Between two failed systems.

[Secruss]

You forgot "One that isn't corrupt".

[The Romulan Republic]

You forgot "One that isn't corrupt".

I take it that would fall under "other."

Frankly, some corruption is probably inevitable as long as humans are involved. The question is how best to limit it.

[Muravyets]

I kind of doubt that. I have a feeling they were very well aware of it, and judging by history, they didn't like it much. Some were able to do more about it than others.

Some were more conscious.

And the rest were...asleep? Comatose? Manikins?

[Pevisopolis]

Maybe a year would be a fair compromise?

Of course.

How could you prevent political organizations from attaining a certain size, while allowing freedom of speech, assembally, etc? Or would your system do away with those rights?

I'm not saying that that should be banned outright, I'm just saying that it would be very difficult within that system for any one group to attain power whilst in a public, communal assembly. And, I did say that I have a Problem with political parties, but that's just my own personal dislike.

Which brings me to another issue with direct democracy: is it possible to impliment on a large scale? Even if were shown to be technically feasible to hold regular public referendums on every major issue, who would decide which policies were even on the ballot with hundreds of millions of people all wanting their proposals to be heard?

Of course, we could try to implement it on a smaller scale, but forcibly breaking up big nations, especially in a world with numerous issues of regional and global concern, doesn't sound wise.

If you'll take a quick look at my nation's entire name, you'll see. Direct Democracy is almost impossible to implement on a large scale. However, I'm not suggesting that we forcibly break up any nations either, as in an ideal world, there really are no nations or states. But, that, too, is almost impossible. So, instead, several different communes, cities, etc. within their respective nations should simply band together with a common goal. But then, we come to the problems of a National Government, and it all leads back to Exploitation... Maybe nations Should be broken up... That is, given that a syndicalist political/economic system arises within that nation.

And the rest were...asleep? Comatose? Manikins?

Only if you speak entirely in Metaphors. Many people were Class-Conscious, just that... They couldn't do anything about it.

[Muravyets]

Being Conscious of what's going on around you is a lot more effective when you can actually do something about it rather than be restricted by Despotism, Monarchism, the perverted, Stalinist version of "Communism" or the Capitalist misconception of Bourgeois "Democracy"

Without expressing any response to your point of view as expressed in the above, this is indeed the point I was trying to make. The concentration of power in the hands of the few does not happen by accident. It is either a deliberate granting of such power, or a deliberate taking of such power. The suggestion that it happens because people are just not aware is not bourne out by history. Nor is the suggestion that if people would just be aware, it wouldn't happen. Even the most aware people are limited by circumstances. There will always be a "few" who seek to amass power at the expense of others. Those others will either allow them to have it, or try to stop them from getting it, and if they try to stop it, they will either succeed or fail in that attempt.

[Muravyets]

And the rest were...asleep? Comatose? Manikins?

Only if you speak entirely in Metaphors. Many people were Class-Conscious, just that... They couldn't do anything about it.

Then you are the one speaking in metaphors, and inaccurate ones at that. Not being able to do anything about social injustice is not the same as not being aware or conscious of it. And if you acknowledge that people can be conscious of a condition but unable to change it, then you invalidate the other person's suggestion that conciousness of a condition can prevent it from happening.

Do me a favor, please, and try not to confuse the point I am arguing, thanks.

[The Romulan Republic]

Is it just me, or is the new Nationstates forum a lot more right-wing than the old one? I would not have expected "pure libertarian" to be the leading option on such a poll. And all told, the typically right of centre positions hold 16 votes to the Socialist/Communist side's 11.

[Muravyets]

Is it just me, or is the new Nationstates forum a lot more right-wing than the old one? I would not have expected "pure libertarian" to be the leading option on such a poll. And all told, the typically right of centre positions hold how many votes?

It's probably all the rightwingers who were depressed or a-scared by the Jolt NSG trying to lay claim to this one before us vicious lefties invade.

EDIT: I suppose I should cast a vote for my side(-ish), but if I were to vote honestly, I would have chosen "Don't care" but I feel that I can't because of the attachment of "Don't know" to that. I do know, and I still don't care.

[Triniteras]

And the rest were...asleep? Comatose? Manikins?

Yes, exactly. Power is taken/maintained by those who are more conscious.
The masses don't have the power because they are lazy, cowardly and stupid.

[Pevisopolis]

And the rest were...asleep? Comatose? Manikins?

Only if you speak entirely in Metaphors. Many people were Class-Conscious, just that... They couldn't do anything about it.

Then you are the one speaking in metaphors, and inaccurate ones at that. Not being able to do anything about social injustice is not the same as not being aware or conscious of it. And if you acknowledge that people can be conscious of a condition but unable to change it, then you invalidate the other person's suggestion that conciousness of a condition can prevent it from happening.

Only Consciousness, and the willingness (and ability) to do something about it. A revolution, for instance, can't really be successful if the potential Revolutionaries have all shit their pants at the prospect of being tortured for Treason if they fail. Also, Democratic Change isn't really all that possible if you have to choose between the lesser of two evils in elections, and only two political parties (one right-wing, one center-right) are paid attention to by the media.

Really, I guess it's more an issue of being too lazy or apathetic to do anything. Exactly the issue with a lot of people I know. They realize very well about how our system is flawed and on the verge of being tyrannical, just that they'd rather not do anything about it. And, of course, there are the people who have convinced themselves that choosing between two equal evils in an election is "Democracy" (The "unconscious" in this situation). The emphasis of Society, sadly, is placed on the latter of these two types of people.

[Pevisopolis]

It's probably all the rightwingers who were depressed or a-scared by the Jolt NSG trying to lay claim to this one before us vicious lefties invade.

We better get off our fat asses and INVADE, then

[Muravyets]

And the rest were...asleep? Comatose? Manikins?

You are beginning to understand.

Ah, so they're all manikins! I KNEW it!!

Bobbleheads...all bobble heads....

[Muravyets]

And the rest were...asleep? Comatose? Manikins?

Yes, exactly. Power is taken/maintained by those who are more conscious.
The masses don't have the power because they are lazy, cowardly and stupid.

Yeah...that's bullshit. And pretty standard rightwing bullshit, too, faux-cynic-type.

[The Romulan Republic]

It's probably all the rightwingers who were depressed or a-scared by the Jolt NSG trying to lay claim to this one before us vicious lefties invade.

We better get off our fat asses and INVADE, then

Man the barricades! We must repell the invading hordes!

Nevermind, its evening out now.

[Pevisopolis]

And the rest were...asleep? Comatose? Manikins?

Yes, exactly. Power is taken/maintained by those who are more conscious.
The masses don't have the power because they are lazy, cowardly and stupid.

Really, Power is maintained by those who have the most money.

[Sibirsky]

Give me a break. Two failed systems? Capitalism has not failed. If you MUST know (you should have the ballpark down by my first 3 sentences) I voted for pure libertarianism, no gov't intervention.

[The Romulan Republic]

Give me a break. Two failed systems? Capitalism has not failed. If you MUST know (you should have the ballpark down by my first 3 sentences) I voted for pure libertarianism, no gov't intervention.

Capitalism's failiure is not yet complete, but if it continues to consume reasources and polute the environment at its current rate, it will eventually be confirmed as a self-destructive system once it has nothing left to turn into products and their's no one left to buy.

Also, unrestricted capitalism has a way of leaving workers little better off than slaves in many cases. But hey, I guess they deserved it, right?

[Never wrong People]

communism works only on the small scale like the family level of 4 people.
People will never agree on how to divide things up between at a certain point like say 4000 people.

Markets should in theory work out find because in the long run one person cheating another person will only end up hurting himself.
For example a person making all the bad loans. He or she has lost her job.
If people can not focus on making as much money as possible in the short term and focus on what is best for me in the long run, life is better for everyone.

The best system is when everyone makes the best decisions because of great ethics. - that sounds like someone running for office, which I am not.

There is no need for government in the perfect world, because people make the best decisions always and never need offical approval.

[Pevisopolis]

Give me a break. Two failed systems? Capitalism has not failed. If you MUST know (you should have the ballpark down by my first 3 sentences) I voted for pure libertarianism, no gov't intervention.

Really, It hasn't failed YET. It's getting there, though.

I think Socialism hasn't necessarily failed, but Stalinism and Soviet-style authoritarian "Communism" (as opposed to Marxism) have failed rather Dramatically.

[Never wrong People]

Capitalism's failiure is not yet complete, but if it continues to consume reasources and polute the environment at its current rate, it will eventually be confirmed as a self-destructive system once it has nothing left to turn into products and their's no one left to buy.

Also, unrestricted capitalism has a way of leaving workers little better off than slaves in many cases. But hey, I guess they deserved it, right?

Under any system resources will run out at some time.

It is in the best intest of industry to give workers a good wage because then they can become consumers and cause more wealth to be created.

[Muravyets]

Only Consciousness, and the willingness (and ability) to do something about it. A revolution, for instance, can't really be successful if the potential Revolutionaries have all shit their pants at the prospect of being tortured for Treason if they fail. Also, Democratic Change isn't really all that possible if you have to choose between the lesser of two evils in elections, and only two political parties (one right-wing, one center-right) are paid attention to by the media.

Really, I guess it's more an issue of being too lazy or apathetic to do anything. Exactly the issue with a lot of people I know. They realize very well about how our system is flawed and on the verge of being tyrannical, just that they'd rather not do anything about it. And, of course, there are the people who have convinced themselves that choosing between two equal evils in an election is "Democracy" (The "unconscious" in this situation). The emphasis of Society, sadly, is placed on the latter of these two types of people.

Pfft. Whatever. Those comments are based entirely on the a priori assumptions necessary to your worldview. I do not share that world view. I'm no rightwinger by any stretch of the imagination, but I'm not an idelogue of the left, either. All that guff about the evils of the two party system, about what big balls revolutionaries need, and weeping over the apathy of the masses (which you only assume are apathetic because they are not reacting to the system the way you wish they would) strike me as just the left side's talking point catalogue. I've heard that stuff countless times before and I care as little for it as I do for the right side's talking points.

I only came into this thread because that one comment struck me as too ludicrous to let slide. I've always been a sucker for an obvious target.

[The Romulan Republic]

Under any system resources will run out at some time.

True, but we can try to slow it down.

In the end though, we are fucked if we remain limitted to a single planet.

It is in the best intest of industry to give workers a good wage because then they can become consumers and cause more wealth to be created.

In theory, perhaps. But if a company can increase its profits by screwing over its workers, do you think most companies will hesitate to do so? Why do you think third world sweat shops are so popular?

[Sibirsky]

Give me a break. Two failed systems? Capitalism has not failed. If you MUST know (you should have the ballpark down by my first 3 sentences) I voted for pure libertarianism, no gov't intervention.

Really, It hasn't failed YET. It's getting there, though.

I think Socialism hasn't necessarily failed, but Stalinism and Soviet-style authoritarian "Communism" (as opposed to Marxism) have failed rather Dramatically.

Look at Hong Kong. The closest we have to capitalism on earth. Closer than the US. Very successful. With a lot less regulation than the US. Socialism on the other hand has failed in all it's forms. Marxism, Stalinism, Leninism, whateverthefuckyouwannacallthefailedsystemism have all failed.

[The Romulan Republic]

Look at Hong Kong. The closest we have to capitalism on earth. Closer than the US. Very successful. With a lot less regulation than the US. Socialism on the other hand has failed in all it's forms. Marxism, Stalinism, Leninism, whateverthefuckyouwannacallthefailedsystemism have all failed.

Please do not insult our inteligence or your's by equating Communism with socialism. Marxism, Stalinism, and Leninism are Communist.

[Sibirsky]

Look at Hong Kong. The closest we have to capitalism on earth. Closer than the US. Very successful. With a lot less regulation than the US. Socialism on the other hand has failed in all it's forms. Marxism, Stalinism, Leninism, whateverthefuckyouwannacallthefailedsystemism have all failed.

Please do not insult our inteligence or your's by equating Communism with socialism. Marxism, Stalinism, and Leninism are Communist.

That's why Lenin and Stalin ran a place know as the USSR? Better knows as the Union of Soviet SOCIALIST Republics?

And in Marxist theory, socialism was a transition economy, from capitalist, to communist.