Ideology???

[Cyrusbales]

This is thread for discussion of state ideology.

How should the ideal state be run etc?

I definately believe a democratic state is disasterous, also capitalism is flawed. Although communism is very beneficial, I believe a communistic totalitarian state would be the best.

The progress of perfect states has been a viewpoint for thinkers, Plato's republic, HG Well's modern utopia, and then Orwell's 1984(which is most like my perfect state, but some alterations need to be made).

A perfect world is impossible, so the state must be set up as independant from the rest of the world. any thoughts people, please discuss.

 

[chaseter]

I say I would live in any state run by Chuck Norris or Stephen Colbert.

 

[Cyrusbales]

ok, not quite the poigniant philosophical gem i was looking for, but hey...

 

[KingOfDreams]

I believe a communistic totalitarian state would be the best.

That doesn't work. Look at the USSR. And China is pretty much communist in name only these days. And Cuba is poor as hell. And in a totalitarian state we wouldn't be allowed to visit message boards I'm sure. Civil rights are of utmost importance, thus democracy is still the best system, while it does have it's flaws like anything else. I'd say the less government the better, though what I could call smart government some people I'm sure would call big governement.

 

[Cyrusbales]

That doesn't work. Look at the USSR. And China is pretty much communist in name only these days. And Cuba is poor as hell. And in a totalitarian state we wouldn't be allowed to visit message boards I'm sure. Civil rights are of utmost importance, thus democracy is still the best system, while it does have it's flaws like anything else. I'd say the less government the better, though what I could call smart government some people I'm sure would call big governement.

Well russia and china were never perfect comunist tates, but I say a more totalitarian regime would be better.

Also there are two kinds of freedom, 1-the freedom to do what you want, and 2-the freedom to live a good life

1- is concerned with doing what the hell you like, so primitive cultures who can go and murder other tribes and stuff, they have this freedom.

2- is concerned with being able to lead a good life, for instance, the above example is not good for the other tribe, so policing and laws make the quality better.

These two freedom's conflict with each other, so I beleive the 2nd one should be more stressed, rather than the first.

And democracy is what brought about hitler, he was voted in, genreally the public as a mass are stupid and easily bought and don't know what is best for them, 'the wild beast' metaphor from the republuic sums this point up nicely.

 

[The Question]

The progress of perfect states has been a viewpoint for thinkers, Plato's republic, HG Well's modern utopia, and then Orwell's 1984(which is most like my perfect state, but some alterations need to be made).

The 1984 version of the future was meant to be portrayed as a bad thing. You know that, right?

And democracy is what brought about hitler, he was voted in, genreally the public as a mass are stupid and easily bought and don't know what is best for them, 'the wild beast' metaphor from the republuic sums this point up nicely.

Hitler was actually quite good for Germany in the short run. Germany, at the time, was in an economic mess just as bad as the one in the U.S. with many more social issues and an overall lack of hope. Hitler made Germany a more prosperous country and gave the Germans a sense of pride. Yes, he turned out to be a mass murderer with dillusions of grandure. But they didn't know that, and the stuff Hitler was offering them was, at the time, infinately better than starving to death on the streets.

 

[Cyrusbales]

The 1984 version of the future was meant to be portrayed as a bad thing. You know that, right?

yes, but i see it as a step in the right direction, there are so many positives about the state in 1984, and those idea's would make a perfect state possible.

 

[The Question]

yes, but i see it as a step in the right direction, there are so many positives about the state in 1984, and those idea's would make a perfect state possible.

Like what? All I see is a lack of privacy, personal choice, and anything even closely resembling happyness.

 

[Cyrusbales]

Like what? All I see is a lack of privacy, personal choice, and anything even closely resembling happyness.

Your assuming happiness is the perfect ideal!

The system worked perfectly as a self contained state. They had elimated the possiblity of travelling outside the state, and people coming in from outside, often the foil of communism.

They had found a perfect mode of law enforcement.

They were destroying the concepts of rebellion etc, through deconstruction of the language. If you delete the way of expressing something bad, it can no longer exist for us, "we cannot know beyond the limits of our knowledge" -wittgenstein.

 

[The Question]

Your assuming happiness is the perfect ideal!

Yeah. Kind of. I mean, everyone wants to have a good time.

The system worked perfectly as a self contained state. They had elimated the possiblity of travelling outside the state, and people coming in from outside, often the foil of communism.

And that's a good thing? Some people like to travel. Hell, as soon as I'm old enough, I'd like to travel a bit.

They had found a perfect mode of law enforcement.

By essentially negating choice. How is that good?

They were destroying the concepts of rebellion etc, through deconstruction of the language. If you delete the way of expressing something bad, it can no longer exist for us, "we cannot know beyond the limits of our knowledge" -wittgenstein.

So, in other words, people could not speak their minds or bring forth new ideas or philosphies without being punished. That is not a good thing at all. What makes the arts and other intelectual persuits interesting is that they put forth new ideas, and have opossing ideas to challenge them. Without them, there would be no creativity. Including comic books.

 

[WilcofanAshes]

I think that stupid people should have their own country, let's call it...the south. The north would continue destroying the planet with zero accoutability capitalism and we'd all become slaves to our industrial masters. In 2047 a very brave man takes it upon himself to try and unionize Burger King, but he is very quickly killed and his murder hushed up by the news media. His twin sons strap bombs to themselves and each blow up a Burger King restaurant as an act of revenge. Burger King blames the attacks on McDonald's who they claim has been secretly creating apple pies of McMass Destruction. Once a bill is past unanimously through Fast Food Congress allowing the company to use all force necessary to protect themselves from snack-food terror, Burger King attacks several McDonald's locations with the support of Taco Bell and Quizno's. Subway, having suffered severe damage to many locations beside the bombed McDonald's sites accuses the Quizno's soldiers as using the battle to take out their competition by deliberately providing Burger King with intelligence only detailing the McDonald's sites located next to Subway locations. They side with McDonald's, as does Wendy's. Following a bloody 9 year war everyone in the United States North becomes healthier. The South is still dumb. Jesus finally returns as prophecised in the book of Revelations, but there are no more Big Macs so he's pissed. He turns the planet into a bizarro type world where humans are grown and raised on farms where they are slaughtered at the age of 20 to make tasty treats that are served to literal capitalist pigs in fast food restaurants. The irony goes unnoticed. The end.

 

[KingOfDreams]

Absolute power corrupts absolutely. That's been proven in the past and the present. Any totalitarian government supported because it will guarantee "stability" will eventually screw over it's citizens to gain more power. People yearn to be free. Freeflow of ideas and information is what expands us as a species and keeps us from stagnating. And snagnation forces a country to change or die. China's beginning to change...sort of. The USSR died. I myself would never want to be blissfully ignorant. I'm a journalism student so the truth is very important to me. As a civil libertarian Democrat, individual rights and equality are important to me. And I define equality as equal opportunity. No two human beings are the same so there's not point in trying to make that so. Under communist totalitarian regimes you may be equal...but it's equal in poverty, equal in ignorance. You know, if find American communists...or any communist in a capitalist nation...to be a bit hipocritical. For example, I admire the man a lot, but Tom Morello (and Zach de la Rocha too) have made tons of money from thier music. And they claim to be communists. Capitalism has been very good to them. And I know communism is a system of economics but it always seems to go hand in hand with totalitarian regimes. In a totalitarian regime, Morello and others like him would not be able to create and distribute the music they do...because it goes against the establishment. Art as we know it would not really exist. Comic books might not exist...as we know them. I might actually not be so opposed to a communist democracy if I thought that was even possible. In theory it is but in practice not so much. It could have been with Patrice Lumumba in the Congo I think but he was assassinated too soon. I guess the main thing I'm getting at here is that totalitarianism prevents us from being all that we can be. Yes, it may prevent our less desirable sides from showing themselves but really, that's all part of what makes us human. We're not perfect and there's really no point in trying to...forcing us...to be perfect little cogs. No matter what someone may do to us, we still have emotion. On some basic level, that remains...and that's why revolutions happen and that's why totalitarian regimes fall. That's also why they begin in the first place but that's another story.

 

[bored]

This is thread for discussion of state ideology.

How should the ideal state be run etc?

I definately believe a democratic state is disasterous, also capitalism is flawed. Although communism is very beneficial, I believe a communistic totalitarian state would be the best.

The progress of perfect states has been a viewpoint for thinkers, Plato's republic, HG Well's modern utopia, and then Orwell's 1984(which is most like my perfect state, but some alterations need to be made).

A perfect world is impossible, so the state must be set up as independant from the rest of the world. any thoughts people, please discuss.

Wasn't Wells kind of skeptical of the concept of Utopia?

 

[KingOfDreams]

Imagine there's no Heaven
It's easy if you try
No hell below us
Above us only sky
Imagine all the people
Living for today

Imagine there's no countries
It isn't hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too
Imagine all the people
Living life in peace

You may say that I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will be as one

Imagine no possessions
I wonder if you can
No need for greed or hunger
A brotherhood of man
Imagine all the people
Sharing all the world

You may say that I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will live as one

 

[Cyrusbales]

Wells's utopia claimed it would have to be a whole unified world, that wouldn't work, as it would be too difficult to maintain.

Totalitarian leaders don't work, they are dictatorships, but mass totalitarian party's could work.

People are clearly stupid, and it's impossible to educate the entire mass of a state to think properly for themselves. So they should be restricted and tightened as i mentioned before, then as education eincreases, the stress of enforcement can be laxed. But until the populus are educated, the strictest ideology must be enforced.

Choice should be a reward for the intelligent, not a dangerous tool for the common people, after the intelligence has increased, the populus gain more freedom in that sense.

Also family must be abolished, as communial child raising has more benefits!

 

[The Question]

Wells's utopia claimed it would have to be a whole unified world, that wouldn't work, as it would be too difficult to maintain.

Totalitarian leaders don't work, they are dictatorships, but mass totalitarian party's could work.

People are clearly stupid, and it's impossible to educate the entire mass of a state to think properly for themselves. So they should be restricted and tightened as i mentioned before, then as education eincreases, the stress of enforcement can be laxed. But until the populus are educated, the strictest ideology must be enforced.

Choice should be a reward for the intelligent, not a dangerous tool for the common people, after the intelligence has increased, the populus gain more freedom in that sense.

No. Choice is something inherent with everyone. Take that away, and we're barely people. You can't force someone to have your ideology. You can't control how people think. That is completely wrong on so many levels. What makes the world interesting is that poeople are always coming up with new ideas and philosophies.

Also family must be abolished, as communial child raising has more benefits!

Good God, I hope you never gain any kind of political power.

 

[Cyrusbales]

No. Choice is something inherent with everyone. Take that away, and we're barely people. You can't force someone to have your ideology. You can't control how people think. That is completely wrong on so many levels. What makes the world interesting is that poeople are always coming up with new ideas and philosophies.



Good God, I hope you never gain any kind of political power.

If we abolish families, then scum can't breed scum! Yes my world is elitist, but would create a world without crime and disorder, that could have choice etc, the strict rules are just how to get there, once people are educated enough, then the rules relax, and people can live in paradise.

Plato beleived in abolition of the family, as do other great thinkers, some religion rear children in a communial way, so the children benefit from the knowledge and skills of many, instead of just the two parents.

 

[Spider-Bite]

That doesn't work. Look at the USSR. And China is pretty much communist in name only these days. And Cuba is poor as hell. And in a totalitarian state we wouldn't be allowed to visit message boards I'm sure. Civil rights are of utmost importance, thus democracy is still the best system, while it does have it's flaws like anything else. I'd say the less government the better, though what I could call smart government some people I'm sure would call big governement.

I'm assuming you mean fiscally responsible government spending but still passing laws and governmental social programs/laws/interventions/ to help society progress and propser economically.

Well that's my definition of small yet smart government.

 

[The Question]

If we abolish families, then scum can't breed scum! Yes my world is elitist, but would create a world without crime and disorder, that could have choice etc, the strict rules are just how to get there, once people are educated enough, then the rules relax, and people can live in paradise.

You say it could have choice, and yet you advocate forcing others to believe what you do from the getgo. I'm sorry, but your "utopia" sounds like a freaking nightmare.

Plato beleived in abolition of the family, as do other great thinkers, some religion rear children in a communial way, so the children benefit from the knowledge and skills of many, instead of just the two parents.

Plato wasn't infalible. If I had kids, I wouldn't want them growing up not knowing who their parents were, and if I were raised in a commune, I'd often wonder who my parents were.

 

[Spider-Bite]

This is thread for discussion of state ideology.

How should the ideal state be run etc?

I definately believe a democratic state is disasterous, also capitalism is flawed. Although communism is very beneficial, I believe a communistic totalitarian state would be the best.

The progress of perfect states has been a viewpoint for thinkers, Plato's republic, HG Well's modern utopia, and then Orwell's 1984(which is most like my perfect state, but some alterations need to be made).

A perfect world is impossible, so the state must be set up as independant from the rest of the world. any thoughts people, please discuss.

communism and democracy are actually compatible. Dictatorship and democracy are not.

Democracy is extremely important, because a person given unchecked power lets the power go to their head. A dictatorship government will become the enemy of it's own people.

 

[Cyrusbales]

dictatorships usually stem from democracy, the great dictator for example was VOTED in by the people. So, until people are educated enough, they shouldn't have the vote, there should be tests administered before you can vote, like who is the prime minister, who is in power, who is the leader of the opposition, what are the respective party's policies, a lot of people vote for stupid reasons, and until they are les iggnorant, i think i'm justified in thinking people should not be allowed to have any input in the country,

 

[The Question]

dictatorships usually stem from democracy, the great dictator for example was VOTED in by the people.

That's not true at all. Most dictators in history became dictators through conquest. And in a working democracy, an elected official shouldn't be able to become a dictator.

So, until people are educated enough, they shouldn't have the vote,

That is completely idiotic.

there should be tests administered before you can vote, like who is the prime minister, who is in power, who is the leader of the opposition, what are the respective party's policies, a lot of people vote for stupid reasons, and until they are les iggnorant, i think i'm justified in thinking people should not be allowed to have any input in the country,

But the people are the country. People know what they feel is best for the country and no one should be able to judge what an "eligeble" voter is. That would make corruption so ****ing easy.

 

[Spider-Bite]

dictatorships usually stem from democracy, the great dictator for example was VOTED in by the people. So, until people are educated enough, they shouldn't have the vote, there should be tests administered before you can vote, like who is the prime minister, who is in power, who is the leader of the opposition, what are the respective party's policies, a lot of people vote for stupid reasons, and until they are les iggnorant, i think i'm justified in thinking people should not be allowed to have any input in the country,

Not to sound mean or anything but I tend to wish people who thought like you do didn't vote. but we absolutely can not start picking who can and can not vote. that is the door to a dictatorship, because if the people in power have the power to do that, they will automatically use the law to increase voter turnout for groups that vote for them, and outlaw voting for people who disagree with them.

yes voters make stupid decisions, based on ridicuous reasoning, but at least our moron president isn't running americans through meat grinders.

 

[Cyrusbales]

Ok actual reasons i've heard people use for voting:

"I voted labour coz i don't want maggie back in power"-she been out of politics for years!!!

"I always vote labour"-where's the looking at the policies?

"My family always voted conservative, so i do to" - and the policies? where's the cognative thought?

"I don't like charles kennedy" - but the policies?

Fair enough, give people choice, but PLEASE, if they can't use it responsibly, then they shouldn't have it, people who BELIEVE everything the sun writes, people who watch big brother, these people are the very reasons why democracy is flawed.

Who should fly a plane? a pilot, or a plumber? If people don't understand and know what they're voting for, WHY SHOULD THEY BE ALLOWED TO VOTE???

 

[The Question]

Ok actual reasons i've heard people use for voting:

"I voted labour coz i don't want maggie back in power"-she been out of politics for years!!!

"I always vote labour"-where's the looking at the policies?

"My family always voted conservative, so i do to" - and the policies? where's the cognative thought?

"I don't like charles kennedy" - but the policies?

Fair enough, give people choice, but PLEASE, if they can't use it responsibly, then they shouldn't have it, people who BELIEVE everything the sun writes, people who watch big brother, these people are the very reasons why democracy is flawed.

Choice is something that every person has inherent within them. To take that away makes them less than human.

Who should fly a plane? a pilot, or a plumber? If people don't understand and know what they're voting for, WHY SHOULD THEY BE ALLOWED TO VOTE???

Because it's just as much their country as it is yours. If they don't get a say, then it's pretty much one group of people deciding who they want to have a say. Do you really think that's a good thing?