the past few days, users like this should be eliminated from this forum if you want it to have more serious and/or productive discussions.
Honestly, you're just a prick. You want to have a discussion of your ideals of controlling people, by separating the "smart people" from the apperant "dumb people."
There's something wrong with you, son.
[QUOTE=MagicBurrito;27114303]Honestly, you're just a prick. You want to have a discussion of your ideals of controlling people, by separating the "smart people" from the apperant "dumb people."
There's something wrong with you, son.[/QUOTE]
Oh, sure, I'm an illuminati 33 degre alien mason who came to the Earth from Niburu during the 2010 solar eclipse to divide and conquer!!!111
Bad troll, reported.
In case if you weren't trolling, which is very unlikely - virtually any retard can see that people are fundamentally unequal. One of these inequalities is the decision making process. People who can make decisions BETTER than others should rule.
I think you misunderstand what trolling is. However, I'm done here.
[QUOTE=MagicBurrito;27114535]I think you misunderstand what trolling is. However, I'm done here.[/QUOTE]
Oh, I'm not. You kept provoking different users of this forum which can be seen by checking your posts made in the past 24 hours.
[QUOTE=Transhuman;27114565]Oh, I'm not. You kept provoking different users of this forum which can be seen by checking your posts made in the past 24 hours.[/QUOTE]
stop posting
All governments are bad but not having a government is also bad so just DEAL WITH IT PEOPLE!
[QUOTE=Ownederd;27114592]stop posting[/QUOTE]
No, I won't.
Stop agreeing with yourself, I don't think anyone else does.
[QUOTE=MagicBurrito;27114777]Stop agreeing with yourself, I don't think anyone else does.[/QUOTE]
Couldn't care less if some apes don't agree with me.
[QUOTE=Transhuman;27114702]No, I won't.[/QUOTE]
[IMG]http://filesmelt.com/dl/uhhuh.PNG[/IMG]
OP, I like how you're rating yourself agree and how you're dumb bombing people who disagree with you.
[QUOTE=CoolKingKaso;27114875]OP, I like how you're rating yourself agree and how you're dumb bombing people who disagree with you.[/QUOTE]
Nice to know. I like it too to be honest. I'm doing it because the rating system is stupid and makes people's decisions influenced by the opinion of the majority.
I certainly agree with myself, by the way, so I would give myself a proper rating.
[QUOTE=Transhuman;27114967]Nice to know. I like it too to be honest. I'm doing it because the rating system is stupid and makes people's decisions influenced by the opinion of the majority.
I certainly agree with myself, by the way, so I would give myself a proper rating.[/QUOTE]
I think you're just getting upset because nobody agrees with your superiority complex.
[QUOTE=MagicBurrito;27114997]I think you're just getting upset because nobody agrees with your superiority complex.[/QUOTE]
A very valid one, based on professionally administered IQ testing. I don't subject to ape ...sorry I meant peer pressure.
[QUOTE=cdr248;27114660]All governments are bad but not having a government is also bad so just DEAL WITH IT PEOPLE![/QUOTE]
How is no government bad? Have you experienced any society that exists without centralized government?
There is an issue with humanity as a whole, wherein such a vast majority are simply incapable of comprehending anything different than that in which we are perpetually suffering under the yoke of incompetent, ignorant and inept leadership. No man is capable of deciding what is best for any other man for any long-term duration. Democratically elected individuals are the result of popular vote that has historically proven abysmally error-prone.
What centralized government existed before there were none? How did humanity thrive in such an environment?
I would suggest that the natural order of things would take root very quickly in a situation of leaderless anarchy. The initial stages would certainly be a painful readjustment, but abjuring what amounts to indentured servitude at best and slavery at worst leads to a resurgence of self-reliance, self-responsibility and self-sustainability. Arguing against any of these is a moot point, though you're welcome to make the attempt.
The best example for the barrier to adoption of change in governance I can think of is from the perspective of a feudal serf. He would be unable to conceive a society in a democratic republic because of an encompassing notion that order would break down should the system of lords and royalty be dismantled. If you were to suggest the alternative, it would be met with derision and dismissal.
Today's societies are certainly at a point where the population density and cultural maturity could start exploring the potential of a truly capitalistic system. Capitalism is not a form of government. It is a description of the natural progression and responses inherent in a society based on free interaction amongst free men and voluntary trade between the same. This is in direct opposition to centralized governments (which is itself a monopoly, yet they deem themselves qualified to fight monopolies... conflict of interest?) in any form. Capitalism is supplanted and its functional base eradicated by governments to a point where psychological manipulation of the majority leads to the mere notion becoming distorted into socialism. This allows control to be maintained by that same central government that promises the moon and delivers misery.
Once you own a business and truly understand the way the system works, it will be amazing that anything can be done under the jurisdiction of any centralized government.
The same patterns and subsequent cycles can be seen throughout history. I've studied these concepts to a great degree and have written a significant amount.
[url]http://noblenomads.com/2010/12/22/hold-maturity/[/url]
I also recommend asking yourself who benefits from any decision made by government and why. With any law passed and assumed to be 'right', whom is that 'right' according to?
Back to the main subject - democracy on its own amounts to nothing more than mob rule - the whim of the majority, irrespective of whether a decision is good or correct. Anyone can be swayed by a convincing enough argument if the verbiage is clever enough. No mature individual will do what is not in his best interest.
There is a reason that the United States was successful for an extended period under a representative democratic republic. Remember that, as the representative and republic aspects seem to have been lopped off by those in power. It is far easier to control the masses through a popularity contest than to appeal to a cultivated sense of logic and reason.
Now that I've ranted enough, happy new year!
[QUOTE=miscreanity;27115845]
I would suggest that the natural order of things would take root very quickly in a situation of leaderless anarchy.[/QUOTE]
Our ancestors lived in what could be considered a leaderless anarchy thousands of years ago. Therefore, by your logic, the "natural order of things" would take place as natural instinct governed how we thrived in our environments. I ask you, is this world we live in now not a result of the "natural order of things?" If so, then why is centralized government here today? Why aren't we all still living in small tribes scattered across this world?
According to you, the natural order of things would take place in a leaderless anarchy, and most would agree with me when I say that thousands of years ago our ancestors were living in such an anarchy. Somewhere along the mighty stretch of time, the masses of tribes living across the world somehow morphed into centralized governments, save for a couple exceptions. Wouldn't that mean that the natural order of things would eventually lead this leaderless anarchy to return right back to centralized government, the exact same thing that I assume you believe would become eradicated as a result of humans returning to their natural idealism?
My point is that, in the end, the natural order of things ended up bringing anarchy into government. That is to say that we naturally lead ourselves to follow such powers. If we were to return back into such a leaderless anarchy, would we not return into a centralized government? We would. We might not return quickly into it; we might remain in tribes for quite a long period of time. However, somewhere along the line, the large, centralized government will rear its head back in. All we would accomplish in returning to anarchy is temporarily removing centralized government and perhaps stunting the growth of humanity overall.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
