Housepig

use the funds to build a few small villages into stable communities, continue building small good communities until it begins to improve the entire area. People give power to the government not the other way around. If the government gives people their rights, then the government is above the people. Human rights transcend government, law, and any other codes laid down by men. If you mean that the rights come from God...that's a different question. If the UN so wished, they could abolish the Universal Decleration of Human Rights. Does that not prove that the government is above the people? I meant universal truth, not god. To say government has more power then its constituency means a totalitarian government is the best as it avoids influence from the lesser group. Well...it is--not that I'm advocating Fascism or anything that extreme. But I don't see how there can be "universal truth" without a God.

Note from first-hand experience that women are equaly stupid, ignorant, arrogant, and sadistic as men; and do something very unpleasent to girls who think otherwise. I'd probably get away with it as a girl.

Yes. Freedom (or indeed anything) has no value in and of itself. Every action undertaken by mankind is to achieve happiness (albeit often unsecusfully), and I believe that the purpose of government is to felicitate that goal. Of course, people are rarely happy without some degree of freedom, so I don't believe people should be slaves to a benelovent leader. Rather, slaves to a benelovent leader who creates the illusion of freedom... Well, I don't see how that changes things. The electors, in practice, have to vote for whomever the public likes to mantain their positions, so it's still mob rule.

No, because the picture would undoubtedly be photoshopped. I meant real, scientific evidence would convince me, not some picture of 'God'--and even if I was convinced...I reserve the opinion that God may exist, but even if he did, who says he is the Christian God and that the Bible came directly from him? If he was real, the Bible would mostl likely be a myth attempting to explain him, not a factual account. I find your faith disturbing. Someone once said "It is impossible to reason someone out of a position they did not reason themselves into", and I think that describes the situation here pretty well. As for your point about friendship...is there any other reason to be friends with someone? I certainly can't think of one. But you can neither prove nor disprove God, thats why it takes more faith to be an athiest. You have to believe that life is pointless whilst also straying away from the majority. Nor can you disprove the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. But do you believe in it? Takes more faith to be an athiest? Hardly. All babies are athiests; almost all scientists are atheists. There has been a proven negative correlation between religiosity and intelligence. As for straying away from the majority...that comes natural to me. You'll never get anywhere in life if you aren't prepared to. Of course life is pointless. The only point in life is to enjoy it while you can; I personaly find it very uplifting to think about how the wonderful (and somewhat less wonderful) things in the world came about by chance. But then if people believing in God comforts them, and makes life a little better, do they need proof? Does a mysterious man dressed in white have to come down and show us all that he created the earth? There are also many things in the world that scientists can't explain and until they do, people will still say that God created it all. It's all about what gives you happiness, I suppose. If believing in some divine power comforts people so, be it. However, while that may be a valid reason for believing in God, it is still scientificaly invalid. Desiring something does not make it any more likely. I admit that God existing would be a nice thought when in pain or unhappy, but surely it's better to deal with our problems ourselves than to fall back on an imaginary friend? I'm sure that's psychologicaly unhealthy. About things science cannot explain...what if they said "but they will explain it one day"? That's what I belive. Where would we be if, whenever scientists found a phenomenon inexplainable, they abandoned their research and published the conclusion "God did it."? Fortunately, they instead continue researching until they find the explanation. And they invariably do.

I don't know if I made this clear, but in 'my system', the government would be selected from the whole population. I would also have a free press--if the government was acting for the best, what would it need to surpress?--to allow people to feel that they had some say in the matter. I don't believe any other dictatorships did this, as they were all corrupt to a certain extent and couldn't allow freedom of speach. I think that a dictatorship that explained its actions and allowed criticism would be trusted and respected more by the general public than our democratic governments; the fact is that people don't respect them becuase they know, deep down, that they are acting only to mantain power and popularity. From Wikipedia: "Even though there is no universally accepted definition of 'democracy', there are two principles that any definition of democracy includes. The first principle is that all members of the society (citizens) have equal access to power and the second that all members (citizens) enjoy universally recognized freedoms and liberties." I think most western countries would fit under that definition.

If the dictator is chosen by a council of the 'best' people selected from a population, they'll most likely make a better choice than the people would. I described an idea for this sort of system in the "If you ruled your country..." thread. Yeah, that's the main problem with dictatorship. The dictator would have to be temporary (corruption takes time, I would imagine), and a one-person dictatorship would be unwise, as the dictator would have no one to point out flaws in their plans.

Well, I've been thinking about this for a while, but I've never made a thread on it yet. Basicaly, I think democracy stinks. I imagine this is fairly controversial, so I will elaborate. First of all, I want to ask a question: Can you honestly say that in your experience, the average person is intelligent, rational, and trustworthy with great power? I don't think so. The fact is that most people don't think about important issues, don't take much interest in the world, act irrationaly, and would doubtlessly leave the world in ruin if they were in charge. So why do we allow ordinary people to choose our leaders for us? Not only will democracy result in a leader being chosen who reflects qualities liked by a largely ignorant, but it hampers decisions made for the greater good. If a brilliant new politician, with plans which will benefit the human race, wants to implement those plans, he has to be voted in to power. To be voted in, he has to be popular. To be popular, he has to give the population what they want. But the population (of any country or state) does not want what's best for them. Perhaps he will give them alot of what they want to remain in power long enough to give them a little of what they need, but the minute he goes to far, he is voted out. Naturaly, therefore, the most sucessfull politicians are those for whom power is the only end. What a great system. Democracy is like letting a spoilt child choose new parents if his current ones don't let him eat chocolate for breakfast. What do you think?

No, because the picture would undoubtedly be photoshopped. I meant real, scientific evidence would convince me, not some picture of 'God'--and even if I was convinced...I reserve the opinion that God may exist, but even if he did, who says he is the Christian God and that the Bible came directly from him? If he was real, the Bible would mostl likely be a myth attempting to explain him, not a factual account. I find your faith disturbing. Someone once said "It is impossible to reason someone out of a position they did not reason themselves into", and I think that describes the situation here pretty well. As for your point about friendship...is there any other reason to be friends with someone? I certainly can't think of one. But you can neither prove nor disprove God, thats why it takes more faith to be an athiest. You have to believe that life is pointless whilst also straying away from the majority. Nor can you disprove the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. But do you believe in it? Takes more faith to be an athiest? Hardly. All babies are athiests; almost all scientists are atheists. There has been a proven negative correlation between religiosity and intelligence. As for straying away from the majority...that comes natural to me. You'll never get anywhere in life if you aren't prepared to. Of course life is pointless. The only point in life is to enjoy it while you can; I personaly find it very uplifting to think about how the wonderful (and somewhat less wonderful) things in the world came about by chance.

It was written with good intentions, but people adapted religion to suit their own means. I mean, at first, Christian societies abided by the commandment saying "thou shalt not kill"; then, the Pope changed the law, justifying killing if it was on a crusade to rape Muslims and steal their land. It's called "Holy war". Of course, the good intentions hardly apply these days. The Old Testament is about as relevant to modern life as...actualy it's in a class of its own. Jesus undoubtedly had some nice (but impracticle) ideas about morality, but being the son of God and performing miracles was just a myth that grew up around him.

use the funds to build a few small villages into stable communities, continue building small good communities until it begins to improve the entire area. People give power to the government not the other way around. If the government gives people their rights, then the government is above the people. Human rights transcend government, law, and any other codes laid down by men. If you mean that the rights come from God...that's a different question. If the UN so wished, they could abolish the Universal Decleration of Human Rights. Does that not prove that the government is above the people?

No, because the picture would undoubtedly be photoshopped. I meant real, scientific evidence would convince me, not some picture of 'God'--and even if I was convinced...I reserve the opinion that God may exist, but even if he did, who says he is the Christian God and that the Bible came directly from him? If he was real, the Bible would mostl likely be a myth attempting to explain him, not a factual account. I find your faith disturbing. Someone once said "It is impossible to reason someone out of a position they did not reason themselves into", and I think that describes the situation here pretty well. As for your point about friendship...is there any other reason to be friends with someone? I certainly can't think of one.

until you realize how realising (or unrealistic) the religion is, from thelogical knowledge and from experiences. you havn't been devout enough, or your faith is built on a superficial foundation (e.g. Merely Jesus sacrified, so we must follow), then you have a high risk of getting astray from a religion, I'm afraid I am a Christian. Not yet baptizied. Faith is doublethink. Although I am certain that I am an atheist, I would be ready to convert if there were proof. My opinions are based on reason. That's where the Pope differs from Richard Dawkins: one would believe the other if they could prove their viewpoint; the other would not.

Well said. Besides, what are they going to do about it? There are simply too many people in the world to provide them all with food, water, shelter, and a good quality of life. I hate the almost religious devotion to "human rights" some people have. These "rights" were laid down in a charter by a group of nations. That is no different than a government making a law to protect its people. Even if they were actualy abided by (which they aren't), the concept of inviolable rules is seriously impeding to work done for the greater good. Who gave the UN power to declare people's "rights"? People need to face the facts: you have the "rights" those in power choose to give you.

Incest - I suppose, theoreticaly, if the offspring is adult and consenting and protection is used, there's no logical argument against it. But it's still a disgusting thought. Bestiality - As above. It's no worse than killing them for food, so... Polygamy - Nothing wrong with it, as long as all the women (or men--do any people have multiple husbands?) consent.

Yes, that's a good point, but halving or quartering the population would be extremely beneficial. I wouldn't keep the law permanently of course (well, I'd be dead by then; hopefuly my sucessor would be trustworthy...), just long enough to get the population down to a sustainable level.

I soo hope you get this wrong...nothing personal, but I've never believed in this stuff. [hide=]1.Do you consider yourself childish? / Do others consider you childish? Nope. 2.Are you a perfectionist? I'm conscientious, but not obsessive. 3.Do you often prefer staying home all by yourself over going out with friends? Don't know about prefer, but I usualy do. If it was with a small group of genuine friends though... 4.Will you do almost anything in order to make 2 friends of yours (or more) make up after a fight/ during a fight? Depends. As a rule, no. 5.Do you think you could sort out life with good meals, a warm bed, and a loving man/woman? Well, it would make you contented. 6.Do you adore proffesionals and experts? I respect them and value their opinions...don't know about adoration. 7.Are you curious? Cautious enough not to Google "Goa Tse" the first time I heard it mentioned. 8.Are you super-curious? No. 9.Is one of your dreams travelling all around the globe/ visiting faraway places? I'd like to, but it's not an obession of mine. 10.How much would a hunch affect your decisions? Moderately, but I like to be rational. 11.Are you egocentric? I try not to be. 12.Are you good at art? (Painting, photographing, sculpting, etc). Hell no. 13.Do you have a clear, easy-to-read handwriting, or a messed up, hard to read handwriting? (This question is not a must, as some of you are right in the middle). Firmly the latter. 14.Do you consider yourself a leader? Are you charismatic? I'm confident with making speaches, and I can lead people in a project or towards a goal. I would never be a leader of a gang though, as my social schools are not great and I'd like to think I'm better than that. I've never met a thoughtful, moral person high in the social hierarchy. 15.Are you bossy? Never unecessarily, but if I was working in a group, I'd make sure people got things done. 16.Do you tend to bring yourself down? (This 1 is a bit hard to understand, so by giving an example I hope you'll understand. Did it ever happen that you thought to your self "Oh god, I think I failed the test, oh and I fought with my parents, and my shirt is all wet, and now I have to walk all the way back home, and I think I lost my notebook, jeez!" Sometimes. 17.Are you sensitive? Emotionaly, yes. 18.Are you romantic? I don't believe in romance. 19.Are you nostalgic? Actualy, I'm pining for the future when I can leave school. 20.Do you have/ once had a problem with intimacy? I...yes, generaly. 21.Do you pay close attention to details? Very close. 22.Are you an optimist? Depends on my mood, but I'm always realistic. 23.Do you have problems trusting people? New people especialy? Not new people especialy. I dislike people as a rule. 24.Do you find yourself more mature than most people your age? (If you're an adult, did it happen to you when you were 10-30?). Yes, very much so. 25.Are you adventurous? Yes, but my present circumstances seem to hamper my...spirit of adventour. 26.Is boredom one of your worst enemies? Somewhat. 27.Are you moody? (Does it happen often that you're, for example, happy for a little, and then few moments later sad?). Very often. 28.Is respect from other people 1 of the most important things in your life? I want those whom I respect to respect me, but I respect few people (though I respect people by default.) 29.If you still live with your parents, how important is your future home to you? If not, how important is it to you right now? Very. 30.How much do you care for what people think of you? Alot, if I respect them. 31.Is order important to you? Very, but I don't bother with it unless I have the means to impose total order. 32.Do you consider yourself creative? Yes, but not in the artistic sense. 33.Do you absolutly enjoy beautiful views?/ Is harmony one of your "hobbies"? I like watching the sunset and so on. 34.How hard is it to you to forgive someone for what they did? Did you break up relations with someone because you couldn't forgive them? Not that I can recall. 35.Do you tend to tell people what you think of them in their face? Very rarely, unless their someone I can feel comfortable with (which is few people). 36.In a scale of 1-10, how important is love to you? 8, but I don't mean sexual love. 37.Is socializing with people and friends 1 of the most important aspects in your life? No, but I would be very unhappy without friends.[/hide]

Exactly. And the needs of the future outweigh the needs of the present. If (hypotheticaly), in order to prevent a total collapse of society and possible extinction, we had to cull 3/4 of our population and impose a one-child-per-family law with forced terminations for those who break it, it would be justifiable.

Banned for assuming authority to ban without first consulting High Comrade Andrew.

...caught dysentry as a result of attempting to practice their candle-impersonation hobby in a puddle of human urine, recently egested by...

False. The person under me will attempt to guess something about the person under them.

Patronising.

This statement is obvious.

Social Darwinism; free economics; group dictatorship; total secularism; basic utilitarian constitution limiting excessive authoritarianism; one child per family; free press; justice based on rehab, not punishment. [hide=]What kind of government would it be? Group dictatorship: one ruling party, selected from society for displaying intelligence, ingenuity, and incorruptibility (that's the tough one), make all decisions based on consensus. Discussion is productive as long as it remains focused on what the country needs, not what it wants. People would be welcome to criticise the governement (so long as they did it productively), and the governemnt would listen to suggestions, but ultimately it would be a "We know best; shut up and do as you're told" philosophy. The party (or whatever you want to call it) would have one leader, who would be chosen by the party every few years. There would be a fundamental constitution guarenteeing some basic rights to the people, but aside from that, the government could do whatever the hell they felt was necessary. If a leader broke the constitution, he would be forcable deposed by the military, and the country would be placed under martial law until a new leader was found. What would be the first thing you did? I would abolish the monarchy and the House of Lords, abolish voting rights, and implement the system described above. I would choose people to from the intitial members of the party, and I would be the first leader--though I would abide by my own constitution. What adjustments would you make to your country? Most importantly, I would impose a one child per family law, as environmental problems are caused by overpopulation. I know it sounds immoral, but I belive it is the only way to make society sustainable. Laws would be based on utilitarian morals (i.e. the only judgement of whether an action is moral is the overal harm or happiness it brings to humanity). People would recieve no benefits from the state, as letting the weaker members of society fail would eventualy produce more productive people with better traits, thus boosting the overal level of ability within the country (though poverty and unemployment would not be helped.) Religion would have no place in society; raising a child to believe in God would be a criminal offence akin to psychological control. You would be welcome to belive what you liked, but I don't belive any rational, unwarped mind is inclined to become religious anyway. Criminal justice would be based purely on rehabilitation, not punishment. I don't belive in the concept of punishment; it's nothing better than gratifying your ego when someone has affronted you. There would be no minimum or maximum sentences for crimes, as the sentence would be purely based on compensating the victim (from the criminal's pocket; no allowance for poverty made) and preventing them from re-offending. The death penalty would be used when necessary. Oh, and I would NOT provide ANY support to banks failing due to the recession. A depression would do society alot of good in the long run. There's more I'd do, of course, but that's the fundamental theory of government I believe in. *Breathes out.* Rant mode over.[/hide]

Americanisation is a bigger influence on a culture than the monarchy, so I don't see what she acomplishes there. While I think democracy is a generaly bad idea, inherited power--even in a ceremonial sense--is not the way to go. A strong Government needs to be chosen on genuine merit, not on blood or popular appeal.

I know, I didn't know what to put for that last one. Because technically, that is an advantage of a one party state. Yet I would never endorse a totalitarian system. I had the same trouble with that, decided on disagree eventually since no arguing causes problems. I put "strongly agree"; would have thought that would move me towards authoritarian significantly. Ah, well.