Political Theory

Political Theory
This is my political theory, I have thought this up over the years and some things have changed through influence of people and experiences. But the Key Concepts have stayed the same.


Economy
The economy is to be structured syndicalism. The privatization of business is allowed, but business is controlled by a Union. There is a Union for each industry. The leader of the Union is elected at a meeting held by the Council (discussed later). The Owners of each business vote amongst them selves for the leader, and the Council votes also.


Council
The Council Serves as both Executive and Judicial branch of the government. They are elected amongst the people. They have some experience of leadership, and have done something to gain the peoples recognition. They are appointed by the Chief (discussed later), but the people can chose to over throw his choices, and have him select new Choices. There is an election every 1-5 years. Note they are the provincial leaders, and come together also to make laws for the nation.

Chief
The Chief is a sort of false leader, whose heirs take his place. The prime roll of the Chief is to make sure the country is fit, if not he is to round up the Citizens and attack the state in the name of justice! He also appoints Councilors, but Councilors can rule to the death if the people keep choosing them. But every election the Chief chooses a worth alternative for each Councilor.



By, David Darr (Liche)

Center!!! Comon boys let's be neutral!

Liche wrote:

Economy
The economy is to be structured syndicalism. The privatization of business is allowed, but business is controlled by a Union. There is a Union for each industry. The leader of the Union is elected at a meeting held by the Council (discussed later). The Owners of each business vote amongst them selves for the leader, and the Council votes also.

So business are privately owned but not controlled by the owner but by the union. Then where's the implication of the private ownership then?

And how does the economy work at all? You're just describing ownership over the means of production (loosely) and election of leadership.

Liche wrote:

Council
The Council Serves as both Executive and Judicial branch of the government. They are elected amongst the people. They have some experience of leadership, and have done something to gain the peoples recognition. They are appointed by the Chief (discussed later), but the people can chose to over throw his choices, and have him select new Choices. There is an election every 1-5 years. Note they are the provincial leaders, and come together also to make laws for the nation.

What's the necesity covered by this or the overall benefit?

Liche wrote:

Chief
The Chief is a sort of false leader, whose heirs take his place. The prime roll of the Chief is to make sure the country is fit, if not he is to round up the Citizens and attack the state in the name of justice! He also appoints Councilors, but Councilors can rule to the death if the people keep choosing them. But every election the Chief chooses a worth alternative for each Councilor.

By, David Darr (Liche)

Same question. And what makes this chief eligible to decide wether the country is fit or not? And are you assuming people are drones that need a "chief" to round them up against the state? Passes down his position to heirs like some sort of Monarch?

Let me rephrase, business is regulated by the unions. They are owned privately, but 1/10th of the profits go to the union. At the end of each fiscal year the money each business makes is tallied, and the 10% of each business is shared according to who earned most and who earned least (the business with least gets more money).

People suggest laws to the Council, the Council oversees and debate these suggestions and they decide whether or not it is good. They also hold court.

And no, people are not mindless drones. People are people, and some times people forget the way things were meant to be (take the US for instance). The Chief basically vows to Oversee the Nation (and each heir does the same) and if the Nation becomes corrupt he rounds up the people (he also sees what the Council does at all times to make sure they are not hiding anything).

Liche wrote:

Let me rephrase, business is regulated by the unions. They are owned privately, but 1/10th of the profits go to the union. At the end of each fiscal year the money each business makes is tallied, and the 10% of each business is shared according to who earned most and who earned least (the business with least gets more money).

Which is nothing but a state that taxes business to redistribute part of the capital....

Liche wrote:

People suggest laws to the Council, the Council oversees and debate these suggestions and they decide whether or not it is good. They also hold court.

And the council is comformed by? And why do they have the authority to veto popular decisions?

Liche wrote:

And no, people are not mindless drones. People are people, and some times people forget the way things were meant to be (take the US for instance).

The only way people can forget how things are supposed to be is when said notion is abstracted and isolated from their everyday life and distribution of knowledge. (And I don't see how USA wasn't meant to end up as a capitalist empire)

Liche wrote:

The Chief basically vows to Oversee the Nation (and each heir does the same) and if the Nation becomes corrupt he rounds up the people (he also sees what the Council does at all times to make sure they are not hiding anything).

And how does this vow guarantee the righteousness of this individual? How does vowing grant this individual the authority to lead masses into the correction of the government? What gurantees this individual won't get corrupt or his heirs? This pretty much resembles the idea of Social Monarchy, which is basically a "socialist" monarchy in which the all mighty communist king will defend communism within his people...

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

Liche wrote:

And no, people are not mindless drones. People are people, and some times people forget the way things were meant to be (take the US for instance).

The only way people can forget how things are supposed to be is when said notion is abstracted and isolated from their everyday life and distribution of knowledge. (And I don't see how USA wasn't meant to end up as a capitalist empire)

Just to light up a lamp mr i can answer everything, look at the reason USA made a revolution, No taxation without representation, and nowadays we pretty much do not know where our taxes go.

well Zealot, you make a good argument.

but nothing is fool proof, I trust in this system, just as you trust in Communism.

Jesus wrote:

Just to light up a lamp mr i can answer everything, look at the reason USA made a revolution, No taxation without representation, and nowadays we pretty much do not know where our taxes go.

I don't see in which way your arguement counters mine. Fighting against taxation without representation doesn't mean you don't want your independence movement to evolve into a capitalist empire. And some of the founding fathers had forseen that USA would evolve into a plutocracy which inherently is a powerhouse of capitalism.

Liche wrote:

well Zealot, you make a good argument.

but nothing is fool proof, I trust in this system, just as you trust in Communism.

The thing Liche, is that communism doesn't depend on a bunch of individuals running the whole economy. Communism depends on everyone. And for communism to be achieved the revolution must be a coordinated action of all workers united after having got the necesary knowledges thus the necesary social awareness.

Communism, if well coordinated, can work very well, but if it doesn't it will be clear to everyone that that it's everyone's responsability and the obvious course of action will be to fix what is not working. But everything will be workers' decisions and the economy will be entirely run by them. It won't be communism what would fail but the work programmes and they can be easily changed.

So actually communism is indeed fool-proof.


The system you're describing in your theory pretty much resembles just a twisted combination of institutions we've already got before and which we already have now.

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

Jesus wrote:

Just to light up a lamp mr i can answer everything, look at the reason USA made a revolution, No taxation without representation, and nowadays we pretty much do not know where our taxes go.

I don't see in which way your arguement counters mine. Fighting against taxation without representation doesn't mean you don't want your independence movement to evolve into a capitalist empire. And some of the founding fathers had forseen that USA would evolve into a plutocracy which inherently is a powerhouse of capitalism.

well.... no one was they're to reming them why they where in the first place and look what happened yes it does counter...

Jesus wrote:

well.... no one was they're to reming them why they where in the first place and look what happened yes it does counter...

They revolted because they wanted independence. The cause for that revolt was not just taxation without representation. It was a combination of factors, pretty much like with any other revolutionary movement. They were being exploited by the brittish empire as much as possible and they got tired. They struggled for independence and got it.

To preserve that Independence they had to grow strong and they ambitioned power and wealth. The result: USA.

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

Jesus wrote:

well.... no one was they're to reming them why they where in the first place and look what happened yes it does counter...

They revolted because they wanted independence. The cause for that revolt was not just taxation without representation. It was a combination of factors, pretty much like with any other revolutionary movement. They were being exploited by the brittish empire as much as possible and they got tired. They struggled for independence and got it.

To preserve that Independence they had to grow strong and they ambitioned power and wealth. The result: USA.

Well the main cause was taxation, they didn't really cared about anything else, exept the fact they wanted to make a decision without consulting G-B, they we're just pissed at taxes mainly. Btw wtf? to preserve? what are you talking about, no one in that area could really threat them

Jesus wrote:

Well the main cause was taxation, they didn't really cared about anything else, exept the fact they wanted to make a decision without consulting G-B, they we're just pissed at taxes mainly.

That's jst the cause, not what "USA was meant to be".

Jesus wrote:

Btw wtf? to preserve? what are you talking about, no one in that area could really threat them

Great Britain, France and Spain. If USA hadn't grown stronger or hadn't expanded, tey would have been locked by both French and Spanish Empires.

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

Great Britain, France and Spain. If USA hadn't grown stronger or hadn't expanded, tey would have been locked by both French and Spanish Empires.

What about the Dutch?

They had like uber much land, and we had New York before, only we traded it with Britain for Suriname, useless fact ftw!!

CoolKidX wrote:

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

Great Britain, France and Spain. If USA hadn't grown stronger or hadn't expanded, tey would have been locked by both French and Spanish Empires.

What about the Dutch?

They had like uber much land, and we had New York before, only we traded it with Britain for Suriname, useless fact ftw!!

no you lost war and the brits aggreed that you could take a useless hugga bugga island as compestation for having your ASS KICKED.

Iceland has never lost a war.

mattabesta wrote:

CoolKidX wrote:

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

Great Britain, France and Spain. If USA hadn't grown stronger or hadn't expanded, tey would have been locked by both French and Spanish Empires.

What about the Dutch?

They had like uber much land, and we had New York before, only we traded it with Britain for Suriname, useless fact ftw!!

no you lost war and the brits aggreed that you could take a useless hugga bugga island as compestation for having your ASS KICKED.

Iceland has never lost a war.

That is uber bull-sheed!

No dude WE won the war, and we tought New York(then it was called New Amsterdam) was a piece of waste so we tought Suriname was a richfull colony, well it was a little so trade and done.

CoolKidX wrote:

mattabesta wrote:

CoolKidX wrote:

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

Great Britain, France and Spain. If USA hadn't grown stronger or hadn't expanded, tey would have been locked by both French and Spanish Empires.

What about the Dutch?

They had like uber much land, and we had New York before, only we traded it with Britain for Suriname, useless fact ftw!!

no you lost war and the brits aggreed that you could take a useless hugga bugga island as compestation for having your ASS KICKED.

Iceland has never lost a war.

That is uber bull-sheed!

No dude WE won the war, and we tought New York(then it was called New Amsterdam) was a piece of waste so we tought Suriname was a richfull colony, well it was a little so trade and done.

your glory days were 400 years ago get over it ya lost.

mattabesta wrote:

CoolKidX wrote:

mattabesta wrote:

CoolKidX wrote:

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

Great Britain, France and Spain. If USA hadn't grown stronger or hadn't expanded, tey would have been locked by both French and Spanish Empires.

What about the Dutch?

They had like uber much land, and we had New York before, only we traded it with Britain for Suriname, useless fact ftw!!

no you lost war and the brits aggreed that you could take a useless hugga bugga island as compestation for having your ASS KICKED.

Iceland has never lost a war.

That is uber bull-sheed!

No dude WE won the war, and we tought New York(then it was called New Amsterdam) was a piece of waste so we tought Suriname was a richfull colony, well it was a little so trade and done.

your glory days were 400 years ago get over it ya lost.

No Iceland is great, to bad the banks are loseing evrything oh ya I did.

But thiz is off-topic, so Il stop now

CoolKidX wrote:

mattabesta wrote:

CoolKidX wrote:

mattabesta wrote:

CoolKidX wrote:

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

Great Britain, France and Spain. If USA hadn't grown stronger or hadn't expanded, tey would have been locked by both French and Spanish Empires.

What about the Dutch?

They had like uber much land, and we had New York before, only we traded it with Britain for Suriname, useless fact ftw!!

no you lost war and the brits aggreed that you could take a useless hugga bugga island as compestation for having your ASS KICKED.

Iceland has never lost a war.

That is uber bull-sheed!

No dude WE won the war, and we tought New York(then it was called New Amsterdam) was a piece of waste so we tought Suriname was a richfull colony, well it was a little so trade and done.

your glory days were 400 years ago get over it ya lost.

No Iceland is great, to bad the banks are loseing evrything oh ya I did.

But thiz is off-topic, so Il stop now

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_york

New York was inhabited by the Algonquin, Iroquois, and Lenape Native American groups at the time Dutch and French nationals moved into the region in the early 17th century. First claimed by Henry Hudson in 1609, the region came to have Dutch forts at Fort Orange, near the site of the present-day capital of Albany in 1614, and was colonized by the Dutch in 1624 at both Albany and Manhattan; it later fell to British annexation in 1664.

Iceland is still richer than most of europe and has lower unemployment.

mattabesta wrote:

Iceland is still richer than most of europe and has lower unemployment.

This has gone too off-topic and what you said is utterely false. It's ipossible that such a small country with so few resources and population outwealths a whole continent or even the larger countries of it.

Of course, speaking about real wealth.

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

mattabesta wrote:

Iceland is still richer than most of europe and has lower unemployment.

This has gone too off-topic and what you said is utterely false. It's ipossible that such a small country with so few resources and population outwealths a whole continent or even the larger countries of it.

Of course, speaking about real wealth.

GPD wise yes we do exept norway and lux and possably some othere cuntry.
unemployment in Iceland is rare evrybody works overtime and such but now any longer, we have 3% unemployment but that's up 2.9%

mattabesta wrote:

GPD wise yes we do exept norway and lux and possably some othere cuntry.

Which means in fictional economy.

mattabesta wrote:

unemployment in Iceland is rare evrybody works overtime and such but now any longer, we have 3% unemployment but that's up 2.9%

Yeah, I didn't mean to target the unemployment part.

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

mattabesta wrote:

GPD wise yes we do exept norway and lux and possably some othere cuntry.

Which means in fictional economy.

mattabesta wrote:

unemployment in Iceland is rare evrybody works overtime and such but now any longer, we have 3% unemployment but that's up 2.9%

Yeah, I didn't mean to target the unemployment part.

what?
and recourses are: oil, turism, hydropower,fish and debt.

mattabesta wrote:

what?
and recourses are: oil, turism, hydropower,fish and debt.

GDP, as measured in money, is fictional economy.

What you mentioned just now is real economy, except for debt which is absolutely fictional.

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

mattabesta wrote:

what?
and recourses are: oil, turism, hydropower,fish and debt.

GDP, as measured in money, is fictional economy.

What you mentioned just now is real economy, except for debt which is absolutely fictional.

no it's sadly real but evryone in Iceland would like to think like you, we owe around a few billion.

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

Jesus wrote:

Well the main cause was taxation, they didn't really cared about anything else, exept the fact they wanted to make a decision without consulting G-B, they we're just pissed at taxes mainly.

That's jst the cause, not what "USA was meant to be".

Jesus wrote:

Btw wtf? to preserve? what are you talking about, no one in that area could really threat them

Great Britain, France and Spain. If USA hadn't grown stronger or hadn't expanded, tey would have been locked by both French and Spanish Empires.

Not really France was too occupied doing other things, they didnt even defended they're territory back then they wouldn't have invaded over here. G-B just had they're ass kicked utterly they wouldn't try and grab it back. And Spain well wtf spain? they didnt even covered all the south america so... you could add mexicans you're arguing would be even more credible