Kosmor Forum Index
 Search Imprint      SearchSearch     Log inLog in 
 Search Legal      MemberlistMemberlist     ProfileProfile   

[OT] Government
Goto page Previous  1, 2
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Kosmor Forum Index -> Kosmor Talk
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Emperor_Thrawn
Guest





PostPosted: Tue Jun 28, 2005 10:32    Post subject: Reply with quote

Does anyone have a life they don't want, so i can buy one... Crying or Very sad
Back to top
BattleKing
Guest





PostPosted: Tue Jun 28, 2005 15:27    Post subject: get a life... Reply with quote

Locutus wrote:
Or you quit the game and get a life...
Very Happy


Hehe....

I like you!!!

Smile Very Happy Laughing Wink Cool
Back to top
doriniva
Guest





PostPosted: Fri Jul 08, 2005 04:03    Post subject: Reply with quote

Locutus wrote:
We're asking questions... well, grammatically, "we're" can mean both 'we are' and 'we were,' so yeah, "we're" asking questions.

Back to the government thing- I believe in a socialist/semi-communist system that allows a person the choice of government control in personal economic affairs...

Big mistakes!
First, what does it mean semi-communist, hehe, a joke?
There is communist or not. I don't think you know to well what does it mean and why is a failer system...
"...that allows a person the choice of government control in personal economic affairs..."
If you have "personal economic affairs" that system is no longer comunist, so, don't make dagerous confusions.

Locutus wrote:
Also, there is a tax-to-service system where you are taxed for the government services (in economics) and you recieve services for allowing the government to control your economics.
Ex: If you decide to become an independent business owner, you have a sales tax from your customers to the government, but you do not pay the government for economic protection. However, if you become a government sponsored business, the government regulates prices (for better profit margin for you), demands no sales tax from your customers (also for better profit), and gives you economic protection; but your business pays a percentage of your income into something to the effect of our star redistribution tax.

That is the main basis of this theory, but there is a whole bunch of junk that I've added to it that is too much to write here.


This process is realized by democracy, if you want to be assisted you vote on the left if not you'll vote on right, more or less depinding your present position.
Could you pass me some more of this theory? I'm interested how do you think to solve the organizational problems of this kind of system.
Back to top
Locutus
Guest





PostPosted: Fri Jul 08, 2005 09:01    Post subject: Reply with quote

<redacted>

Last edited by Locutus on Sun Aug 22, 2010 09:12; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
doriniva
Guest





PostPosted: Fri Jul 08, 2005 11:35    Post subject: Reply with quote

Locutus wrote:
First of all, it is a semi-Communist system because a person can have the choice of control by the government or not. The people who participate in this enjoy government benefits, but the people who don't participate don't enjoy them.

First of all, again, Comunism means "NO PRIVATE PROPERTY".
We can argue very long on this, but better belive me, hehehe.

Locutus wrote:
This system allows for people to have free will to an extent. This solves some of the problems of total Communism by letting everybody have a choice in their affairs. This solves problems of laissez-faire economics by making sure that people don't make an enormous profit and let their employees suffer in misery.

In Comunism you can't have your affair (you just can't get it)

Please don't name, let's say, a new system, like that propose by you, with an old name, which unluckly I know very well.

Locutus wrote:
The difference between the left-wing Democracy and this system is that the government is more powerful in this system.


In extrem left-wing Democracy is suppose you can change it after 4-5 years, maybe less. In Comunism at one time one ruler, inevitably will love so much, so much power that it'll transform in dictatorship.

Locutus wrote:
The people who try to start their own business have no government econonmic help whatsoever. However, they still have to pay a little tax for law enforcement, police, etc, and they can't break the laws.

I guess I can't really call this a total Communist system, but I think it has Socialist ideals. However, we give the people their choice in cooperative economics or Capitalism.


It can't be named Comunist at all as you see. So, don't be ambiguous and name it different please.

I still have a question.
What do you think about the right to vote? Those who pay and want a powerfull government is fair to have much vote power than those who don't care about govern, isn't it?
How, this problem, can be solved?
There are many, many, small problems which could make such system fail at the first wind blow.
And because the thread began with the constitution...
What do you say about this subject? There is a problem that even if you don't agree with some amendaments you can't break it. Is not right that you sign a social contract at some age including, changing or deleting some amendaments and if so what implications are?
Back to top
Locutus
Guest





PostPosted: Fri Jul 08, 2005 16:54    Post subject: Reply with quote

<redacted>

Last edited by Locutus on Sun Aug 22, 2010 09:14; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
doriniva
Guest





PostPosted: Sat Jul 09, 2005 08:02    Post subject: Reply with quote

First of all, glad to meet a chinese here!

Locutus wrote:
The government will control all property, though not all businesses.


What business is without the property? Is very hard for me to figure... Is not right that that who do that business have the major part of the result and do what he want with it?

Locutus wrote:
The legislative government will be split into two elected assemblies. Representation will not only be based on geographical area but on age and income as well. Representation in both assemblies will be based on population. The first assembly is the General Assembly, and it has several advisory boards, etc, etc... It passes laws concerning almost every aspect of life except for economics. All citizens will be able to directly elect a representative in the General Assembly..


This one is null. Has no power. You can't law something without it's economic part. Give me some examples please.
Second. How this direct election will be? This is the key for the door to dictatorship, hehe.

Locutus wrote:
The second assembly is called the Economics Assembly. This assembly passes laws on economics/trade, etc, etc... It sets price ranges for the most heavily traded bulk products, and regulates trade with other countries. This assembly is split into two parts called the Executive Council and the Representative Council. (Another point of the economic system: when you choose for government support you are essentially part of one big business, though the people who are your bosses don't have nearly as much power as regular bosses do.) The executive coucil is composed of the people at the head of the major industries. They are like the CEO's of the major businesses. The representative council is elected by each member of the working class, though indirectly. Both councils meet in one chamber and legislate together as one body. The laws they write affect the people participating in the Socialist system.


What is the reason for this? It is a simple contract passed to representatives. I like to think that such contracts are my concern.
As worker... if they want me to work for them they have to pay for it. I don't need even a sindicate for it. I'm a good negociator or I'll pay one to negociate for me.
As employer I hire you if you are good and if you don't ask for retribution more than the profit of the business (hehehe).
I think is that simple. Do you have any coments?

Locutus wrote:
(Another thing: businesses do not participate are restricted from trade outside the country.)


This I like the best. Better put them in jail and take their business for the state. If you'll not do, some at one point will do it.
Are you in chinese govern, hehehe. I wish you the best and I don't want you like those from Tien-an-Men square. In such a country security is very active...

[quote="Locutus"]On to the Judicial Organizations- The court system is much like the western system- innocent till proven guilty, declare actions unconstitutional, yada yada yada...

No, not yada, yada. This is very important. In my country all the parties yada, yada their own Judicial Organization. So we have a mafiot capitalist state, almost same bad as comunist.

Locutus wrote:
This system cannot be called Communism, I agree, though a large part of it is founded on the principles of it. However, the prolitariat will not set up a dictatorship,...


Because you say so, like Marx, hehehe. Try it but on your own. Those who did it in last 50 years all fall under this thin ice. If you can solve this problem you may consider yourself the saver of comunism, yet seems to be unsolvable. Oh, there is a way. Elect God to rule that country...

Locutus wrote:
...religion will not we abolished, and we will not collectivize methods of production. The similarities that it does share are these: Totalitarianism and government interference in economics.


Sorry, because my English I can't figure what you want to say by this.

Locutus wrote:
Actually, I know Communism very well. I happen to come from the most successful Communist country there is: China. The ideals of revolution that brought the country into a new age were started by Mao ZeDong, and I embrace some of those ideals. I embrace perhaps even more, though, the reforms of Deng Xiao Ping which probably makes China what it is now. I have studied both the faults and benefits of Communism. I apologize for leading to a misunderstanding with Communism earlier.


And seems that you are sticked in some missthinking which this system induce. I was likewise few years ago.
The benefits of the Comunism in your country comes from what is not Comunism anymore. Is a capitalist dictatorship, I think.

Locutus wrote:
Would you like to share your own experience? I think that you have experienced more of the negative consequences of Communism than I have. Please do not generalize about this form of government.


I don't have so much time to share my experience. I'm from Romania. There are just negative consequences in this form of government. Is my right to say what I think. If you think is something good in it give me examples. Is the third time I ask for arguments...

Locutus wrote:
As for the social contract idea, I don't believe in it. Jean-Jaques Rosseau happened to not follow many of his own ideas, and so why should we? The inherent flaw in the social contract is portrayed with Nazi Germany. Most of the population thought the 'wrong' thoughts, which led to the problems that they (and other people) suffered.


You don't belive in it. Why? In the "Nazi Germany" there was no contract, no liberty, was dictatorship, like in Comunism. And wrong thoughts were induced by manipulations which make the job in such systems.

What are the principle of Comunism? Give me first three and I'll give you arguments why is wrong. As I know first is: no private property. Second: work as much as you can. Third: take what you need.

With first I told you why is wrong. If I find a new way to produce energy is my right to decide what to do with it. Is right to give me something for this and if I'm not satisfied I will not tell we how to do it. It is my natural right. Is not same obvious but as right in any other case.
In the second and third, what they don't say is the mechanism to decide By economic principles you have to work like a slave if not maybe you are alowed not working at all. Who has to decide it and how? In capitalist democracy this is solved by the negociation with your entreprenour like I explained you.
And to take, how much would you take as comunist? if you are alowed with your hand in the national banck treasoy? Or maybe somebody else will decide. From my part, I'll give you nothing, hehehe. No, no, I'll give you as little as I can and I'll convince you how much I've given you...
Is in human nature!
Back to top
Locutus
Guest





PostPosted: Sat Jul 09, 2005 08:10    Post subject: Reply with quote

<redacted>

Last edited by Locutus on Sun Aug 22, 2010 09:14; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
doriniva
Guest





PostPosted: Sat Jul 09, 2005 10:57    Post subject: Reply with quote

"will not be under full control."
What kind of control if not full?

Why land is privileged? Is this of any help? Seems to you that countries who has land private property are in hunger? Do they take the land with them in tomb?
What is the point of this?

"not making collective farms". Not many, just one big farm managed by the state. You trust state more than thousend of small farmers, I don't.

Such kind of system is to restrictive for me. In my system, you may live like you want and me like I want.

If from social contract there are citizens who want common property is their chioce, but they can't force me to do anything I wonnt.

totalitarianism- one party
This is the strong part... Why do you think multipartitism is wrong. Why do I not have the right to establish a new human asociation for mankind progres? I mean a new party. Even in well developed democracies this doesn't function very well. That's why even the States are so conservative now. The way for progress is hard to see in such imobile societies.
What is not solved is that the rules for dividing are to hard. Look at Canada and New York. If is object of the system will to separate this has to be done quickly and without hardfeelings. The history of States has a big question for me. Why the south couldn't separate and the civil war started...
Back to top
Locutus
Guest





PostPosted: Sat Jul 09, 2005 19:49    Post subject: Reply with quote

<redacted>

Last edited by Locutus on Sun Aug 22, 2010 09:14; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
doriniva
Guest





PostPosted: Sun Jul 10, 2005 07:11    Post subject: Reply with quote

Locutus wrote:
doriniva wrote:
"will not be under full control."
What kind of control if not full?

In case you haven't noticed, I don't see a government telling you which brand of toothpaste to use.


Remember, the qutes were for personal property "personal property will not be under full control"
The right to chose is not personal property.
Second, because I want to finish this subject, you are free to give the government in your system how much control as you wish. I don't like anybody else control my personal property (govern or not).
And is not right to enforce me to accept it. If I would be the prim minister and I say I want some control of your land and you would have rights for that land. I'm sure you would say I'm a thief....

"There are freedoms and restrictions in every kind of government. If we did everything like you said, then we would have anarchy."

No, we would not! What makes you think we would do? Your education?

"One of the Great Depression's main causes was personal freedom with economics. Successful people like Rockerfeller and Kennedy supported themselves by underpaying their employees and making a large profit while others suffered."

Why do you think they underpay? I say they overpay them and still make "large profit while others suffered".
The problem is that simple:
The level of the payment was agreed? Were they forced to accept that payment?
Let's supose you are the employee. Would you give to your workers more than they produce?
I already told you, if man have degnity he refuse to work in an underpaied job.

Locutus wrote:
A Democracy does not mean starting a new party.

Yes, it means. Belive me! Is called reprezentative democracy.

Locutus wrote:
No nation in the modern world is a true Democracy (everyone directly votes for every policy), because that would be too hard to manage.


This is the most interesting thing you said. At present developement stage would not be. Why rulers refuse to do it?... I think I know, do you?

Locutus wrote:
If you happen to support the south in the American civil war, then you are supporting the right of any man to create his/her new nation. That was one of the founding principles of the south: The rights of regional governments over the power of the national government.


Bingo!

Locutus wrote:
I believe in Nationalism, that a nation is one whole, governed by people of that nation. If you support the south, then you disagree with this.


I'm not Nationalist. Nations could exist even if part of them are desintegrated other are integrated and so on...
Your point of view is more imperialistic. Just grow!
Back to top
Locutus
Guest





PostPosted: Sun Jul 10, 2005 11:30    Post subject: Reply with quote

<redacted>

Last edited by Locutus on Sun Aug 22, 2010 09:14; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
doriniva
Guest





PostPosted: Sun Jul 10, 2005 13:09    Post subject: Reply with quote

Locutus wrote:
doriniva wrote:
Such kind of system is to restrictive for me. In my system, you may live like you want and me like I want.

By saying that, you are supporting anarchy by refusing to be governed.

No. Democracy in itself only has to do with giving everybody a choice.
Locutus wrote:
For a nation, I mean the group of people who speak the same language, have the same customs, live in the same area, and have distinct characteristics of a nation. I also mean the political entity of that nation. I believe that each nation should be ruled by natives of that nation and exist as one whole. If you believe that Romania should become a few hundred different states, then that is fine with me.

Very rude of you trying to say I'm not a patriot. I didn't say this, yet could be 2 or 3, hehehe.
Anyway better to have few hundred happy than 1 unhappy 60%!
Back to top
Locutus
Guest





PostPosted: Mon Jul 11, 2005 09:41    Post subject: Reply with quote

<redacted>

Last edited by Locutus on Sun Aug 22, 2010 09:13; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
doriniva
Guest





PostPosted: Mon Jul 11, 2005 15:46    Post subject: Reply with quote

Locutus wrote:
Laws are followed by everyone, wars are fought by everyone, and decisions are made by everyone. Democracy is not giving everybody a choice in what they want to do seperately. Democracy is giving everybody a choice in what they want to do as a whole.

Probably this is the key of our divergence.
Is not in the definition of democracy that you can be forced to folow a law against your will, or to go in war, or to take that decision.
I think of democracy more like a contract. If you agree some conditions you will benefit some rewards. To be forced to agree some conditions even than forced to get that rewards is not the way I like democracy. I hate that reward that I'm forced to take. Comunism usually act that way. Even in protection of your land is not right that way.
I like to give you an example. If three men make a "state" and a war is coming, and one of them don't want to fight, is his choice. There are several ways to solve this problem. Those two who want to protect their country can buy his land (they will still remain two to fight in the war), or negociate his land with the agresor, or any other solution they agree with the rebel, but killing him as traitor (they will still remain two to fight) is not a solution, at least not a democratic one. And I don't know about your religion, but not a christian solution either.

Locutus wrote:
Doriniva wrote:
Very rude of you trying to say I'm not a patriot. I didn't say this, yet could be 2 or 3, hehehe.
Anyway better to have few hundred happy than 1 unhappy 60%!

Doriniva wrote:
I'm not Nationalist. Nations could exist even if part of them are desintegrated other are integrated and so on...
Your point of view is more imperialistic. Just grow!

I never said that you were not a patriot. I also never said that some of your statements are offensive or rude.
1. If you believe that I said you were unpatriotic, and if you believe that being unpatriotic includes wanting your nation split apart, then the first and second statements above contradict.

You didn't give any example before this. In this case let's clear the principles first and than apply to my country. Anyway, I don't see any contradiction. If you want to split my country, I'll fight. If I want to split mypart who has the right to fight me?
Locutus wrote:
...
3. What do you mean by 'Just Grow!'? I am not making assumptions about this statement before you explain. Also, what do you mean by 'Yet could be 2 or 3, hehehe.'?

"Just grow!" means that your understanding is only for the growth of your nation. There is any understanding for the split of it?
"Yet could be 2 or 3" was just a joke. In my country are some concernings about separative forces, yet I don't think is any chance of bringing happyness to more people. I understand this proces as a long and amiable one. The particular case as I see is not recomanded, but I think is better to let them to try in certain conditions. If this would apply at a larger scale probable much more teritories would come in than out. But not this is the point, who has to win and who has to lose, but would such relations bring happiness to more people?
Back to top
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Kosmor Forum Index -> Kosmor Talk All times are GMT - 6 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2
Page 2 of 2

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group