NationStates

Kalivyah wrote:

Sordhau wrote:
It's easy to win debates when you argue with yourself.

Maybe let me counter my claims instead of assuming what my arguments will be?

... Maybe you should have like, done that first instead of writing about it?

I would have if you hadn't decided to write my arguments for me, without having the slightest clue as to how I would respond yet believing you did all the same.

Arrogance is never a good look.

Sordhau wrote:

Kalivyah wrote:... Maybe you should have like, done that first instead of writing about it?

I would have if you hadn't decided to write my arguments for me, without having the slightest clue as to how I would respond yet believing you did all the same.

Arrogance is never a good look.

Perhaps once again you should write your own arguments instead of complaining.

Political democracy, but all the parties are a type of socialism, and the representation of capitalism and discriminatory ideology in government made illegal.

Make it so things that are anti-fascist, anti-imperialist, anti-capitalist, and anti-discriminatory. Oh, and also, no police state, please.

Kalivyah wrote:

Sordhau wrote:
I would have if you hadn't decided to write my arguments for me, without having the slightest clue as to how I would respond yet believing you did all the same.

Arrogance is never a good look.

Perhaps once again you should write your own arguments instead of complaining.

I would have been able to if you had simple asked a question without providing your own answer and claim it as my own. Now I'm not feeling any incentive to continue engaging you in good faith since you seem unwilling to do the same.

That and I have to leave for work soon and don't have time to type up a response.

Xerographica wrote:A long time ago i lived in china for half a year. i ate a wide variety of very delicious and affordable street food nearly everyday and didn't get food poisoning once.

regulation has 3 main results

1. decrease the variety and quality of food
2. increase the price of food
3. decrease employment options

everybody gets screwed. poorer people get especially screwed.

you have this idea that legislators are magically enlightened enough to correctly weigh the costs and benefits of regulation for you, me and every other unique individual in society. this idea is the most harmful idea ever.

you want to voluntarily contribute to a non-profit organization that certifies participating food companies as meeting a high standard of cleanliness? fine, no problem. if you're concerned about the problem of free-riding, fine, it's a reasonable concern, therefore taxes. but it is entirely not fine if you think it's a good idea for somebody who doesn't even know my favorite fruit to decide how my taxes should be spent.

Similar disillusionment can be had after spending enough time in DC culture.
It is a universal condition encapsulated in one of my favorite MTW2 quotes.

"Do you know, my son, with how little wisdom the world is governed?"

smh the first reaction to a return of xero's ideas should be "Lord in Heaven they're back"

Xerographica wrote:didn't get food poisoning once.

There are other risks involved other than "food poisoning" like nasty carcinogens that have a delayed effect in the human body. You may have tissue damage and not even know it.

Austria-Bohemia-Hungary wrote:smh the first reaction to a return of xero's ideas should be "Lord in Heaven they're back"

The reaction to anyone who says that regulation is bad should also be "lord in heaven".

Dimetrodon Empire wrote:

Xerographica wrote:didn't get food poisoning once.

There are other risks involved other than "food poisoning" like nasty carcinogens that have a delayed effect in the human body. You may have tissue damage and not even know it.

Nonsense. I don't feel like I have tissue damage thus the unregulated food I just ate must be perfectly fine.

The only thing the government should do is:
- Fund some form of law enforcement (not necessarily police)
- Fund some form of a defence force
- Provide universal healthcare, education, and other essential services necessary for a hightened quality of life (like roads or emergancy services)
- Protect worker's rights
- Protect the environment
- Protect individual rights
- Facilitate democratic elections which encourage comprimise and cooperation between political parties

The government has no buissiness regulating:
- Speech (This includes full amnesty for whistleblowers, if your government is corrupt or poorly functioning and someone calls it out, they should be applauded)
- How many firearms an individual can have
- What one may do with their own body
- Who may assemble, how many can join them, and where
- What field someone can go into (everyone has the right to the persuit of happyness)
- What someone may do on their own land as long as they are not impacting the surrounding enviroment to a large degree

Imperial State wrote:Political democracy, but all the parties are a type of socialism, and the representation of capitalism and discriminatory ideology in government made illegal.

Make it so things that are anti-fascist, anti-imperialist, anti-capitalist, and anti-discriminatory. Oh, and also, no police state, please.

So you want a society free from a police state but you'll ban capitalist parties?

Xerographica wrote:

The Black Forrest wrote:Oh no.

Sorry. I like food being safe. I have had food poisoning and it’s not worth waiting for the “free market” getting around to correcting it.

A long time ago i lived in china for half a year. i ate a wide variety of very delicious and affordable street food nearly everyday and didn't get food poisoning once.

regulation has 3 main results

1. decrease the variety and quality of food
2. increase the price of food
3. decrease employment options

everybody gets screwed. poorer people get especially screwed.

you have this idea that legislators are magically enlightened enough to correctly weigh the costs and benefits of regulation for you, me and every other unique individual in society. this idea is the most harmful idea ever.

you want to voluntarily contribute to a non-profit organization that certifies participating food companies as meeting a high standard of cleanliness? fine, no problem. if you're concerned about the problem of free-riding, fine, it's a reasonable concern, therefore taxes. but it is entirely not fine if you think it's a good idea for somebody who doesn't even know my favorite fruit to decide how my taxes should be spent.

Rather than regulate, the government should enable people to signal their disapproval of venues that give them food poisoning. Perhaps by smearing their bloody liquid faeces over the walls.

Samicana wrote:

Imperial State wrote:Political democracy, but all the parties are a type of socialism, and the representation of capitalism and discriminatory ideology in government made illegal.

Make it so things that are anti-fascist, anti-imperialist, anti-capitalist, and anti-discriminatory. Oh, and also, no police state, please.

So you want a society free from a police state but you'll ban capitalist parties?

The dictatorship of the proletariat, my friend.

Dumb Ideologies wrote:

Xerographica wrote:A long time ago i lived in china for half a year. i ate a wide variety of very delicious and affordable street food nearly everyday and didn't get food poisoning once.

regulation has 3 main results

1. decrease the variety and quality of food
2. increase the price of food
3. decrease employment options

everybody gets screwed. poorer people get especially screwed.

you have this idea that legislators are magically enlightened enough to correctly weigh the costs and benefits of regulation for you, me and every other unique individual in society. this idea is the most harmful idea ever.

you want to voluntarily contribute to a non-profit organization that certifies participating food companies as meeting a high standard of cleanliness? fine, no problem. if you're concerned about the problem of free-riding, fine, it's a reasonable concern, therefore taxes. but it is entirely not fine if you think it's a good idea for somebody who doesn't even know my favorite fruit to decide how my taxes should be spent.

Rather than regulate, the government should enable people to signal their disapproval of venues that give them food poisoning. Perhaps by smearing their bloody liquid faeces over the walls.

Quite!

Imperial State wrote:Political democracy, but all the parties are a type of socialism, and the representation of capitalism and discriminatory ideology in government made illegal.

Make it so things that are anti-fascist, anti-imperialist, anti-capitalist, and anti-discriminatory. Oh, and also, no police state, please.

The purpose of government is to suppress people who think this.

Samicana wrote:

Imperial State wrote:Political democracy, but all the parties are a type of socialism, and the representation of capitalism and discriminatory ideology in government made illegal.

Make it so things that are anti-fascist, anti-imperialist, anti-capitalist, and anti-discriminatory. Oh, and also, no police state, please.

So you want a society free from a police state but you'll ban capitalist parties?

... Yeah. Not the same thing.

Gravlen wrote:So if I murder someone, I should face no consequences if the police shows up after I'm done with my violent act? Neat.

I'm with you on the idea that a government shouldn't be quite that minimal, but also this feels slightly bad-faithy? That said, this is a legitimate flaw with the wording of OP's proposal.

Imperial State wrote:

Samicana wrote:So you want a society free from a police state but you'll ban capitalist parties?

... Yeah. Not the same thing.

Sure, in theory.
A "police state" and a state where "capital[ist] and discriminatory ideology [is] illegal" aren't necessarily the same thing, but restricting political expression will need policing to enforce it. And unless you plan to somehow let those parties exist and just ban them from holding office, you'd need a fairly significant police presence and rather shaky free speech rights to prevent these parties from materializing. Especially with as broad a brush as you've given it, a state that restricts political expression will approach authoritarianism and being a "police state".

Workers would be the government. Their function would be to maintain and perfect the socialist workers' paradise. One Big Union!

Ensuring the prosperity of society.

What actions may be necessary to achieve this prosperity, what constitutes prosperity, and what actions may be necessary to achieve these ends will change with time and according to situation; it's important that ideological dogma never be the foundation of a state, or how it percieves it's course of action. Morality and tradition should act as guiding principals against which material courses of action are judged against.

Things like big government or small government, democracy, socialism, fascism, or what have you should be viewed as tools in this regard - and not as ends to be achieved in it themselves.

I would say that if the general citizenry could be considered generally healthy, happy, safe, materially well off, and independent, then the state can count it's efforts as a success.

Elwher wrote:What, in your ideal state, would the government do? I'll start with mine.

Military to defend against outside violence;
Police to defend against inside violence;
Civil Courts to defend against fraud and enforce freely entered-into contracts

Beyond that, no coercive functions. For example, food inspections should not be mandatory BUT if not inspected, they must be clearly labeled as such so people can make their choice as an educated consumer. If not labeled or if mislabeled, see function 3 above.

Mine would be very similar. Maximal self-government of individuals (and their immediate families) in communion (voluntary association) with others through practice and recognition of natural rights, civic virtue, and constitutional (little c) governance; Lawful contractual obligation with the State only organized at the consent of the governed; and to function only to protect against coercion and fraud.

Independent courts (independent from the Executive and the Legislative functions -- not the Public) to adjudicate (and only adjudicate) breaches in law (coercion and fraud).

Police as civic organizations (not part of the state (European sense)) to be
1. organized and disbanded according to the needs of the community;
2. derived from the most local source of community; and
3. totally amenable and beholden to the Citizenry for their actions
. 3a. to act only as peace officers,
. 3b. to act never as law enforcement agents unless absolutely / necessarily warranted by duly constituted judicial action,
. 3c. in maintaining of civil order (e.g., riots, serving lawful writs and injunctions) in deference to the rights, privileges, and immunities of each and every natural person fully and equally;
4. the organization of which to be paid for by amortized local bonds voted on by the citizens of the local communities, and dismissed by them accordingly.

Military from among the constitutional organization of the People constrained to sworn fealty to constitutional governance as a means of defense from invasion and illegal insurrection, such as the Unites States when its military was federated (before the creeping nationalization of its Military since 1903.)

Re: No coercive functions.
Objective truth, justice, and goodness are the means of government and its ends are liberty. Negative application of Law standard operating procedure, and positive application of lawful criminal statutes wherein the victim cannot speak for himself (e.g., victim has been murdered). Thus truth in advertising needs no legislation. Lying about your product, or what is in your product is a crime in and of itself actionable in any court of law. Processing foods in unsanitary conditions outside of the conventional standard is a crime (or possible gross tort) in and of itself, etc. Willful negligence leading to death earns the death penalty. Deprivation of rights under color of law (or authority) and misprisions of felonies of same are seditious acts in and of themselves warranting severe public reprimand and the harshest penalties under law.

Elwher wrote:What, in your ideal state, would the government do? I'll start with mine.

Military to defend against outside violence;

Sure.

Elwher wrote:Civil Courts to defend against fraud and enforce freely entered-into contracts

Yes, but there must be an actual contract (physical or digital) to enforce, not some sneaky EULA or "implied" agreement. No contract, no case.

Elwher wrote:Police to defend against inside violence;

Oh hell naw.

Rusozak wrote:Looks like we're doing the thing again where libertarians act like "wash your hands" signs are tyranny. Just read The Jungle. Libertarians want to take us back to the god damn gilded age I swear. What's next, children have a right to work in coal mines?

If they wanted to, yes. But first they have a right not to be branded "juvenile delinquents" for doing things adults do all the time, e.g. drinking and smoking. Abolish the police, abolish controlled substance laws. #mybodymychoice

Sordhau wrote:The ideal government is one that is democratic, republican, decentralized, and stateless. If it is lacking in any one of these qualities it is either an unfair or oppressive system - but usually both.

"Democratic" in the sense that any and all officials are chosen by the general public; specifically by those who they will be working for and with. Candidates will be selected from among their communities by said community. There will not be annual elections - rather the public will have the power to call an election at any time for any reason to replace an official they deem to be grossly inadequate for their position, so long as there is a majority popular support for the election to be held. Offices will have only the powers delegated to them by the public, nothing more. In this way the people choose whom they please, when they please, with as much authority and power as they deem appropriate.

"Republican" in the sense that the nature of government is a public affair. The government will not be permitted to keep secrets from the public; the transfer of resources, any and all votes, and all instances of internal political discussion cannot occur behind closed doors. No secrets, no lies, no privilege. Officials will live among the population, will not have official security, and their proceedings will not be closed to the public either for viewership or attendance.

"Decentralized" in the sense that government power begins at the bottom and dilutes at the top. The further up the chain of bureaucracy you go, the less authority they have. As such immediate problems requiring immediate solutions will be addressed immediately at the local level.

"Stateless" in the sense that the government shall not have any sort of capability to enforce it's decisions, ensuring that unpopular measures cannot be implemented against the express will of the population. No law enforcement, no armed forces. If need be the government can organize a purely volunteer militias in times of need for an armed force whose express purpose shall be to address the emergency it was created for and, once that emergency has abated, will be dissolved thereafter.

I agree with most of what you said--right until you got to this part:

Sordhau wrote:To prevent rampant abuse of this system currency, class, and private property will also have to be abolished (surprise, it's Communism!) lest the market, hierarchy, or privilege be used to the advantage of villains seeking to subvert the system and establish tyranny or inequality.

Oh hell naw.

Kalivyah wrote:law enforcement, while certainly shit today is an absolutely necessary force for a society. society will never be perfect and there will always be crime, regardless of the economic or political system... so to suggest that law enforcement all-together, in any form should be abolished is stupid...

It's possible to be anti-cop without being pro-crime. I oppose police because they represent a government monopoly on safety and crime prevention. If someone's home or store is being broken into, they or any passerby should be able to do whatever it takes to stop the perp--not wait for agents of the state to take their merry time and a) ignore it; b) catch the perp after the fact, only for the courts to set them free; or c) arrest the victim for doing their jobs and making them look bad. Like any monopoly, the police have no incentive to do their jobs well if they operate unopposed and unchecked with zero competition. So the solution is to abolish the police and legalize armed private security forces.

Old Tyrannia wrote:The purpose of the State is to produce and maintain an environment conducive to the pursuit of virtue. Providing its citizens with a degree of stability and security should be the primary objective of government, whether that means offering protection to the peasantry so that they needn't fear having their farms burned and crops seized by marauding raiders or, in more modern times, ensuring the availability of essential necessities such as food, fuel and medical care to all the members of society.

I'd abolish the middle man (i.e. the police, the state) and arm the peasants directly.

Elwher wrote:Person A has something, Person B is stronger, wants it, and takes it. Without some policing, how does Person A get his property back?

If I had a country, vigilante justice would be fully legal. So A could either confront B himself, or contract C to do it for him. C could be anyone from a friend to a whole mercenary army. Such is the magic of the market.

Also, cops getting your property back? In most countries they'd just laugh you out of the station unless you were powerful or well-connected.

My country is severely against capitalism and all for socialism. Military is not overly funded.

Zerotaxia wrote:If I had a country, vigilante justice would be fully legal. So A could either confront B himself, or contract C to do it for him. C could be anyone from a friend to a whole mercenary army. Such is the magic of the market.

This is a perfect recipe for a failed state - PMCs running around killing each other for their masters' will.

Picairn wrote:

Zerotaxia wrote:If I had a country, vigilante justice would be fully legal. So A could either confront B himself, or contract C to do it for him. C could be anyone from a friend to a whole mercenary army. Such is the magic of the market.

This is a perfect recipe for a failed state - PMCs running around killing each other for their masters' will.

Nah, if it gets too heated the army (actual, not a PMC) would step in to restore the peace. I wouldn't abolish that part of the government.

Late 1920's China is in fact not a model to emulate here, ppl...