"how are these things good/useful? Strain on society is what pushes it to succeed, less strain means less work.

People who get used to doing less work to get what they want will be less productive.

In evolutionary terms strain is a force pushing the system to a more efficient... more strain equals stronger system."
I like the way you think. Or were you just using terms that would make me consider you argument to be correct.

"Is productivity in and of itself desirable? Or are you more looking at the products and benefits of of high productivity? I mean, what are you going for here, a higher standard of living for the working class?"
The more productive the lower class is, the higher standard of living for the upper class.

"I don't buy your rice argument. For one, rice was only domesticated roughly 10,000 years ago and only farmed in mass a few thousand years after that. Are you saying that the gene pool noticeably changed in such a short time period that you can say that East Asians are *naturally* harder workers?"
It created a culture where discipline and hard work was placed higher then in most society's. That was enough. And you can't deny that its not true that orientals are harder working in todays society.

"Well at least you're being morally consistent, though I somewhat doubt that if it actually came to it, you would go without a fight. It strikes me that people's favoured forms of government are often in line with their moral views, such that if everyone shared them, maybe it could work. It's just that this is never really the case, is it."
Ahh, collective intelligence. The most debated argument I have with myself. Depending on my mood I am either heavily in favor of it, or heavily against it.

"Haha, this is some ridiculous math. Just because someone can't name more than 50 despots they know to have resulted in bad outcomes for their nation, does not mean that those were the only ones. Neither of us really have data, but 75 out of 1000 is absurd"
Yet 75 out of a1000 democratically elected leaders isn't.

:"I would say that the proportion of good to bad leaders that are elected and not elected are probably not that different from each other, I think a lot of the skills and motivations that apply to an aspiring despot also apply to an aspiring President, though the way they go about getting there is different. I might even agree that good dictators do more good than do good presidents, but I would also say that bad dictators do much more harm than do bad presidents. I'm not a huge fan of democracy, certainly not of direct democracy, but I can at least say that there is an advantage in that a bad president can be ousted much more easily than a bad dictator can."
If the bad dictator to president ratio is the same, why go through the hassle?
There needs to be someway to limit the dictators power, but elections are just a waste of time.

"As for what WILL function today, you're stuck with the reality that most people (idiots though they may be, at least according to our fascist) will not accept dictatorship (in most modern freedom loving democracies) And thus aspiring dictators are doomed to failure.

Not practical today..."
I never said it was practical, what I am saying is we would be better off if we stopped saying democracy is the solution to every political problem (which most people do actually believe.)
If the people don't rebel due to lack of political freedoms, their lives under the dictatorship would be much better then under a democracy.

@Fasces - a few things:
1. I think your last comment about whether a people rebels or not is a gross over-assumption. They way I have interpreted that sentence is to mean that any dictatorship without a rebellion based on a desire for more political freedoms is inherently and always will be better than any democracy. I cannot agree that any dictatorship (minus rebellions) is better than all democracies. I'm sure there are some cases where the dictatorship is actually better, but to claim that all are is beyond my beliefs.

2. I cannot back this up, and what follows will be armchair philosophy, but think about it conceptually. I would claim that there could be no dictatorship without a rebellion based on political freedoms. Specifically, I mean that if there exists a dictatorship, at some point during this period of rule, a rebellion will form - it does not have to be immediate, or even short term, but it will happen eventually during the span of power. We will need to look through the history books to find even one example of a dictatorship (not currently in power any longer) that never had a rebellion based on political freedoms and I will happily drop that argument.

3. The last thing that you made me think of, which is the basis of my claim in #2, is the human condition of greed/desire/will/happiness. Put whatever title or name on it you want, I don't care to argue those semantics now, but whatever it is, we always think the grass is greener on the other side, and we always yearn for something we have not attained. If there exists a dictatorship and life seems great - even when all the needs of a society are taken care of - someone at some point is going to consider what life would be like if they did not have to obey the government in the way they do now. As soon as more then one person thinks this in the same time period, the rebellion is born. This does not assume that life would be BETTER outside of the dictatorship currently in power, but just that it would be different, and that different is a perceived better by the person considering these options - especially when you are talking idealistically about having more power/freedom.

"1. I think your last comment about whether a people rebels or not is a gross over-assumption. They way I have interpreted that sentence is to mean that any dictatorship without a rebellion based on a desire for more political freedoms is inherently and always will be better than any democracy. I cannot agree that any dictatorship (minus rebellions) is better than all democracies. I'm sure there are some cases where the dictatorship is actually better, but to claim that all are is beyond my beliefs"
That last comment was saying that the reason why my ideology doesn't work is rebels would appear left right and center. But I was not advocating that Hitler is better then any democracy due to no rebels.

2. cannot back this up, and what follows will be armchair philosophy, but think about it conceptually. I would claim that there could be no dictatorship without a rebellion based on political freedoms. Specifically, I mean that if there exists a dictatorship, at some point during this period of rule, a rebellion will form - it does not have to be immediate, or even short term, but it will happen eventually during the span of power. We will need to look through the history books to find even one example of a dictatorship (not currently in power any longer) that never had a rebellion based on political freedoms and I will happily drop that argument.
What I meant by rebellion is something as severe as the American revolution, something that would really hurt productivity as a result of their uprising. So yes, there is no such thing as a stable government, there will always be rebels. But as long the country doesn't practically fall apart due to the rebels. I think its fine.

"3. The last thing that you made me think of, which is the basis of my claim in #2, is the human condition of greed/desire/will/happiness. Put whatever title or name on it you want, I don't care to argue those semantics now, but whatever it is, we always think the grass is greener on the other side, and we always yearn for something we have not attained. If there exists a dictatorship and life seems great - even when all the needs of a society are taken care of - someone at some point is going to consider what life would be like if they did not have to obey the government in the way they do now. As soon as more then one person thinks this in the same time period, the rebellion is born. This does not assume that life would be BETTER outside of the dictatorship currently in power, but just that it would be different, and that different is a perceived better by the person considering these options - especially when you are talking idealistically about having more power/freedom."
I am astonished, absolutely astonished that this came up. Every single greed post I have ever read says what happens when the dictator gets greedy?
This is the first time I have heard the arguement what happens when the people get greedy. Well to answer your question, what if people in America wanted to overthrow the government? As long as most people continue to support the government, or just don't want to rebel, there will never be a successful rebellion.

I said :"People who get used to doing less work to get what they want will be less productive.

In evolutionary terms strain is a force pushing the system to a more efficient... more strain equals stronger system."

Fasces said: "I like the way you think. Or were you just using terms that would make me consider you argument to be correct."

I'm just trying to explain my understanding of evolution. Contrasted with your 'rice theory' it fits that rice being harder to produce 'stressed' the system to such a degree that workers (either culturally or genetically) became harder workers, as society valued hard work over the alternative...

Not that i agree with your theory, just that as far as it goes the logic is fine. I'm just wondering how you extend that logic to other people.

As far as survival goes, diversity leads to greater chances of a species survival, whether that means spreading to new environments (as we've done quite a lot - though we have yet to build a multi-generational orbiting space station - i mean sure decalcification of your bones is a problem if you intend to return to earth and stand in normal gravity, but if you're just going to live in space you'll eventually adapt...)

Imagine an alien race who comes down with sonic weapons, and the best adapted people are those who are already used to living while deaf. I admit an unlikely scenario, but given that we don't know what we will face, the most successful strategy should take this into account.

Now eugenics i'm sure results in reduced genetic diversity, infact almost all genetic engineering will. Random mutation along with the destruction of inviable genetic combinations keeps us as diverse as possible, it's probably possible to introduce new genes which have proved useful to other species creating extra-human creatures...

However doing so would require a lot of testing and more importantly a reconsidering of our human rights conventions. The fact is if afforded human rights these things would be a 'stress' on the system, as 'society' would need to provide them with some level of care.

@Fasces: i'm glad you consider democracy to be flawed, it is a idiocy for us to ignore the fact (though i may prefer to improve it rather than replace it) However have you considered the existence of fascist/authoritarian organisations currently operating very successfully?

Look at most of the corporate world. Companies largely operate on the basis of an installed dictator, with a board of 'elders' judging what who they think is best for the company to install...

Look at almost every military structure, based on the requirement to make immediate decisions and have individuals follow specific instructions, authoritarian command structures are considered the only acceptable tool (as far as i'm aware)

Again diversity is a key, whether talking about competing companies or militaries, they can specialize to fill a niche or diversify to withstand differing environments/changing opponents...

i've clearly put some thought into this issue before. My conclusion, if i can be expected to have one, is that while we can build a democracy which has the strength/weakness of not needing a revolution to change, we can also build economic systems which are not based on democratic ideas and which allow a great variety of competitive, collaborative and mutable practices...

Thanks for clarifying your position on those. I'm astonished that no one has discussed the potential for other humans (those not in power) to share the same human emotions/inclinations as those who are in power. And of course, my #3 is nothing but defense for #2 so your American government question there is unneeded.

However, I would like to redefine the term 'rebellion.' The word itself is defined by Merriam-Webster simply as "opposition to one in authority or dominance" with a following definition of: "open, armed, and usually UNSUCCESSFUL defiance..."

Your final sentence is therefore false based on the way you chose to use 'successful.' Since a rebellion (as we are discussing it) is simply the existence of people who wish to change the ruling strata, then even if it not a majority, it is still a rebellion. Even if it fails, it is still a rebellion. People DO want to overthrow the American government as we speak, so while they may not succeed in their goals, they have succeeded in creating a rebellion. Just wanted to iron that out, though I know it adds almost nothing :P

Sorry, my post is in response to Fasces's response to mine, not to orathaic (just in case there was any confusion).

another downside of a dictatorship which i've neglected, is that it has to spend effort opposing an armed uprising, and this effort is wasted.

I assume you would desire an aware population willing to rise up against a flawed/failing dictator - on the basis that the threat of an uprising would be an inherent impetus to do a good job.

The only difference here is that in a democracy the people use their words instead of violence to achieve their goals... and violence is a lot less conclusive/final in the result it achieves...

And if the whole reason of installing a dictatorship and eugenics program was to make a more efficient, productive working class, who would then provide a higher standard of living for the upper class (which has been questioned as to how worthwhile it is, but assuming this is the desired effect) Does that not leave the working class in the envious position of not having this 'upper class' standard of living, thus further inciting them to uprising.

I mean until the proles get mind chipped or de-evolved to become simple worker drones (or perhaps simply replaced by self-evolving robots) no means of control will actually STOP violent rebellion... and all the efforts spent opposing such violence takes away from the productivity of society (as even uninvolved people are too busy worrying about their safety to concentrate on improving production...)

"I'm just trying to explain my understanding of evolution. Contrasted with your 'rice theory' it fits that rice being harder to produce 'stressed' the system to such a degree that workers (either culturally or genetically) became harder workers, as society valued hard work over the alternative...

Not that i agree with your theory, just that as far as it goes the logic is fine. I'm just wondering how you extend that logic to other people.

As far as survival goes, diversity leads to greater chances of a species survival, whether that means spreading to new environments (as we've done quite a lot - though we have yet to build a multi-generational orbiting space station - i mean sure decalcification of your bones is a problem if you intend to return to earth and stand in normal gravity, but if you're just going to live in space you'll eventually adapt...)

Imagine an alien race who comes down with sonic weapons, and the best adapted people are those who are already used to living while deaf. I admit an unlikely scenario, but given that we don't know what we will face, the most successful strategy should take this into account. "
Congratulations, you have just made me question my own political beliefs. 4 years of arguments on 4 different forums and 26 different people in real life, and not one of them has cracked me, until now.

"@Fasces: i'm glad you consider democracy to be flawed, it is a idiocy for us to ignore the fact (though i may prefer to improve it rather than replace it) However have you considered the existence of fascist/authoritarian organisations currently operating very successfully?"
In the recent modern world, only Franco and Pinochet have been good dictators. Given how retarded most people are, I don't think democracy could be changed for the better without fixing elections.

"Look at most of the corporate world. Companies largely operate on the basis of an installed dictator, with a board of 'elders' judging what who they think is best for the company to install..."
I'm pretty sure I used this argument in this thread already to support my ideas. If I didn't I meant to."

"Look at almost every military structure, based on the requirement to make immediate decisions and have individuals follow specific instructions, authoritarian command structures are considered the only acceptable tool (as far as i'm aware)"
Allthough I agree, and this works, I think it takes it a step to far, as every soldier has very little freedoms.

"My conclusion, if i can be expected to have one, is that while we can build a democracy which has the strength/weakness of not needing a revolution to change, we can also build economic systems which are not based on democratic ideas and which allow a great variety of competitive, collaborative and mutable practices..."
Just wondering what is your PC score?

"Thanks for clarifying your position on those. I'm astonished that no one has discussed the potential for other humans (those not in power) to share the same human emotions/inclinations as those who are in power. And of course, my #3 is nothing but defense for #2 so your American government question there is unneeded.

However, I would like to redefine the term 'rebellion.' The word itself is defined by Merriam-Webster simply as "opposition to one in authority or dominance" with a following definition of: "open, armed, and usually UNSUCCESSFUL defiance..."

Your final sentence is therefore false based on the way you chose to use 'successful.' Since a rebellion (as we are discussing it) is simply the existence of people who wish to change the ruling strata, then even if it not a majority, it is still a rebellion. Even if it fails, it is still a rebellion. People DO want to overthrow the American government as we speak, so while they may not succeed in their goals, they have succeeded in creating a rebellion. Just wanted to iron that out, though I know it adds almost nothing :P"
maybe I should use uprising instead? Regardless, democracy can be just politically unstable as dictatorship, however its much easier to form a bandwagon against dictators.

"another downside of a dictatorship which i've neglected, is that it has to spend effort opposing an armed uprising, and this effort is wasted."
Controlled Arms, I really dislike the second amendment

"I assume you would desire an aware population willing to rise up against a flawed/failing dictator - on the basis that the threat of an uprising would be an inherent impetus to do a good job."
As long as their is some sort of way to limit the power, make it more oligarchic then dictated, its not really needed, of course, given that I would probably be a member of the middle class, I wouldn't want news to be complete propaganda.

"The only difference here is that in a democracy the people use their words instead of violence to achieve their goals... and violence is a lot less conclusive/final in the result it achieves..."
Thats why you don't ban protesting.

"And if the whole reason of installing a dictatorship and eugenics program was to make a more efficient, productive working class, who would then provide a higher standard of living for the upper class (which has been questioned as to how worthwhile it is, but assuming this is the desired effect) Does that not leave the working class in the envious position of not having this 'upper class' standard of living, thus further inciting them to uprising."
Hard work will eventually get them to the upper-class. This is the socialist stereotype that the entrepreneurs of society sit on their ass all day doing nothing, and then get over-paid. The upper class is generally there because they earned it or inherited it. What I meant by the lower class suiting the needs of the upper class is kinda what we have today. In that sense, the lower class is generally forced to work harder then the upper class and the upper class gets more benefits. However in no way do I want some sort of caste or aristocracy forming. I am a huge advocate of capitalism, all I was saying is a harder working lower class puts more products on the market, which are generally purchased by the upper class before the lower class.

"I mean until the proles get mind chipped or de-evolved to become simple worker drones (or perhaps simply replaced by self-evolving robots) no means of control will actually STOP violent rebellion... and all the efforts spent opposing such violence takes away from the productivity of society (as even uninvolved people are too busy worrying about their safety to concentrate on improving production...)"
That is true, I am against de-evolving humans simply because I think everyone should have equal opportunity to succeed, I am not an advocate of Brave New World. There will always be people in the lower class who are dissatisfied, and with a large enough army, they will never have the guts to rebel.

"I'm pretty sure I used this argument in this thread already to support my ideas. If I didn't I meant to."

apologies, if you did i didn't see it. My point was however not to support your position, but to support the idea that dictatorship was a useful tools which should not be discarded.

See compared to Rome or Greece, corporations have a disproportionate amount of power in today's society, Where before only land owners had sufficient influence to reign in monarchs, and thus were the first to be given a vote, now our whole economy is divided up by market share, with advertising revenue spent to control consumer choice and lobbying to affect government policy.

We're not living in a pure democracy by any means, we're living in a mixed corporate-democratic transition period. No amount of political theory can alone define our social system, it is so heavily influenced by corporations.

The effectiveness of advertising is a tool realized by governments when they started their propaganda machines in the 20th century (perhaps as late as world war 2) While corps figured it out a little bit faster and adapted to it (or those who adapted took over rather faster)

But it was only in the last 100 years that the common consensus was that violence could no longer be used to put down rebellion or to control a population. (India, Ireland, etc. As contrasted with the american war of independence, if the war had been lost the Empire would have continued to rule over their colonies - modern political thought would have resulted in a negotiated peaceful independence, as happened in India.)

In many ways this advertising/propaganda tool is far more insipid than violent repression ever was. Companies decided to invest in tools to control how people think (about products) and thus control of people's lives has changed dramatically now that these tools are the standard weapons of the trade. (where both governments and companies deal in controlling people...)

My PC:
Economic Left/Right: -5.62
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.74
very left and liberal.

"...and with a large enough army"

there is another expense or cost, ok So if you pay a large enough army (to not fight, but to sit around and threaten that they are ready to fight if necessary) you cost the state and thus productivity...

compare with Switzerland - their standing army consists of 95% conscripted civilian militia who are required to provide their own weapons and equipment. So since the majority of the male population has served in the military at one stage the defence of the nation can be left in the hands of the locals at every level... incurring a minimal cost of training each year as new recruits are put through their paces when they come of age...

"My point was however not to support your position, but to support the idea that dictatorship was a useful tools which should not be discarded."
Your a very open minded person, at least considering you PC score.

"See compared to Rome or Greece, corporations have a disproportionate amount of power in today's society, Where before only land owners had sufficient influence to reign in monarchs, and thus were the first to be given a vote, now our whole economy is divided up by market share, with advertising revenue spent to control consumer choice and lobbying to affect government policy."
I don't really see why this is a bad thing, I am also not sure what your getting at.

"The effectiveness of advertising is a tool realized by governments when they started their propaganda machines in the 20th century (perhaps as late as world war 2) While corps figured it out a little bit faster and adapted to it (or those who adapted took over rather faster)"
Same as above. Your proof of the corps adapting fast and government adapting slow only further proves my case. Government is inefficient, and thats mainly because every 2-6 years (depending on which country) the government is replaced because the people are dissatisfied.

"But it was only in the last 100 years that the common consensus was that violence could no longer be used to put down rebellion or to control a population. (India, Ireland, etc. As contrasted with the american war of independence, if the war had been lost the Empire would have continued to rule over their colonies - modern political thought would have resulted in a negotiated peaceful independence, as happened in India.)"
That may be true, but thats only because peace was brought to the table. If the opposing forces couldn't agree with each other, war will eventually break out.

"In many ways this advertising/propaganda tool is far more insipid than violent repression ever was. Companies decided to invest in tools to control how people think (about products) and thus control of people's lives has changed dramatically now that these tools are the standard weapons of the trade. (where both governments and companies deal in controlling people...)"
I agree, the only problem is (and this is another reason why I am anti-democratic) the person with the best advertising scheme goes further in elections, rather then the one with the best ideas.

"My PC:
Economic Left/Right: -5.62
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.74
very left and liberal."
This disappoints me, I am surprised someone as intelligent as yourself would be very left wing. I though you would be at least a centralist.

"there is another expense or cost, ok So if you pay a large enough army (to not fight, but to sit around and threaten that they are ready to fight if necessary) you cost the state and thus productivity..."
I agree, but the money has to go somewhere...

"compare with Switzerland - their standing army consists of 95% conscripted civilian militia who are required to provide their own weapons and equipment. So since the majority of the male population has served in the military at one stage the defence of the nation can be left in the hands of the locals at every level... incurring a minimal cost of training each year as new recruits are put through their paces when they come of age..."
Thats smart but at the same time dumb. Rebellion would be super easy...

"I agree, the only problem is (and this is another reason why I am anti-democratic) the person with the best advertising scheme goes further in elections, rather then the one with the best ideas." - agreed, democracy places those best at influencing others in power... or those who can afford to hire the best advertisers... I believe it has also been demonstrated that the height of a candidate actually has a fairly big impact on their campaign (there is also a correlation between average wage and height, with taller people earning more on average...)

"Thats smart but at the same time dumb. Rebellion would be super easy..."

but the swiss have a massive amount of direct democratic power, they can call for referendums by amassing signatures, and then the people (not the government) get to vote on the issue.

This means they don't need to kill someone to get what they want, they just need to gather the support for their proposal... again replacing violence with peaceful compromise (and i know how obi hates that word/concept....)

As for intelligence, i don't know of any co-relation between political leanings and intellect. People can blindly follow stupid ideas, or intellectually come up with their own crazy ideas all day long, and they will each eventually settle somewhere on the spectrum... i know only that i don't know how to best organize all human activities... And that anyone who thinks the do know best is foolish (whether they happen to be an intellectual or a blind-fanatic).

(calling a referendum with 50,000 signatures, gathered in 100 days. This amounts to ~00.6% of the country's population - do you think the US would function 00.6% of the population could call a vote on changing any law, stopping something congress had passed into law or overturning an executive order? with twice that - 01.2% of the population required to force a vote to amend the constitution...)

"but the swiss have a massive amount of direct democratic power, they can call for referendums by amassing signatures, and then the people (not the government) get to vote on the issue. "
Thats whats so dumb about it. The people are ignorant idiots and yet get full control of government.

"This means they don't need to kill someone to get what they want, they just need to gather the support for their proposal... again replacing violence with peaceful compromise (and i know how obi hates that word/concept....) "
"You can get more done with a kind word and a gun, then you can with just a kind word."
"If you want peace, prepare for war"
All I am saying is, the reason why anyone would ever go to the negotiations table is because the enemy is indeed a threat that violence would be difficult the quell. If that wasn't the case, then why negotiate at all?

"As for intelligence, i don't know of any co-relation between political leanings and intellect. "
There is none. But I like to think there is.

"People can blindly follow stupid ideas, or intellectually come up with their own crazy ideas all day long, and they will each eventually settle somewhere on the spectrum... i know only that i don't know how to best organize all human activities... And that anyone who thinks the do know best is foolish (whether they happen to be an intellectual or a blind-fanatic)."
I agree, that is why I am open-minded to new ideas, and like to have debates like these. however, I normally always end up leaving thinking I am right.

"Thats whats so dumb about it. The people are ignorant idiots and yet get full control of government." - i think you missed the point, being that their civilian militia wasn't likely to rebel (as you claimed a downside of their system) as they have much greater democratic power - if direct democracy is stupid because people are stupid, i'd just like to point out my firm belief that people are capable of acting intelligently, however stupid they may appear, it is a product of their training not their genetics.

In many places in our society following some simple rules will get us by. The smart ones who realise that by breaking the rules, being more creative with what they are 'allowed' to do and coming up with new and ingenious ways to take advantage of people are consider criminals.

The system does relative little to reward the average voter for thinking about their decision before casting a vote. On the other hand in a direct democracy there is a chance that how you vote will have an immediate impact on your life - specifically because you're not voting for a representative who will do something, but you'll never see directly the consequences of your vote - here you directly and immediately see the impact of your vote as a law has been altered.... I do wish we could come up with a better system...

"the enemy is indeed a threat that violence would be difficult the quell. If that wasn't the case, then why negotiate at all?" - but there was a time when the standard political wisdom was to violently repress any rebellion (as happened in Ireland for 800 years) it is considered a part of the enlightenment that governments are now willing to consider independence and positive relations with their new neighbour...

The facts is history has lead to many changes in what is 'common sense' and generally we've moved toward less use of violence and more use of propoganda.... I'm not claiming this is a good/bad thing, i'm just commenting on how modern governments/corps now choose to control modern populations. (that's why the 'information age' is so apt, control of information is the major method for controlling people)

And i do not think i'm right, or my idea on how to run a country are the best way a country could be run, i simply think that i'd prefer to live in a certain kind of society... i don't think i can claim that my ideal society is some 'better world' it is just my preference...

it's very hard to convince me that i'm wrong when i don't come to the table trying to convince anyone that i'm right.

"if direct democracy is stupid because people are stupid, i'd just like to point out my firm belief that people are capable of acting intelligently, however stupid they may appear, it is a product of their training not their genetics. "
I am convinced that anyone with an IQ less then 126 is retarded. So I disagree.

"In many places in our society following some simple rules will get us by. The smart ones who realise that by breaking the rules, being more creative with what they are 'allowed' to do and coming up with new and ingenious ways to take advantage of people are consider criminals. "
Although true, the intellects are important in any progressing society.

"The system does relative little to reward the average voter for thinking about their decision before casting a vote. On the other hand in a direct democracy there is a chance that how you vote will have an immediate impact on your life - specifically because you're not voting for a representative who will do something, but you'll never see directly the consequences of your vote - here you directly and immediately see the impact of your vote as a law has been altered.... I do wish we could come up with a better system... "
And what happens when it negatively affects you, you have to go round and change everything again. It is retarded. better to have intelligent people run the system and not have to concern the people with such mundane affairs.

"but there was a time when the standard political wisdom was to violently repress any rebellion (as happened in Ireland for 800 years) it is considered a part of the enlightenment that governments are now willing to consider independence and positive relations with their new neighbour...

The facts is history has lead to many changes in what is 'common sense' and generally we've moved toward less use of violence and more use of propoganda.... I'm not claiming this is a good/bad thing, i'm just commenting on how modern governments/corps now choose to control modern populations. (that's why the 'information age' is so apt, control of information is the major method for controlling people)"
I think its better, but there will always be conflict, when in some situations propaganda and diplomacy wont be enough. It was through this diplomacy that both world wars happened, where alliances were made to ensure global peace, and then due to conflicting interests the whole world was dragged into war. If the idea of defensive pacts/allainces with multiple parties was never though of, wars would always be small, between two parties with conflicting interests. Rather then between thousands of parties with allies who have conflicting interest.

"And i do not think i'm right, or my idea on how to run a country are the best way a country could be run, i simply think that i'd prefer to live in a certain kind of society... i don't think i can claim that my ideal society is some 'better world' it is just my preference..."
Then think deeper, think about how you could change the world for the better. I am considered heartless because I think on a more broad perspective, what would better society over the individual. Your left wing, so you probably believe equality is fair, even though genetically some people are superior to others and deserve a superior spot in society. Ambition is an important trait, and it appears you lack it.

"it's very hard to convince me that i'm wrong when i don't come to the table trying to convince anyone that i'm right."
Its kinda frustrating that way. But a good philosophy to have.

"Then think deeper, think about how you could change the world for the better. I am considered heartless because I think on a more broad perspective, what would better society over the individual. Your left wing, so you probably believe equality is fair, even though genetically some people are superior to others and deserve a superior spot in society. Ambition is an important trait, and it appears you lack it. "

hmm, i agree that some people have different traits genetically derived. Some of these are more advantageous in a hunter-gatherer society, some would be more use in a social collective, and other in a fascist state. (women tend to empathize better, but were pre-historically spending more time in close proximity with other females and children, and advantaged when able to better manipulate men, meanwhile men tend to have better spatial awareness, probably an aid in navigation... )

If you promote only those who unfailingly follow orders you will be choosing those traits which you 'like' for your societies defined 'best'. However I don't know what SHOULD be defined as 'best'.

Unless you are willing to allow specific caste differences to further specialize workers (of different types) and then many different 'bests' can easily be defined. If you want ever person to have an equal chance then you also have to allow them to use whatever skills they do have to further their own goals... But if society defines what is 'best' then only a specific type of person is likely to succeed, which isn't "fair" and liable to incite unrest...

Anyway, if i think that 'equality' is fair, you have to allow those genetic specimens to have equal opportunity - then i don't claim that they should all be treated equally, they should all be promoted based on ability... but this basically disallows inheritance.

Perhaps is all ownership of personal property passed to the government then this could be sold at auction to provide income which would displace the need for taxation to provide basic equal opportunities...

Company property would of course belong to the company - but shares in a given company could not be inherited...

"As for what WILL function today, you're stuck with the reality that most people (idiots though they may be, at least according to our fascist) will not accept dictatorship (in most modern freedom loving democracies) And thus aspiring dictators are doomed to failure."

I disagree. If WWII shows us anything, it is that modern "freedom loving" industrial societies are perfectly happy to collaborate with dictatorship. Look at the complete lack of resistance in Belgium and France to German rule. The biggest source of resistance was in Eastern Europe and the Balkans. Moderns don't want their nice standard of living taken away. That's all they care about.

@putin: touché

" You're not speeding evolution up any more than breeding chihuahuas is speeding up the evolution of the dog. You're simply superseding nature's judgement with your own, which do not at all necessarily represent what is "good" or "superior"."

We're immune to nature's judgment. We might have selection pressures, but none that are really due to nature or the environment.

Putin are you communist or fascist? Because for some strange reason you are defending me.

I'm a Communist. I just happen to share your pessimistic view of liberalism (small l) and human nature.

I would say that the Swiss model only worked because of Switzerland's geography, ditto the UK and US. Certain countries have liberal traditions because they were largely immune from military pressures and invasions. You can have a democratic militia when it is impossible to invade a fortress of mountains. However, Prussia and France needed conscripted standing armies and faced great military threats due to their geography, and democratic policies were not suitable.

anyway.Previous to this discussion my PC score was:
+8.19
+6.27

Just now, when I took it, it was
+3.75
-2.51

This PC quiz is asinine. Written by clueless libertarians.

really? I think it was written by clueless communists.