My political profile

I didnt post it before because I suck cocks.

So I think there should be market regulations, but small, because we should encourage individuality. We should have some sort for homelessness and stuff, but if the government intevenes especially alot, it doesnt do so well.

We should have morality prevealent in society. We should encourage the nation's growth and as strong, at that. We should encourage freedom for everyone, but not freedom to be immoral. We should eliminate the concept of community because that's bad. We should have a strong military, for defense, but that's all. We should have no democracy, but instead the elite who are unbiased and fair choose what is to happen.

You're couragous, Calinis, to show your pretty different political ideals like that.

calinis wrote:

We should have no democracy, but instead the elite who are unbiased and fair choose what is to happen.

How are you going to find this unbiased, all-knowing, uncorruptible and unselfish elite?

Quote :

How are you going to find this unbiased and unselfish elite?

I will be in charge

This is a joke about a serious matter, calinis.

I think, even if you could find this unbiased and unselfish elite, it would not work. ( I think Stos and I are exceptionally in complete agreement you can not )
Why?

Problems of perfect ruler / Allurement of power.
An absolute elite ruling the world would be exposed to supernatural demands and fair to every human at same time. That requieres godlike powers and deepest understanding of humanity. Have both in one being is an unsolvable antagonism.
On the one hand, you may have an abstract, cold, maschine like ruler, who makes no misstakes. And judges "fair" following strict rules. ( who made them? can you set up perfect rules? Have you ever seen a floorless constitution? Would a goverment with this constitution be good enough? )

On the other, you have someone feeling empathy, acting humanly and fair, following his "heart". Your elite needed to be composed from both types in a complete balance. Even the smallest differnt will destroy the balance.
A question from a realist to a mathematician: Can you divide an apple in two parts which are exacly the same? Even if you would be able to cut trough atoms, both halves of the apple would not be the same.

The world we live in does not contain anything totally perfect. Even if you find this unbiased and unselfish elite, they would fall for allurement of power, as long as they aren't perfect.


encourage freedom for everyone
This would be great. But no freedom to be immoral? Antagonism again, I think. The meaning of freedom already contains exceptions prohibited by laws. If you put further restrictions into freedom, it would not be freedom anymore. Or did you mean immorality should be forbidden by law?
( again, a goverment with good laws could replace your system )


We should eliminate the concept of community because that's bad.
No. How are you gonna do "some sort for homelessness and stuff" if you have no sense for community? I am afraid to say "antagonism" again. This stuff won't pop up from nothing you see?

calinis wrote:

We should have morality prevealent in society.

what exaclty would you define as moral? have you not learned in all your time on this furom that morality is subjective?

Marijah;

Quote :

An absolute elite ruling the world would be exposed to supernatural demands and fair to every human at same time. That requieres godlike powers and deepest understanding of humanity. Have both in one being is an unsolvable antagonism.

No I know what fairness is. I can think in demands of humans, because I am human myself.

Quote :

A question from a realist to a mathematician: Can you divide an apple in two parts which are exacly the same? Even if you would be able to cut trough atoms, both halves of the apple would not be the same.

No, but it does not matter. There needs not be equality in both aspects. Fairness is fairness, and that is that. If everyone is giving the same oppertunities, then that is fairness. We should think on that level purely right now. A good leader will think about his people, but should not get emotionally involved because that leads to biases and that destroys the concept of fairness.

Quote :

The world we live in does not contain anything totally perfect. Even if you find this unbiased and unselfish elite, they would fall for allurement of power, as long as they aren't perfect.

I agree that people want power and strength, but someone who is not evil will not use the power for bad.

Quote :

This would be great. But no freedom to be immoral? Antagonism again, I think. The meaning of freedom already contains exceptions prohibited by laws. If you put further restrictions into freedom, it would not be freedom anymore. Or did you mean immorality should be forbidden by law? ( again, a goverment with good laws could replace your system )

I mean simply a better legal system, in addition to everything else. There are things that are illegal and shouldn't be, and then there are things that are legal and shouldn't be. This is just one step of utopia.

Quote :

No. How are you gonna do "some sort for homelessness and stuff" if you have no sense for community? I am afraid to say "antagonism" again. This stuff won't pop up from nothing you see?

I'm saying we should fix problems that exist as a result of poverty from those who cannot achive greater because they are disabled, etc, soemthing that is NOT their fault. I am for fairness for everyone, but if someone is restricted or unable the same oppertunities as others, then it should be fixed so EVERYONE has the same oppertunities. I am not for fixing homelessness for people who have caused their own misfortune (ie, drugs)

Alek;

Quote :

what exaclty would you define as moral? have you not learned in all your time on this furom that morality is subjective?

Morality is anything that does not harm another person.

calinis wrote:

Quote :

what exaclty would you define as moral? have you not learned in all your time on this furom that morality is subjective?

Morality is anything that does not harm another person.

so having bucket loads of sexual parteners isnt immoral is it?

how about doing large quanitity of harmfull drugs or cmmiting suicide? is that moral? because it doesnt affect anyone but the individual doing it.

and by "harming another person" what do you mean?

Quote :

Morality is anything that does not harm another person.

So if i sat around all day rubbing my dick, i'd be moral?...

Quote :

so having bucket loads of sexual parteners isnt immoral is it?

how about doing large quanitity of harmfull drugs or cmmiting suicide? is that moral? because it doesnt affect anyone but the individual doing it.

and by "harming another person" what do you mean?

That is immoral; it harms society mentally.

Doing drugs harms people physically.

Quote :

So if i sat around all day rubbing my dick, i'd be moral?...

Nope, it harms me.

calinis wrote:

Quote :

so having bucket loads of sexual parteners isnt immoral is it?

how about doing large quanitity of harmfull drugs or cmmiting suicide? is that moral? because it doesnt affect anyone but the individual doing it.

and by "harming another person" what do you mean?

That is immoral; it harms society mentally.

Doing drugs harms people physically.

Quote :

So if i sat around all day rubbing my dick, i'd be moral?...

Nope, it harms me.

well actually in your logic, it doesnt, the only person being affected is the drug user.

nice try you francoist.

calinis wrote:

I didnt post it before because I wasn't able to.

So I think there should be market regulations, but small, because we should encourage individuality. We should have some sort for homelessness and stuff, but if the government intevenes especially alot, it doesnt do so well.

We should have morality prevealent in society. We should encourage the nation's growth and as strong, at that. We should encourage freedom for everyone, but not freedom to be immoral. We should eliminate the concept of community because that's bad. We should have a strong military, for defense, but that's all. We should have no democracy, but instead the elite who are unbiased and fair choose what is to happen.

I think the most appropriate term for that ideology is synarchism.

I think hes just conservative, he isn't even aloud in to the Anarcho-Nazi party.

Liche wrote:

I think hes just conservative, he isn't even aloud in to the Anarcho-Nazi party.

Synarchsim is usually very socially conservative, but its defining belief is rule by religious elite which is made up by leading manufacturers, members of the judiciary and the scientific community.

Quote :

Synarchsim is usually very socially conservative, but its defining belief is rule by religious elite which is made up by leading manufacturers, members of the judiciary and the scientific community.

No I never said it was religious.

calinis wrote:

Quote :

Synarchsim is usually very socially conservative, but its defining belief is rule by religious elite which is made up by leading manufacturers, members of the judiciary and the scientific community.

No I never said it was religious.

You said moral, which is kind of equatable.
In any case, the most important aspect if synarchism is a ruling elite made from those who controle the economy, judiciary, and scientific community.

Alek4A wrote:

calinis wrote:

Quote :

what exaclty would you define as moral? have you not learned in all your time on this furom that morality is subjective?

Morality is anything that does not harm another person.

so having bucket loads of sexual parteners isnt immoral is it?

how about doing large quanitity of harmfull drugs or cmmiting suicide? is that moral? because it doesnt affect anyone but the individual doing it.

and by "harming another person" what do you mean?

Actually suicides harm other people, especially your family and friends, because they will be in sorrow.

And drugs harm other people, because those who are addicted are forced into crime and violence to get what they need especially when they are poor and again they harm their family and friends by their behaviour and because people pitty drug addicts. Especially if they die.

Kenzu wrote:

Alek4A wrote:

calinis wrote:

Quote :

what exaclty would you define as moral? have you not learned in all your time on this furom that morality is subjective?

Morality is anything that does not harm another person.

so having bucket loads of sexual parteners isnt immoral is it?

how about doing large quanitity of harmfull drugs or cmmiting suicide? is that moral? because it doesnt affect anyone but the individual doing it.

and by "harming another person" what do you mean?

Actually suicides harm other people, especially your family and friends, because they will be in sorrow.

And drugs harm other people, because those who are addicted are forced into crime and violence to get what they need especially when they are poor and again they harm their family and friends by their behaviour and because people pitty drug addicts. Especially if they die.

The first? Well, that's not your problem. The law does not exist to stop people feeling sad. What are we going to do next, abolish free speech? Well, you probably would, but...
As for the second, that can be solved with socialism. If the workers still want to produce drugs, then let them.

Stos wrote:

Kenzu wrote:

Alek4A wrote:

calinis wrote:

Quote :

what exaclty would you define as moral? have you not learned in all your time on this furom that morality is subjective?

Morality is anything that does not harm another person.

so having bucket loads of sexual parteners isnt immoral is it?

how about doing large quanitity of harmfull drugs or cmmiting suicide? is that moral? because it doesnt affect anyone but the individual doing it.

and by "harming another person" what do you mean?

Actually suicides harm other people, especially your family and friends, because they will be in sorrow.

And drugs harm other people, because those who are addicted are forced into crime and violence to get what they need especially when they are poor and again they harm their family and friends by their behaviour and because people pitty drug addicts. Especially if they die.

The first? Well, that's not your problem. The law does not exist to stop people feeling sad. What are we going to do next, abolish free speech? Well, you probably would, but...
As for the second, that can be solved with capitalism. If the workers still want to produce drugs, then let them.

I would never abolish free speech, and of course I know that drugs will be produced in capitalism. This problem is called "market failure".

Sorry, I meant that it could be solved in socialism. In capitalism, drugs will generally just end up screwing the poor. However, if they were made legal, but regulated by the government (hey there, laissez-fairies. G'day), they would at least be safer, and hopefully not contain as many harmful impurities and such as they do when sold illegally.