Thread: What do you think is the best form of government?

Originally Posted by Minervas Phoenix

Universal mind.
National forms of government. The truth is, everyone governs themself nationally too. lol. Wether you agree with it or not we all govern ourself. We live our life. No-one can live it for us. There is no need to make it anymore complex than that. It's easy. Just govern yourself and call it whatever you want to call it ok. It works. It's all that exists too. nothing else is even possible. I am entertained that you don't have a label for this stark naked obvious concept of nature yet. Something in front of your face and you don't have a label for it yet? Dear oh me. The closest you can find is anarchist. But that doesn't make sense. Because how can anarchy be the result of governing your own life and everyone doing the same. We already do it constantly you can't escape not governing it. But you ask if I am a anarchist anyway. In the other thread you asked if I was a scientologists. How can you honestly think I am both a scientologist and anarchist. Why are you really asking these questions relating to my sanity, to shut me up? That's what you're doing hey. Trying to label my views and myself into categories that suit you that are easy to then discredit, by the insulting way in which the labels are portrayed which does not, mind you. Have any reflection on my personal views. Which then distorts my entire character and what I stand for. Or maybe you just don't know any better? I will say it again so you don't ask later. And if you do there is something wrong. Try and understand I DO NOT subscribe to any labels or categories. I am not that simplistic nor that complex to be a this or a that. I do not wish to be defined to these categories as they do not fit me. I find all of them absolutely useless in my general discussion. Sorry.

Uh, no, I was asking what type of national government you believe in, and it appears that you were saying you don't think we should have one. That would, hypothetically, make you an anarchist. I was just trying to learn what your answer to the thread question is since you had not answered it, and you still have not.

Originally Posted by Minervas Phoenix

I am pretty ignorant when it comes to the details of certain economies because It's not my particular interest. In general the best economies are those that are most independent, wealthy, pleasant to live in? etc. We could argue all day about which is a better economy and what it involves. The point is common sense tells me that greed is a bad thing. And no bad thing ever produced anything good. Before you try and study economics. You better begin with your foundational logic. And this is one of those things you need to understand before you can go any further.

The three wealthiest nations in the world are the U.S., Japan, and Germany. We all have capitalist systems. Capitalism is fueled by greed. Capitalism results from independence and freedom, and it results in having pleasant places to live. If you have a better suggestion, tell me what it is instead of condescendingly telling me I need to look at my foundational logic. You are speaking in very hollow terms.

Originally Posted by Minervas Phoenix

The word capitalistic. What did I say about categories and labels? Yes, the only thing they are good for is to shove them where the sun don't shine to prevent the discussion degrading into pre-conceived notions that have no relevance to the core of anything I say. I can do without them so why can't you. Meet me on my own level. Try and do without them. I'd like to see you try. Thanks. I don't mean to be smart it just seems one does not have to think for themself if they can just collect enough labels and stick them to people as if trying to fill in a jigsaw puzzle with a Jigsaw puzzle machine they don't have to touch. Some claim it makes conversation easier. But it does the opposite. One with the category labeling sticker jigsaw puzzle machine doesn't have to even look at the full picture of what someone is saying. They can just label them and then it makes it all go away.

It is good to use actual terms when you talk about policies. They have a way of specifying messages. Try it some time.

Originally Posted by Alric

I put Representative democracy, though really I like what we have which is a Constitutional Republic. Really any government is going to try to screw you over though. Why is why a constitution is important to try and stop them.

We have a constitutional democratic republic (which means representative). I don't know of a better form of government than that.

Originally Posted by Pensive Patrick

Humans don't have wool.

What's wrong with that? You don't like the government, go find another one. Go join our enemies. We don't care. We'll just end up killing you with our highly trained, highly motivated, highly disciplined army when we invade your pathetic democracy to expand our glorious empire!

Thats why every major empire has been taken down?

I can't believe how many idiots there are on this forum.

Uh, no, I was asking what type of national government you believe in, and it appears that you were saying you don't think we should have one. That would, hypothetically, make you an anarchist. I was just trying to learn what your answer to the thread question is since you had not answered it, and you still have not.

Your views compared to my views. They are like oranges and apples. Let me see if I can reconcile it a bit in your language.

Government.

A government is "the organization, that is the governing authority of a political unit,"[1] "the ruling power in a political society,"[2] and the apparatus through which a governing body functions and exercises authority

Now the governing authority of a political unit is who. People right? They are people! So who do I think should be the governing authority of a politcal unit? People should be. So, that's my national government ok....

How can I be more clear?

The three wealthiest nations in the world are the U.S., Japan, and Germany. We all have capitalist systems. Capitalism is fueled by greed. Capitalism results from independence and freedom, and it results in having pleasant places to live. If you have a better suggestion, tell me what it is instead of condescendingly telling me I need to look at my foundational logic. You are speaking in very hollow terms.

You are making assumptions. There is several reasons why I doubt U.S, Japan, And germany are the better off nations. But that is going off topic. ok.
Do not use the capitalism label. You can't do without those labels can you? Is it the only way you can talk to someone? Prove to me that you can survive without it. Help me see the value in it...Because I also think you are speaking in holllow terms.

It is good to use actual terms when you talk about policies. They have a way of specifying messages. Try it some time.

No it is not good or useful it just means you don't have to think about things while stiring up a big mess at the same time. You may not be aware of how much debate and compexity there is around these concepts you casually mention as if it were properly defined in one word is crazy. Specify your message by demonstrating that you can actually explain your ideas. Rather than resorting to definitions that have many vague and controversial varied associations. When you say capitalism. Some agree some don't. Just saying the word drives a wedge between people automatically. If your trying to divide people against each other that is a great way to do it. If your trying to discuss things properly. You would not use terms that drives wedges between people you would simply explain your ideas in your own words clearly without wild constant categorizing. But then you may find you don't have any ideas of your own. Because you have always followed the consensues without having to really think at all!

Your entire thinking process seems to be founded on this insane use of pre-meditated categorization.

How do you expect to effectively communicate with someone in a discussion when you just randomly strike key definitions of words down as irrelevant or erroneous?

You're effectively saying "we can have a discussion, but you can't use language - you're only allowed to communicate via abstract thought".

And he's correct - the US, Japan and Germany are the world's wealthiest nations by GDP.

I said parliamentary republic.

I think a country can't run without some sort of light dictatorship...otherwise nothing would get done What I mean is that someone has to have power...though if he abusese it you have to have the ability to overthrow him.

A government that is not corrupt. China, which is a lose form of communist would be the perfect government, however it is corrupt i.e. a large amount of death in the recent earthquakes were due to poor building design and development. Which, has been blamed on corruption.

I guess we need a new form of government, not based on the old theories of dictatorship, communism or democracy. We are living in a post modern world.

Saying that K pax world sounds really good.

Originally Posted by wendylove

A government that is not corrupt. China, which is a lose form of communist would be the perfect government, however it is corrupt i.e. a large amount of death in the recent earthquakes were due to poor building design and development. Which, has been blamed on corruption.

I guess we need a new form of government, not based on the old theories of dictatorship, communism or democracy. We are living in a post modern world.

Saying that K pax world sounds really good.

Yea, communism was a way to quickly rebuilt economy due to WW2.

But democracy means rule by the people.. I can't imagine the perfect country without having a sort of democracy.

By the way, for all the people who voted for Totaliarism, please explain.

Originally Posted by Dreamworld

Thats why every major empire has been taken down?

I can't believe how many idiots there are on this forum.

Jeez... calm down. I didn't realise you had such a deep hatred for efficent systems of government.

The past empires your referring to didn't have the structure I proposed. Nowhere near. So what the hell are you talking about?!

The oven is on. It's getting hot in here....

Originally Posted by Dreamworld

But democracy means rule by the people.. I can't imagine the perfect country without having a sort of democracy.

No. Democracy means rule by the majority. Might work well in the US or the UK, but here in Brazil, where the majority is ignorant, and voting is compulsory, it's not that sweety pie.

Anarchy or communism are cases of rule by the people, not democracy.

I was going to vote military dictatorship, however I guess with nukes there is no more point in it. So I went with totalitarian.

I guess if we had someone like Trotsky or Lenin in power, than everything would be alot better. Stalin should have never been in power, Lenin wrote a testament, sayin to kick him out. However, he was saved and Trotsky was isolated, the rest is history.

P.S. Yes I am a Trotskyst.

Might work well in the US or the UK, but here in Brazil, where the majority is ignorant, and voting is compulsory, it's not that sweety pie.

Sorry, but our you white. As if your black(black is a vague term in brazil as it ethically mixed alot) and live in Brazil, you have it bad.

No. Democracy means rule by the majority. Might work well in the US or the UK, but here in Brazil, where the majority is ignorant, and voting is compulsory, it's not that sweety pie. Anarchy or communism are cases of rule by the people, not democracy.

Whatever you say. Sir, and I know better. I, no better. Than you. I now, in the present. Better. Words within words are hidden meanings. As the best system of government remains omnipresent elusive and superior to any other within it. Life as it exists. There will always be a government above a government. You cannot add or take away from timelessness, which is the government of time. My mind is the government of yours. Unless you be smarter. Someone else's mind is the government of mine. Unless I be smarter. There will always be someone looking over your shoulder. There will always be someone one step ahead.

It's a game. White knight takes black castle, Check. Government. Just another move on the chessboard? Or life itself. Just another organization or political power? Or the mover and shaker of all actual pieces in the game. I went to the government to see, and I was looking at me. And they were a slave of government, on so many different levels. Is it real or is it an illusion? What is the difference. There they are. Here we are.

Now your in an entirely different ball game. And in this game. Government has no rules. And that is not a rule. Who or what is there to govern now, that your only enemy is yourself. And that everything in your would is a reflection of your own government. And they were totally independent and larger than you and you blamed them. Not able to control yourself or realize what you were, you gave them the power, and they in turn controlled you. Remaining the gatekeepers of your world. Until the revelation from the high priestess made you realize the government that you saw, was not what it appeared to be on the surface.

This has been a message brought to you by bluewater systems.
[note: sender is not authorized to credit full meaning of message]

Originally Posted by Minervas Phoenix

Now the governing authority of a political unit is who. People right? They are people! So who do I think should be the governing authority of a politcal unit? People should be. So, that's my national government ok....

Of course people do the governing. I was not talking about a government run by machines. The question is what kind of government we should have, not whether people should do their best to take care of themselves and make decisions for themselves in addition to having a government. You have yet to answer the question, and I know you know what it means. If you think we should have a system where each person watches over himself and handles his own punishment of himself and nobody else does, you are an anarchist. So that would be your answer to the question. I am trying to help you answer the question because you seem completely disinterested in it.

I apologize for using words to make my written point. I will look into pantomime and pictionary next time.

Originally Posted by Kromoh

No. Democracy means rule by the majority. Might work well in the US or the UK, but here in Brazil, where the majority is ignorant, and voting is compulsory, it's not that sweety pie.

That is why I believe in representative democracy and not pure democracy.

Originally Posted by Kromoh

Anarchy or communism are cases of rule by the people, not democracy.

Anarchy is rule by no one, and communism involves complete rule by the government. You would hate living in a communist country.

Originally Posted by wendylove

Sorry, but our you white. As if your black(black is a vague term in brazil as it ethically mixed alot) and live in Brazil, you have it bad.

1) What?
2) Do you know anything about Brazil?
3) "Black" is never a vague term. It is always filled with prejudice.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

That is why I believe in representative democracy and not pure democracy.

Representative democracy is better than pure democracy, but it's not good as it is. There will never be a politician you will always agree with. There is never enough time to learn about a candidate's propositions - all you see is people claiming "candidate A is better than candidate B". Thirdly, it would be better if voting weren't compulsory in brazil. Just slightly better.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Anarchy is rule by no one, and communism involves complete rule by the government. You would hate living in a communist country.

Anarchy is not rule by no-one. That is a misconcept made by propaganda. Anarchy is the inexistence of laws which are not generally agreed by society. Killing, for example, is generally seen by society as bad.

Communism is usually a masked dictatorship, and that's the problem about it. True communism would work perfectly, but once again I say human beings are simply not good enough for it. There will always be power-hungriness, unfortunately.

Originally Posted by Kromoh

Anarchy is not rule by no-one. That is a misconcept made by propaganda. Anarchy is the inexistence of laws which are not generally agreed by society. Killing, for example, is generally seen by society as bad.

Anarchy means "no government".

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/anarchy

Originally Posted by Kromoh

Communism is usually a masked dictatorship, and that's the problem about it. True communism would work perfectly, but once again I say human beings are simply not good enough for it. There will always be power-hungriness, unfortunately.

When the people run things, they tend to vote against communism. It can only exist under a totalitarian government. Communism means the government owns everything. Who wants to give up all of their possessions to the government?

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Anarchy means "no government".

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/anarchy

There is a difference between "no government" and "no law". Anarchy means "no government", and, more especifically, "no law enforcement". I'm sorry, dictionary.com, but your definition is untrue. It doesn't mean "no law". The laws are the morals of a society, which are a part of anarchy.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

When the people run things, they tend to vote against communism. It can only exist under a totalitarian government. Communism means the government owns everything. Who wants to give up all of their possessions to the government?

They vote against communism because of propaganda. The world has yet to see a fair communist State. Communism means there is no private possession. Everything is shared according to each person's needs. The entity that shares things is the government, but it doesn't mean the possessiosn belong to the government.

And it's not like you can suddenly give up capitalism and start communism - as with anything else, a natural progression is needed. Socialism is a required in-between stage.

If you ask me, most highly-developed European Countries have progressed from capitalism to a very rich socialism. Sweden, Norway, the Netherlands, Switzerland etc.

----

Finally, and completely off-topic: there is a correlation between the percentages of atheists in a country and that country's HDI. That is a fact, don't try and debate it.

Originally Posted by Kromoh

There is a difference between "no government" and "no law". Anarchy means "no government", and, more especifically, "no law enforcement". I'm sorry, dictionary.com, but your definition is untrue. It doesn't mean "no law". The laws are the morals of a society, which are a part of anarchy.

It is not just dictionary.com. That page has a list of definitions from a lot of dictionaries, and they all support the accepted definition. The literal interpretation of the word is "no government".

How do you have laws without government? How can there be a social contract involving the laws if none of them are official?

Originally Posted by Kromoh

They vote against communism because of propaganda. The world has yet to see a fair communist State. Communism means there is no private possession. Everything is shared according to each person's needs. The entity that shares things is the government, but it doesn't mean the possessiosn belong to the government.

And it's not like you can suddenly give up capitalism and start communism - as with anything else, a natural progression is needed. Socialism is a required in-between stage.

If you ask me, most highly-developed European Countries have progressed from capitalism to a very rich socialism. Sweden, Norway, the Netherlands, Switzerland etc.

You would be willing to let the government have your possessions? You want them to have everybody's? Do you have any idea how much power that would give the government, and do you have any idea how corrupt governments get when they have that much power over their citizens?

Germany is the third wealthiest nation in the world, so it has top notch business and technology. How are the Scandinavian countries more developed than Germany?

Originally Posted by Kromoh

Finally, and completely off-topic: there is a correlation between the percentages of atheists in a country and that country's HDI. That is a fact, don't try and debate it.

The more developed a country is, the more atheists it has, generally. That is because the more advanced and civilized a country is, the more its citizens understand reality. That does not mean increasing the number of atheists in a country makes the country more developed. We had a much better Human Development Index than the Soviet Union, and they were much more atheistic.

What exactly is your point? Forcing a country to be atheistic is automatically beneficial to HDI, even if it is a communist government forcing it? I am only guessing on what your point is. If it is not that, I don't know what it could be. I am an atheist, so I do not object to increasing numbers of atheists, though I definitely am against coercing it.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

It is not just dictionary.com. That page has a list of definitions from a lot of dictionaries, and they all support the accepted definition. The literal interpretation of the word is "no government".

Literal interpretation, bah, sorry but I'm not taking that. That's not what the anarchist movement proposes.

How do you have laws without government? How can there be a social contract involving the laws if none of them are official?

That shows how so very used you are to your system. It's not "law" as in, an official legislation run by the government, but much rather social/moral laws.

You would be willing to let the government have your possessions? You want them to have everybody's? Do you have any idea how much power that would give the government, and do you have any idea how corrupt governments get when they have that much power over their citizens?

Did you read what I wrote? The possessions are not the government's, they're everyone's. Yes, the government tends to be corrupted, and that's the reason why communism won't work for humans - we are sadly too power-hungry for a fair, equal society.

Germany is the third wealthiest nation in the world, so it has top notch business and technology. How are the Scandinavian countries more developed than Germany?

As I said, there's been no example of a working communist State in history. But just to mention it, Germany makes money by exploiting other countries' economies. If the whole world was communist, that wouldn't happen.

What exactly is your point? Forcing a country to be atheistic is automatically beneficial to HDI, even if it is a communist government forcing it? I am only guessing on what your point is. If it is not that, I don't know what it could be. I am an atheist, so I do not object to increasing numbers of atheists, though I definitely am against coercing it.

Nah. My point is that theocracies don't work. The least developed a country is, the more people follow "mass religions" (christianity, islam, judaism, etc). On the other hand, the more developed a country is, the higher is the presence of alternative religions or irreligiousness.

When asked "would you vote in an atheist candidate for president?", 70% of brazilians said "definitely no". For comparison purposes, only 25% said "definitely no" about voting in a black candidate. No wonder Brazil sucks.

Originally Posted by Kromoh

Literal interpretation, bah, sorry but I'm not taking that. That's not what the anarchist movement proposes.

Then I don't know what you are talking about. The definition I am talking about is the definition everybody except the extremely obscure use. You might as well be saying that anarchy means theocracy.

Originally Posted by Kromoh

That shows how so very used you are to your system. It's not "law" as in, an official legislation run by the government, but much rather social/moral laws.

Then you are saying there can be morality norms in an anarchist state. That is true. Those are not laws of any kind, just norms.

Originally Posted by Kromoh

Did you read what I wrote? The possessions are not the government's, they're everyone's. Yes, the government tends to be corrupted, and that's the reason why communism won't work for humans - we are sadly too power-hungry for a fair, equal society.

Everyone's? So I could walk into your house when I feel like it and walk off with your television? No, the government would have to give me your television, which they would be able to do. It is the government that would, in effect, own everything.

Originally Posted by Kromoh

As I said, there's been no example of a working communist State in history. But just to mention it, Germany makes money by exploiting other countries' economies. If the whole world was communist, that wouldn't happen.

What does Germany do that is not fair, and why do you assume something as powerful and unchecked as a communist government would not be so unfair?

There will never be a communist state that will work effectively. Ever. It does not reward greed, so what would the driving force be? Nothing, except maybe death threats.

Originally Posted by Kromoh

Nah. My point is that theocracies don't work. The least developed a country is, the more people follow "mass religions" (christianity, islam, judaism, etc). On the other hand, the more developed a country is, the higher is the presence of alternative religions or irreligiousness.

There is a strong correlation, but there are some really developed countries that are very Christian.

One of the reasons we are trying to advance the Middle East so much is to take away the extreme religiosity.

Originally Posted by Kromoh

When asked "would you vote in an atheist candidate for president?", 70% of brazilians said "definitely no". For comparison purposes, only 25% said "definitely no" about voting in a black candidate. No wonder Brazil sucks.

The percentage of Americans who would not vote for an atheist is about that high, or maybe higher. It looks like I won't be president any time soon.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Then you are saying there can be morality norms in an anarchist state. That is true. Those are not laws of any kind, just norms.

Bah, to my eyes norms and laws are the same. You understand what I mean, don't appeal to semantics.

Everyone's? So I could walk into your house when I feel like it and walk off with your television? No, the government would have to give me your television, which they would be able to do. It is the government that would, in effect, own everything.

When I mean possessions are everyone's, I mean they are evenly divided for each citizen. The government is just an institution who would make that division.
Take banks for example: the organise your money, they keep your money, but the money's still yours.

What does Germany do that is not fair, and why do you assume something as powerful and unchecked as a communist government would not be so unfair?

There will never be a communist state that will work effectively. Ever. It does not reward greed, so what would the driving force be? Nothing, except maybe death threats.

I myself take that Germany, along with many developed countries, explore undeveloped countries. That is the unfair they do.

Yes, we agree on the later one. There will never be a working communist state. Human beings are too dumb for that. Hobbes wasn't 100% wrong after all.

What I'm saying is that if it worked, it would be the best solution.

There is a strong correlation, but there are some really developed countries that are very Christian.

Cite one. There is a difference between abundant money and development. HDI has the drawback of not evaluating social aspects, such as prejudice, ignorance, and etc. USA was the country of the XX century. Now its time comes to a slow end.

One of the reasons we are trying to advance the Middle East so much is to take away the extreme religiosity.

And the other reasons are well worse than that, we both know it. It's a battle of power, of religions, of money, of oil. The difference between an american and a terrorist is that the terrorist is innocent and was brainwashed into doing bad. Americans, on the other hand, and fully conscious.

The percentage of Americans who would not vote for an atheist is about that high, or maybe higher. It looks like I won't be president any time soon.

Let's all praise the Netherlands, Chile and etc.

------------------------

I am unfortunate enough to study in a catholic school. On many of the rooms, there's a cute image of jesus and the sentence "god, save us from communism". That's the brainwashing religion does. In fact, you're one of the most open-minded people about communism I've ever met.

------------------------

Constitutional monarchy is the best. the monarch already has power, so he/she won't bother to try and get more. They are usually raised for ruling a country and so learn it very well. The constituon's scope is to prevent any unfair advantage. It's, at least in theory, a flawless form of government. Fair, strong, organised, and if there's no form of oppression, the best solution.

Originally Posted by Kromoh

Bah, to my eyes norms and laws are the same. You understand what I mean, don't appeal to semantics.

They are not the same. Laws are based on morality, and morality norms are influenced on some level by laws, but they are two different things. Laws are documented and enforced by a government.

Originally Posted by Kromoh

When I mean possessions are everyone's, I mean they are evenly divided for each citizen. The government is just an institution who would make that division.
Take banks for example: the organise your money, they keep your money, but the money's still yours.

So I can't go into your house and walk off with your the television? Why not? But you can keep it in your house and watch it?

Originally Posted by Kromoh

I myself take that Germany, along with many developed countries, explore undeveloped countries. That is the unfair they do.

What do you mean they "explore" undeveloped countries? Did you mean to say "exploit" again? That is what I was asking about. How does Germany exploint undeveloped countries? Most of us give them aid and sometimes liberate them from oppressive regimes.

Originally Posted by Kromoh

Yes, we agree on the later one. There will never be a working communist state. Human beings are too dumb for that. Hobbes wasn't 100% wrong after all.

Not just too dumb. Too unmotivated when there is not a good reward.

Originally Posted by Kromoh

What I'm saying is that if it worked, it would be the best solution.

It would still be an unfair system of thievery.

Originally Posted by Kromoh

Cite one. There is a difference between abundant money and development. HDI has the drawback of not evaluating social aspects, such as prejudice, ignorance, and etc.

We could start with my own. Do you know of a country that has an illegal immigration problem that comes even close to ours? Despite all of the outrageous shit people all over the world say about my country, we are still by far the most in demand place to live in the world. Why might that be?

Originally Posted by Kromoh

USA was the country of the XX century. Now its time comes to a slow end.

We're coming to an end? How do you figure that?

Originally Posted by Kromoh

And the other reasons are well worse than that, we both know it. It's a battle of power, of religions, of money, of oil. The difference between an american and a terrorist is that the terrorist is innocent and was brainwashed into doing bad. Americans, on the other hand, and fully conscious.

I am starting to get the drift that you despise my country. Watch out with that stuff. When people talk in such extreme terms, they don't sound too different from people who go off viciously against the black race and the world's homosexual population. I don't want to see you join that camp.

It is not a battle of religions, and the oil and money stuff is not substantiated by anything more credible than an Art Bell broadcast. What our soldiers are fully conscious of is the threat of Islamofascism and the need to advance the Middle East beyond the level of Biblical times.

Originally Posted by Kromoh

Let's all praise the Netherlands, Chile and etc.

As far as the religious climate goes, we are behind, but I think religion is on the way out here, for the most part. The fact that people now feel okay about coming out of the closet about being atheists all over the place here is a sign that the religious domination is seriously dwindling.

Originally Posted by Kromoh

I am unfortunate enough to study in a catholic school. On many of the rooms, there's a cute image of jesus and the sentence "god, save us from communism". That's the brainwashing religion does. In fact, you're one of the most open-minded people about communism I've ever met.

Thanks. You would be surprised at how many atheists disagree with communism. It seems like every person who used to publicly go off against communism was a right wing religious fanatic. Now people can admit they are atheists, and a lot of us are very pro-capitalism.

Originally Posted by Kromoh

Constitutional monarchy is the best. the monarch already has power, so he/she won't bother to try and get more. They are usually raised for ruling a country and so learn it very well. The constituon's scope is to prevent any unfair advantage. It's, at least in theory, a flawless form of government. Fair, strong, organised, and if there's no form of oppression, the best solution.

Why would you think there is no form of oppression? The monarchs can go way out of bounds and act like they didn't think they did. We have politicians trying that here all the time, but fortunately they have to answer to others. Who would the monarch have to answer to when he goes way out of line?

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

They are not the same. Laws are based on morality, and morality norms are influenced on some level by laws, but they are two different things. Laws are documented and enforced by a government.

Let's not argue over semantics. You understood what I meant.

So I can't go into your house and walk off with your the television? Why not? But you can keep it in your house and watch it?

Well, in theory, if I have a television, then you must also have one. And so must everyone else. There's really no reason you'd invade my house for one.

What do you mean they "explore" undeveloped countries? Did you mean to say "exploit" again? That is what I was asking about. How does Germany exploint undeveloped countries? Most of us give them aid and sometimes liberate them from oppressive regimes.

Lol, that's all propaganda. Propaganda. "Oh, we're helping Cambodia". Propaganda. There are thousands of interests in doing this. It's like investing in a very polluting industry, and then planting a tree to give it a good image. No country was ever there when lesser countries really needed it.

Not just too dumb. Too unmotivated when there is not a good reward.

Oh, forgive my wording. Human beings are power-hungry, money-guided, and only do things for their own good, noi matter how many others' bad it involves. Why should everyone be equal, if currently I'm higher than the average?

The reward, which you fail to notice, is a once-and-for-all fair society. No exploitation (in a hypothetical communism of course).

It would still be an unfair system of thievery.

Only if you mean thieving fro mthe dominant class and giving it to the ones who need it. No, communism is not thievery. The oppression behind countries which are self-declared communist is thievery.

Can't you understand what communism means? It means "everyone has exactly what they need, society is divided equally". It's the elimination of wealth and poverty - everyone will be at the same level. I say it's the elimination of thievery.

We could start with my own. Do you know of a country that has an illegal immigration problem that comes even close to ours? Despite all of the outrageous shit people all over the world say about my country, we are still by far the most in demand place to live in the world. Why might that be?

Lol, you're taking the wrong cause for that. Economically, America is well-developed. Socially, it is not. Then, you go and ask a person who works in worse conditions than a slave, with pitiful health conditions, if they want to go anywhere where they will get paid more.

People just immigrate to the US because of that damn "american dream" image you yourselves promote. It doesn't a very bright person to realise that that dream is actually illusory.

We're coming to an end? How do you figure that?

Getting worse each day, that's what I mean. Slowly dying out.

I am starting to get the drift that you despise my country. Watch out with that stuff. When people talk in such extreme terms, they don't sound too different from people who go off viciously against the black race and the world's homosexual population. I don't want to see you join that camp.

It's not like I despise your country. I'm just saying it's not the miracle you think it is.

It is not a battle of religions, and the oil and money stuff is not substantiated by anything more credible than an Art Bell broadcast. What our soldiers are fully conscious of is the threat of Islamofascism and the need to advance the Middle East beyond the level of Biblical times.

LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL

Fighting terrorism is just the justification behind the oil, money and religion battle. Another factor I forgot is promoting the growth of the war industry, whic his very influent in the US. It's not the first time the US uses that image. "Let's fight the bad guys". Last time it ended in a nuclear attack. What will come next?

You should realise that, living in the US, you're subject to propaganda. What all the rest of the world sees is a fight of power and money between Iraq and America.

As far as the religious climate goes, we are behind, but I think religion is on the way out here, for the most part. The fact that people now feel okay about coming out of the closet about being atheists all over the place here is a sign that the religious domination is seriously dwindling.

At a very slow rate. Too many zealots I say. But nevertheless an improvement whic hshould not be ignored. It's not nearly good enough yet, though.

Thanks. You would be surprised at how many atheists disagree with communism. It seems like every person who used to publicly go off against communism was a right wing religious fanatic. Now people can admit they are atheists, and a lot of us are very pro-capitalism.

The worst thing that ever happened to humanity was capitalism. No control, no general interest, people just go and do what'll bring them money.

Why would you think there is no form of oppression? The monarchs can go way out of bounds and act like they didn't think they did. We have politicians trying that here all the time, but fortunately they have to answer to others. Who would the monarch have to answer to when he goes way out of line?

A monarchy that is abused can be considered totalitarism. I think you're just considering the very worst that can happen to try and prove me wrong.

That's why it's a constitutional monarchy. There's the official law to regulate the monarch's actions. What you just refuted was totalitarism, not constitutional monarchy.

Originally Posted by Kromoh

Let's not argue over semantics. You understood what I meant.

What is relevant is that anarchy is an absence of government.

Originally Posted by Kromoh

Well, in theory, if I have a television, then you must also have one. And so must everyone else. There's really no reason you'd invade my house for one.

I might like your television better or want to sell yours for some crack. What would stop me from doing that? It's my television too, right?

Originally Posted by Kromoh

Lol, that's all propaganda. Propaganda. "Oh, we're helping Cambodia". Propaganda. There are thousands of interests in doing this. It's like investing in a very polluting industry, and then planting a tree to give it a good image. No country was ever there when lesser countries really needed it.

I know what the soldiers are fighting for because I know soldiers, and I know the reasons that make the fighting necessary, among them being the need to advance the Middle East. The Hussein regime was a terrible government we could not allow to exist forever. If there are corrupt hidden agendas, they have not been proven.

Originally Posted by Kromoh

Oh, forgive my wording. Human beings are power-hungry, money-guided, and only do things for their own good, noi matter how many others' bad it involves. Why should everyone be equal, if currently I'm higher than the average?

Originally Posted by Kromoh

The reward, which you fail to notice, is a once-and-for-all fair society. No exploitation (in a hypothetical communism of course).

Greed is what drives the financial machine. You cannot get the masses to say, "Hey, let's work forty hours this week and every week as hard as we can so we can... make everybody equal." What you can have is a society where the people who really make a difference in the business world say, "Let's work forty or more hours this week and make as much MONEY as possible!" The former is the idea of socialism and communism, and all it does is have people just getting by, if that. It results in collapsed governments. The latter is capitalism, and it results in the wealthiest nations in the world.

Originally Posted by Kromoh

Only if you mean thieving fro mthe dominant class and giving it to the ones who need it. No, communism is not thievery. The oppression behind countries which are self-declared communist is thievery.

I mean thieving from the ones who do the most to make the machine work, and then giving it to the laziest do nothings in society. Once you stop allowing the hardest workers to be rewarded, everything goes to shit.

Originally Posted by Kromoh

Can't you understand what communism means? It means "everyone has exactly what they need, society is divided equally". It's the elimination of wealth and poverty - everyone will be at the same level. I say it's the elimination of thievery.

Rewarding laziness and punishing success = financial disaster. It also = unfairness.

Hey Kromoh, I need some money. I didn't feel like working too much lately. Send me a check for $5,000. I am not asking. I am telling you that I am entitled to that money. You have it, and I don't, so send it on over. Get to it.

Originally Posted by Kromoh

Lol, you're taking the wrong cause for that. Economically, America is well-developed. Socially, it is not. Then, you go and ask a person who works in worse conditions than a slave, with pitiful health conditions, if they want to go anywhere where they will get paid more.

How is my country not developed socially? You are using our computer technology right now, I know you watch our movies and listen to our music. You probably know all about our celebrities. I am sure you like a lot of our food. Please tell me what you mean.

Is it a coincidence that the "anywhere" so often happens to be the United States? People come here from all over the world and sneak through our borders. Why here?

Originally Posted by Kromoh

People just immigrate to the US because of that damn "american dream" image you yourselves promote. It doesn't a very bright person to realise that that dream is actually illusory.

Right. It's all because of some worldwide urban legend. Then why do they keep sneaking their friends and family members in later?

Originally Posted by Kromoh

Getting worse each day, that's what I mean. Slowly dying out.

I could swear you are making stuff up. Have you ever been here? What are you talking about? Racism and religious oppression are both hauling ass down the drain, our technology is getting really awesome and influencing the world, people are living longer, medical advancements are doing a great deal of good, etc. What are you talking about?

Originally Posted by Kromoh

It's not like I despise your country. I'm just saying it's not the miracle you think it is.

I live here. I know what I see. I also know what I see you saying.

Originally Posted by Kromoh

LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL

Yeah, terrorism threats are really funny.

Originally Posted by Kromoh

Fighting terrorism is just the justification behind the oil, money and religion battle. Another factor I forgot is promoting the growth of the war industry, whic his very influent in the US. It's not the first time the US uses that image. "Let's fight the bad guys". Last time it ended in a nuclear attack. What will come next?

So we don't really have large organizations of terrorists threatening to make us extinct and getting caught left and right in trying to blow up JFK airport and blow up shoe bombs on airplanes? Where do you get that?

Originally Posted by Kromoh

You should realise that, living in the US, you're subject to propaganda. What all the rest of the world sees is a fight of power and money between Iraq and America.

Jealousy has a way of blinding people and making them dishonest. I know a lot of people in the government and in the military. I don't just watch the news. When I do watch the news, I watch several rival big time capitalist news organizations that are fiending to catch each other in lies.

We do in fact have a major terrorism threat problem. It is the truth.

Originally Posted by Kromoh

At a very slow rate. Too many zealots I say. But nevertheless an improvement whic hshould not be ignored. It's not nearly good enough yet, though.

Any rate is too slow as far as I am concerned, but the religious climate has changed drastically in the past twenty years.

Originally Posted by Kromoh

The worst thing that ever happened to humanity was capitalism. No control, no general interest, people just go and do what'll bring them money.

It's not like we don't have laws, and it is not like our laws are not enforced. What you are talking about is anarchy.

A high percentage of our homeless people are fat, and pretty much all of our "poor" have televisions, cars, stereos, ipods, X boxes, and computers. Capitalism benefits everybody who lives under it.

Originally Posted by Kromoh

A monarchy that is abused can be considered totalitarism. I think you're just considering the very worst that can happen to try and prove me wrong.

Instead of assuming that, tell me what would keep that monarch in check. A conscience? How trustworthy is that? What stops him from going out of bounds? Talk to me.

Originally Posted by Kromoh

That's why it's a constitutional monarchy. There's the official law to regulate the monarch's actions. What you just refuted was totalitarism, not constitutional monarchy.

What I am asking is who or what enforces the constitution? Laws are worthless when there is nobody to enforce them.

Of course people do the governing. I was not talking about a government run by machines. The question is what kind of government we should have

You still don't understand. The kind of people we want to exist. That is what kind of government we should have. Think about what kind of people are best. That is what kind of government.

You have yet to answer the question

I have answered it. What more do you want.

If you think we should have a system where each person watches over himself and handles his own punishment of himself and nobody else does, you are an anarchist. So that would be your answer to the question. I am trying to help you answer the question because you seem completely disinterested in it.

Well you do not understand what I mean that is your problem. Just because people exist independantly. Doesn't mean they won't carry out justice. That is part of the natural order of things. What do you not understand about my answer.

I apologize for using words to make my written point. I will look into pantomime and pictionary next time.

No need to be sarcastic. You don't seem interested in my answer or will not accept it for some reason. Maybe you need more information?