385 replies to this topic

[MSpencer]

Not every person is a perfect and law abiding citizen. I could direct you to some serial killers, rapists, and paedophiles if you'd like. They're present in every culture, not just in America.
And when people try to change the government, and the government doesn't try to stop it, it tends to be a bad thing, like civil war bad. If I want to amend the Constitution of the United States of America to proclaim me Supreme High Overlord of the Universe, and I have 120 million people behind me, there are still 140 million people who aren't. Not everyone is going to be constantly unanimous, that takes drones. So what are those 140 million people going to do? Try and stop me. They will, because they don't want to see a change, and they will make their best attempt to stop that change from occurring, thus, you have a civil war.
There's a different between a revolt and a civil war. Revolts are suppressed by the government. Civil wars happen when the government can no longer supress a chain of revolts.

[Tom]

But thats the point spence, the societies are reactive. You only get like 10000 running a protest. The rest would rather watch TV and say "oh my god thats awful."

[ComradeJ]

And who's fault is that?



Might just be me, but I think Hyb and Kal are overly optimistic about humans. Peace isn't a natural concept.

[MSpencer]

You can go right back in to social Darwinism with that one. People want to survive, and be the best possible. Nobody has grand ambitions of being a street sweeper or trash collector. Go to any 3rd grade classroom and ask.

[Comrade Kal]

Ah, btu we're talking majorities. Governments are supposed to be representive of the people. Governments should be the servants of their people, and bend their backs to them, and NEVER the other way round, as we have done since the beginning of time.

[Tom]

Democracy, 65% of the population votes, 51% of that decide who is in power, that is only 33.15% of the entire population. Not entirely representative.

Either way with the technology we have today we can totally switch that around, votes can be done easier, even at peoples homes though the internet. I still believe people need to start at community responsibility then together work for global responisibility.

[ComradeJ]

That's just what we need, easier voting! That way, we'll have an even greater amount of voters who don't know what they're actually deciding about, and the votes of the people that have actually studied everything in-depth will be worth even less!

Edit:

The problem with the current vision on the world is that we all have rights. We don't have rights, we have responsibilities. As a nation, we've decided that democracy was a good idea, and that we're not going against it, save for a few. As such, we give everyone the responsibility of democracy. Some people lack the will, and sometimes even the capability to understand what politics are all about. Forcing them to vote is representing the majority, but is that what we're after? Do we want to represent as many people as possible, or do we want a good government?
If you force people to vote, or even just encourage them by making it too easy, you Americanise democracy. "I don't really know what politics are about, so I'll just vote for the guy with the best haircut. Or wife. Or cutest dog". I don't want the guy with the best haircut in the government, I want the guy who has most capabilities - which can only be decided by people who actually know what they're voting about and who they're voting for. Democracy is a responsibility. We ask of you that, if you vote, you know what you're voting, and if you don't, that you'll have the sense to stay away from any politics. I don't care how many people vote, as long as they do it out of their own free will. If democracy isn't worth studying politics for you, why should we let you choose who goes into politics?

Edited by ComradeJ, 12 March 2006 - 08:39 PM.

[MSpencer]

Statistics, kids... When you poll 1,000 people, it's very representative of a population of 280 million when applying a scale, with only a slight margin of error. Poll 1/3 of that 280 million and the scale gets much larger, and we're only talking fractions of a percentage point here. It would be different if we had poll taxes and voter exclusion as there were during Reconstruction in the south, but we don't, so the fundamental laws of statistics apply, and you get a roughly equal representation of the people of voting age. Sure, you'll get some people who don't know what they're doing and just pick names, but the majority of people who vote are making informed decisions. It doesn't matter if only 33% vote, it's still very, very close to what you'd get if you made voting compulsory. We could, just for kicks, make it compulsory. You'd have some unhappy people, and you'd need to declare it a national holiday, so nothing would get done, but you'd be able to change some digits around, and the percentages would still remain the same. There are people in the government who are much, much smarter than any of us. They figured it out a long time ago.

[Athena]

There are people in the government who are much, much smarter than any of us.

They are not always likely to be found though .

[Allied General]

Either way with the technology we have today we can totally switch that around, votes can be done easier, even at peoples homes though the internet.

Thats got so many problems its not even funny, repeat voting, people hacking in to manipulate results, non country citizens voting for the government, etc, etc.

We all know how apalling the posting vote is in the UK and when Calfornia or whatever can't even stamp holes into an card then u wonder if society is actually smart enough to embrace technology.

We enjoy technology and then later suffer its consequences, for instance cocaine was an popular tooth ache drug for 99 cents and nuclear energy was our friend in the 50's - early 60's. obviously though two items have serious negative effects.

So basically yes we have the means for an fairer society but we don't have the maturity for one.

Also compulsory voting bad idea, look at all the dumb things in Australia ...(no offence to aussies only your questionable government)

Edited by Allied General, 13 March 2006 - 09:25 AM.

[Comrade Kal]

I would rather have a government made of incorruptible idiots than political masterminds who are out for their own ends.

A simple test would be all that was required. no opinions required, obviously, just facts. Partly intelligence, but most of it would be to understand they knew about the general situation. A current affairs exam basically, to weed out the people who know nothing.

[Mastermind]

I would rather have a government made of incorruptible idiots than political masterminds who are out for their own ends.

A simple test would be all that was required. no opinions required, obviously, just facts. Partly intelligence, but most of it would be to understand they knew about the general situation. A current affairs exam basically, to weed out the people who know nothing.

What's to stop something like that from being abused and changed to something using opinions? Looks like another way to subvert/corrupt your system.

[Comrade Kal]

You just don't have a law that says "based on opinions." It's like saying "what if the current capitalist government said only rich people could vote?" It's not any more likely just because you have a test. The current government would have just as tough a time as bringing it in. You assume that communist governments mean every person in the country will suddenly become blind.

[Creator]

But why are people scared of communism?

Oh, I will answer this question. It is simple. But 1st you have to know 2 things:

1) In USSR in 1917, just after revolution, communist leaders had analyzed situation in the country and had come to horrible derivation: COMMUNISM CAN NOT BE BUILT !!!. Because:
--a) Communism needs new type of men - free of flaws high morality men.
--b) One country (even big one) can't survive alone - it needs to trade with another countries. But communist and capitalist economics are not compatible. Communism can exist only if whole world turns into communism. (It is not my personal point of view. It was their derivarion.)

2) They had decided to come to communism with 2 steps.
--Step №1 point A - to build socialism.
--Step №1 point B - to bring up new type of men.
--Step №1 point C - to ensure the world that communism is better (communist propaganda; help to communist parties in other countries and so on).
--Step №2 point A - to build communism.
--Step №2 point B - to turn the rest of the world into communism.

As you can see, Russians had encounted very difficult problems nobody solved before. Step №1 point B was especially complex. In result they were unable to solve it and it was the reason why USSR had collapsed.

But lets return to our question. Why are people scared of communism? The answer is: Capitalists allover the world understood that in the case if socialism or communism comes, all of them loose all money. In communism reach ones must become like others. So, to save trillions of dollars they had spent millions for anti-soviet propaganda. They had ensured you that socialism and communism is something bad. The most of you even don't know what it is exactly, but you are already sure that it is something bad.

PS: If you don't know it then I have to let you know, that in USSR medicine and education were FREE. It was FREE distribution service that helped soviet citizens to find a work. There were no homeless men because distribution service found homes for all people FOR FREE. There were FREE pioneer camps where children could spend summer. Does your country have all of these comforts? If no then your country is suxx.

Edited by Creator, 28 June 2006 - 01:22 PM.

[Comrade Kal]

Oh, I will answer this question. It is simple. But 1st you have to know 2 things:

1) In USSR in 1917, just after revolution, communist leaders had analyzed situation in the country and had come to horrible derivation: COMMUNISM CAN NOT BE BUILT !!!.

What? Says who? I must have missed that chapter in State and Revolution.

As you can see, Russians had encounted very difficult problems nobody solved before. Step №1 point B was especially complex. In result they were unable to solve it and it was the reason why USSR had collapsed.

The main reason it collapsed was poor leadership after Lenin died, Stalin's killing of the internationale and his ridiculous ideas of 'socialism in one country' killed it forever.

But lets return to our question. Why are people scared of communism? The answer is: Capitalists allover the world understood that in the case if socialism or communism comes, all of them loose all money. In communism reach ones must become like others. So, to save trillions of dollars they had spent millions for anti-soviet propaganda. They had ensured you that socialism and communism is something bad. The most of you even don't know what it is exactly, but you are already sure that it is something bad.

Well, we know that, but I was referring to people who actually know what it is. Money is not simply redistributed in a communist society, it simply becomes worthless.

PS: If you don't know it then I have to let you know, that in USSR medicine and education were FREE. It was FREE distribution service that helped soviet citizens to find a work. There were no homeless men because distribution service found homes for all people FOR FREE. There were FREE pioneer camps where children could spend summer. Does your country have all of these comforts? If no then your country is suxx.

A strange pro-communist rant tacked on at the end, but true that we would not have any of these benefits in the world today were it not for the Soviet Union... watch them get taken away from us in the next 10 years!

[LeninT34]

"In USSR in 1917, just after revolution, communist leaders had analyzed situation in the country and had come to horrible derivation: COMMUNISM CAN NOT BE BUILT !!!. Because:
--a) Communism needs new type of men - free of flaws high morality men.
--b) One country (even big one) can't survive alone - it needs to trade with another countries. But communist and capitalist economics are not compatible. Communism can exist only if whole world turns into communism. (It is not my personal point of view. It was their derivarion.)"

if they knew this then why did they fight for four more years

Edited by LeninT34, 28 June 2006 - 04:33 PM.

[Tom]

ROFL true. Communism, capitalism, socialism, fascism. Stop arguing, its all the same bollacks just under different opiums to blind people further. Still run by the same people, still written by the same people, still owned by the same people.

[Pyth]

Erm...

No.

Capitalism and Communism are complete, yes COMPLETE opposites. C-O-M-P-L-E-T-E. And utter.

Same with democracy VS. dictatorship. Et cetera.

Nobody owns socialism, or fascism. Or anything.

[Silent_Killa]

Hybrid's point, however, is that regardless of how different the political philosophies are, you still end up with the same people on top and the same people on the bottom. Just how the world works, those who reach the top generally get there by screwing everyone else over.

[Comrade Kal]

Yeah, those damn hierarchical anarchists... Tom, give us a fucking break. Don't just stand there syaing "ooh, all your ideology is rubbish!" without pointing out a single flaw in it or suggesting an alternative you ignorant fool.

Edited by Comrade Kal, 30 June 2006 - 03:47 PM.