The ideal government.

[Greater Cosmicium]

The only ideal government is one where we are ruled by super intelligent seals


/s

Should be crows instead, after all they are so intelligent they understand the concept of zero, something some human politicians seem to have failed to grasp.

[Joohan]

Honestly, the Amish don't seem too unhappy

[Great Algerstonia]

The ideal government is a government ruled by me with unlimited power

[The Reformed American Republic]

The ideal government is a government ruled by me with unlimited power

based

[Duvniask]

If that's your response to the problems you'd incur from this obsessions of yours with democratizing all aspects of life, you really need to get with the programme. Life is too short to be a series of Kafka-esque meetings where you have to vote on all the minutiae of social life. The anarchoid obsession with democracy is to such an extent that it is removed from any semblance of realism.

Lol what obsession it was a two-sentence throwaway response in an obscure internet forum who fucking cares calm down

Obsession shared by all anarchists and "left libertarians". Your sig makes it perfectly clear you're of that ilk.

Also, I'm perfectly calm here. You're the one that needs to calm down.

[Pasong Tirad]

Lol what obsession it was a two-sentence throwaway response in an obscure internet forum who fucking cares calm down

Obsession shared by all anarchists and "left libertarians". Your sig makes it perfectly clear you're of that ilk.

Also, I'm perfectly calm here. You're the one that needs to calm down.

Nah, I'm not the one going out of my way to shit on anarchists and libsocs/leftlibs, nor going out of my way to call them things like "anarch*ids."

[Duvniask]

Obsession shared by all anarchists and "left libertarians". Your sig makes it perfectly clear you're of that ilk.

Also, I'm perfectly calm here. You're the one that needs to calm down.

Nah, I'm not the one going out of my way to shit on anarchists and libsocs/leftlibs, nor going out of my way to call them things like "anarch*ids."

It's a word. It's used in theoretical texts.

You say "shit on", as if what I'm doing is in any way wrong. You do understand that this is supposed to be a forum where you can criticize others and call them out, right?

[Pasong Tirad]

Nah, I'm not the one going out of my way to shit on anarchists and libsocs/leftlibs, nor going out of my way to call them things like "anarch*ids."

It's a word. It's used in theoretical texts.

You say "shit on", as if what I'm doing is in any way wrong. You do understand that this is supposed to be a forum where you can criticize others and call them out, right?

You're more than welcome to waste your time and continue insisting that direct democracy is somehow bad. I'm not going to push the point.

[The Second JELLIAN Republic]

It's a word. It's used in theoretical texts.

You say "shit on", as if what I'm doing is in any way wrong. You do understand that this is supposed to be a forum where you can criticize others and call them out, right?

You're more than welcome to waste your time and continue insisting that direct democracy is somehow bad. I'm not going to push the point.

Direct democracy is the most democratic.
But it’s not practical.
Being a politician is a full time job, and citizens would not be able to give it 24/7 focus.
Even with electronic voting.

Direct democracy would either have a much smaller through-put of decisions being made in general, or it would force people to no give much consideration to any particular thought.
Besides, you know how people impulsively insult via text, but cool off when sending a letter.
Imagine impulse voting given a 10 second brief…

[Duvniask]

It's a word. It's used in theoretical texts.

You say "shit on", as if what I'm doing is in any way wrong. You do understand that this is supposed to be a forum where you can criticize others and call them out, right?

You're more than welcome to waste your time and continue insisting that direct democracy is somehow bad. I'm not going to push the point.

Why are you on this forum if you're just going to get pissed the moment someone calls you out? If I'm wasting my time here, surely you are even more so.

[Pasong Tirad]

You're more than welcome to waste your time and continue insisting that direct democracy is somehow bad. I'm not going to push the point.

Why are you on this forum if you're just going to get pissed the moment someone calls you out? If I'm wasting my time here, surely you are even more so.

Nah, not pissed. You can keep trying to insist I am, won't make it true though. I'm just being more selective of who I engage with on here. I understand that criticism is inevitable, especially in a forum with such a diverse selection of folks from all over. I'm just choosing to spend my time making effort posts with folks who engage in better faith than what I've seen from you. Hope you understand.

[Duvniask]

If that's your response to the problems you'd incur from this obsessions of yours with democratizing all aspects of life, you really need to get with the programme. Life is too short to be a series of Kafka-esque meetings where you have to vote on all the minutiae of social life. The anarchoid obsession with democracy is to such an extent that it is removed from any semblance of realism.

it's working pretty well in switzerland. then again, switzerland is a very small country.

I doubt Switzerland is what this person has in mind.

Even in Switzerland, not all decision-making is direct or conferred to the local (canton) level; there is a measure of deputization. Nor is it a "free association" as such. Also, many of the referenda have low voter participation and suffer from the same problems of collective action that you see in traditional political systems; parties that stand to gain concentrated benefits are more incentivized to participate, whilst parties that stand to have distributed losses (each person stands to lose just a little, perhaps even a negligible amount) will see little mobilization.

And this is not even getting into whether majority decision-making should even be a principle or not. I can think of various examples where such a thing would be ill-advised: engineers designing a dam don't need to get majority approval for the technicalities of doing so, even if the need to build it had been determined by consensus beforehand. And building said dam normally affects more people than just on a municipal level, so what then? Then we would have to move beyond the municipal level for decision-making if we're so very interested in "popular will". And similar problems would erupt if one municipality, say, chooses to dump a little toxic waste here and there into the rivers flowing to other places, if for no other reason than simple neglect. You see the same thing with how some anarchists will just say that a person who has committed a grave crime, murder for example, will be exiled, which literally just makes them someone else's problem to deal with. In such ways, anarchism really builds on a false, or at least unrealistic, dichotomy between the decentralized and the centralized, between "popular will" and imposition from without. There are ways in which popular will should not be considered as important, and similarly, what constitutes the popular will is also up for debate. Majority-decision making should be be used to the extent that it is a workable tool of decision-making, and if other ways are more effective they should be given just as much credence. More thought should go to what ends toward which power is to be wielded, rather than simply trying to maximize "autonomy".

[Thermodolia]

If that's your response to the problems you'd incur from this obsessions of yours with democratizing all aspects of life, you really need to get with the programme. Life is too short to be a series of Kafka-esque meetings where you have to vote on all the minutiae of social life. The anarchoid obsession with democracy is to such an extent that it is removed from any semblance of realism.

it's working pretty well in switzerland. then again, switzerland is a very small country.

That’s the thing. It wouldn’t work in a nation larger than a county, Switzerland doesn’t even vote on everything. As a lot of things are up to the representatives.

A government with actual voting on everything would be no bigger than how far you could travel in a day sans cars, trains, and air.

[Thermodolia]

Let me be the first to buck the naysaying trend that utopia is not possible for us, that an ideal form of government cannot truly serve humanity, but will ultimately break down given time.

No utopia is unattainable, because what a utopia is to you will not be a utopia to me.

The ideal form of government would be one where the capacity for technological innovation can be distributed through as much of the populace as possible, which in turn necessitates not only free, universal, continuing education and access to healthcare, but a certain degree of supranational bureaucratic planning, cultural and political homogenization with an aim towards socioeconomic egalitarianism over potentially hierarchical and in any case fractious pluralist alternatives, urban agglomeration to simplify economic, ecological, and pedagogical challenges, and the willful, deliberate, and preemptive suppression of the human will to violence, in favor of markedly peaceful collective action, not only to head off civilizational and planetary disasters that can only but to ensure a constant pace of the abovementioned technological innovation.

That sounds like hell. Definitely not utopian but definitely dystopian

The only way to bring all of this about is through a commitment to a long-term, thoroughgoing commitment not only to transhumanism but to autonomous artificial intelligence to aid human macrolevel decisionmaking.

Yup definitely a dystopia

[Torrocca]

Worldwide Communism baybee (preferably 1984ified [parody]), nothing more ideal than that right there let's go

You can always just not participate I suppose.

If that's your response to the problems you'd incur from this obsessions of yours with democratizing all aspects of life, you really need to get with the programme. Life is too short to be a series of Kafka-esque meetings where you have to vote on all the minutiae of social life. The anarchoid obsession with democracy is to such an extent that it is removed from any semblance of realism.

Wouldn't Communism, insofar as bringing power to the proletariat goes, basically democratize "all aspects of life"? Or should we ignore how that's been put into practice as best as can be, with the direct democratization of places of work and community in countries such as Cuba?

Unless you've suddenly decided that's uncool and bad, it sounds to me like you're raising an objection based on aestheticism and branding because he labels his ideology differently than you.

[Kaczynskisatva]

wow this is the most long-winded and pretentious form of tone policing i've seen to date and i've used this site for 4 years

I really liked the tone, actually. It's basically toneless, it reads like a car repair manual, and is coherent and well put-together.

I was criticizing something else about it, but I don't mind that you didn't get it. That was actually the highest praise I've ever written of any post ever on the forum, and I don't mind that you didn't get that, either. I wouldn't spend that much time telling you how to improve your own ideological method - I would just tell you to keep practicing. You do that.

[Ispravlennaja Tsekovija]

wow this is the most long-winded and pretentious form of tone policing i've seen to date and i've used this site for 4 years

I really liked the tone, actually. It's basically toneless, it reads like a car repair manual, and is coherent and well put-together.

I was criticizing something else about it, but I don't mind that you didn't get it. That was actually the highest praise I've ever written of any post ever on the forum, and I don't mind that you didn't get that, either. I wouldn't spend that much time telling you how to improve your own ideological method - I would just tell you to keep practicing. You do that.

LOL

[Duvniask]

If that's your response to the problems you'd incur from this obsessions of yours with democratizing all aspects of life, you really need to get with the programme. Life is too short to be a series of Kafka-esque meetings where you have to vote on all the minutiae of social life. The anarchoid obsession with democracy is to such an extent that it is removed from any semblance of realism.

Wouldn't Communism, insofar as bringing power to the proletariat goes, basically democratize "all aspects of life"?

Some notes on terminology.

Communism has no proletariat, no more than it has any bourgeoisie. Its function will be "democratic" (by that we mean majority-voting) to whatever degree that is necessary as a tool of decision-making, and that needn't always be the case, especially as power loses its class character. See also my post above for an elaboration on this (in addition to the texts below).

Then there is the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat, which is the transition period to communism during which it will be necessary for the proletariat to impose its power on that of the other classes - this of course cannot readily be compared to what is conventionally considered a democracy, where all people have the right to vote, etc. The proletariat will sing no overtures to the "will of the people" as a formless mass, because in reality this people is composed of competing interests, of which the proletarian dictatorship represents the imposition of one set of interests on the rest. It is an expression of the programmatic tasks set before the proletariat by history, not the result of any pluralist process.

Or should we ignore how that's been put into practice as best as can be, with the direct democratization of places of work and community in countries such as Cuba?

Complete myopia. The party elite runs the system in a closed loop where it gets to decide what candidates get nominated for what elections. The party elite also runs all the trade unions, youth and women's organizations. Somewhat competitive elections only exist on the local level.

But this is also a red herring: democratizing work and community has brought you precisely zero steps closer to communism. To suggest it is the best practical example of communism is like suggesting a coal power plant is the best practical example of a nuclear fusion reactor.

Unless you've suddenly decided that's uncool and bad, it sounds to me like you're raising an objection based on aestheticism and branding because he labels his ideology differently than you.

It is not a matter of aestheticism, it reflects an age old struggle, exemplified with Marx and Engels conflicting with their contemporaries.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/w ... hority.htm
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/w ... -notes.htm

[Nlarhyalo]

Muammar Qaddafi had it right.

[Alkmaaria]

I am relatively strongly of the opinion that criminals should simply be sent to prison. Criminals are, after all, criminals, and you can't trust them. You're basically giving them a slap on the wrist. This would also invariably lead to more government spending that could be used for more useful things. My sentiment is, they knew the penalty, and they commited the crime anyways. We shouldn't be treating them like drug addicts or something. They should be punished for commiting crimes.

Well most small crimes are drug related..

But also, if your starving and steal food.
That is the kind of crime that people will do over and over again. It’s not out of evilness, but wanting to survive. Rehabilitation cant fix things like those, but neither will prison. (Except that you get free food and bed in prison)

But to more of the core question.
Why do people do bad things.
If they are selfish or otherwise cold and calculating, you simply need to give them enough of a reason not to do something bad. But it’s rarely as simple as that. And most people are not sociopaths.

Can people not be redeemed ?
Are there some people in the world that are truly evil, and irredeemable ?
Does punishing people in the way we do, really help ?

1. If you're starving and steal food, it's still a crime. It's not like they're suddenly exonerated. Many cities/towns have soup kitchens and homeless shelters, for those who need them.
2. You're right, it usually isn't as simple as giving them a reason to not commit crimes. But like I said, you can't really complain when you get sent to jail for breaking the law, when it was ultimately you who put yourself there. The point of prison isn't to fix the person, but to punish them.
3. People can be redeemed. People learn from their past mistakes. But not holding them accountable for what they did is simply foolish.
4. I'm not the judge of character so I can't say if anyone is truly evil, so I can't answer that.
5. The point of prison isn't to help criminals, it's to punish them for breaking the law.

[Torrocca]

Wouldn't Communism, insofar as bringing power to the proletariat goes, basically democratize "all aspects of life"?

Some notes on terminology.

Communism has no proletariat, no more than it has any bourgeoisie.

Yes, yes, I understand that. I wasn't writing an essay that covers every little nuance of terminology there. You understood fully-well what I meant, after all, given what's written after this.

Its function will be "democratic" (by that we mean majority-voting) to whatever degree that is necessary as a tool of decision-making, and that needn't always be the case, especially as power loses its class character. See also my post above for an elaboration on this (in addition to the texts below).

Then there is the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat, which is the transition period to communism during which it will be necessary for the proletariat to impose its power on that of the other classes - this of course cannot readily be compared to what is conventionally considered a democracy, where all people have the right to vote, etc. The proletariat will sing no overtures to the "will of the people" as a formless mass, because in reality this people is composed of competing interests, of which the proletarian dictatorship represents the imposition of one set of interests on the rest. It is an expression of the programmatic tasks set before the proletariat by history, not the result of any pluralist process.

Sure, it can't be compared to some conventional notion of democracy i.e. simply voting every few years, but to say it would be or should be without democracy is a fool's idea.

Complete myopia. The party elite runs the system in a closed loop where it gets to decide what candidates get nominated for what elections. The party elite also runs all the trade unions, youth and women's organizations. Somewhat competitive elections only exist on the local level.

But this is also a red herring: democratizing work and community has brought you precisely zero steps closer to communism. To suggest it is the best practical example of communism is like suggesting a coal power plant is the best practical example of a nuclear fusion reactor.

It's rather fascinating to me how you describe the dictatorship of the proletariat and its functions and purpose and in one step later dismiss the workings of a currently-existing dictatorship of a proletariat. How exactly is Cuba not making efforts to bring itself toward Communism in its transitionary stage? Is it because it's been forced to make certain concessions to some degree or another here or there because a nuclear superpower is trying to strangle them?

Idealizing the revolution and seeking perfection and thus dismissing an actual revolutionary society after acknowledging what must be done to get to Communism is poor form.

It is not a matter of aestheticism, it reflects an age old struggle, exemplified with Marx and Engels conflicting with their contemporaries.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/w ... hority.htm
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/w ... -notes.htm

You seem to forget that great swathes of Anarchists, Libertarian Socialists, etc. etc. have broken bread plenty with Marxists in-spite of those whose ideas were criticized by Engels and Marx. A great number of them actively supported the Bolsheviks throughout the Russian Revolution and the Civil War after, as an example. Even Kropotkin, one of the shining examples of Anarchism, gave praise and support to the Russian Revolution despite envisioning a drastically-different idea for the post-revolution.

And, yes, in this case, it absolutely is aestheticism. How is saying "[Communism's] function will be 'democratic' (by that we mean majority-voting) to whatever degree that is necessary as a tool of decision-making, and that needn't always be the case, especially as power loses its class character," any different from Pasong's stated beliefs? Do you seriously think they're insinuating every little itsy bitsy minutiae of society be led by decision-making to the point of non-functionality?

[Suriyanakhon]

I don't think there's any government that could be considered ideal but I would prefer a nationalist and socialist society. The Lao PDR has probably come the closest to realizing that.

[Kubra]

You can always just not participate I suppose.

If that's your response to the problems you'd incur from this obsessions of yours with democratizing all aspects of life, you really need to get with the programme. Life is too short to be a series of Kafka-esque meetings where you have to vote on all the minutiae of social life. The anarchoid obsession with democracy is to such an extent that it is removed from any semblance of realism.

People like democracy these days, man. I've kind of got a good incentive to take part in my unions machinations, since it affects my wages and shit. Same goes for the shop floor level of how to get shit done, it ain't even ideological.
There's some Dauve quote for this shit, yeah?

[Great Algerstonia]

[parody]

you ruined the joke [serious]

My take:

The government shall not:

- Stick their c*cks up the asses of their citizens
- Find excuses to do the above
- Eat children

The government has to:

- Stick their c*cks inside the asses of external and internal threats to it's citizens
- Keep their c*cks out of the throats of civilians
- Not use their c*cks as a means of control over the people.

You have my vote for POTUS in 2024

[Nextro]

he doesnt make stupid rules tho.