StarGateWars Forums

Miss Sullivan, I'm quite disappointed by your failure to at least acknowledge, if not respond, to the issues that I've raised concerning the proposal you've made herein.

Concerning your criticism of Avenger, however, I shall say that I've observed individuals in a sincere and promising effort to live in a manner that does not suffer from the inconsistency you've pointed out. I do not know if it is a matter of interest to you, but if it is, I would be happy to go into some of the details of how such a course of action may theoretically be possible.

Agapooka

Universe wrote:Yet you do not support a new world order? How .. enticing.
You live in the system you describe to hate, yet protest changes.

I find that to be somewhat, what is the word, inconsistent.



Your dream of absolute individualism, absolute freedom, if ever realised, will result in the death of humanity.

Answer me this, if you will.. should a man, whose only interest is to breathe, be allowed to vote on the affairs of those who have other interests besides survival?

You hit upon an interesting point I would answer yes.

Firstly, why should one be forced to hold interests other than survival? Why should that not be a valid position to hold? If circumstances dictate that a population's interests are reduced to survival, or even if such circumstances don't exist, but there is still a significant portion of the population that prefers to do nothing but stagnate and survive, then that shapes the culture and society of this population, so why is this an unacceptable situation? Why does one view trump another? And even if it isn't a significant portion of the population, even a single person can be representative of a position in a population. The whole point of a democracy is to respect each voice equally, thus arriving at the majority view of the nation, regardless of how you personally feel about its rationality/morality/benefit to society/etc.. Generally, societal interests and principles rarely change upon compulsion (at least, up to a certain point - but this requires no less than dictatorship) - we are far more susceptible to cultural and social shifts that occur in a seemingly natural way, through persuasion or by mass popularity, etc. The purpose of a democracy is follow these shifts; to influence them perhaps, but not to mold them in the image of one party over another. If you believe that one should be required to contribute more than mere survival, then that is your belief, and your right to require of yourself, but I don't see why others must follow the same principle...

Secondly, as a member of a population, by definition any affairs that affect the whole population also have the potential to affect you, and are therefore your affairs too. Whether that potential is exercised or not is entirely irrelevant. Why? Because the basic tenet upholding the vast majority of Western political philosophy is the principle of free will and ones ability to exercise it (which is essentially what this all boils down to anyway). So whether the potential is exercised is a matter of free will and unless you plan on removing that, I don't see how your view is justified.

Your question also hints at the basic principles behind capitalism - specifically the role of personal interests in the development of a whole society. It is astonishing how one man's greed (to use a particularly emotive term) can lead, almost surreptitiously, to wealth and prosperity for uncountless multitudes. Timothy Gowers made a similar argument for the vast benefits of mathematical research when he argued that a mathematician's intellectual curiosity, and his personal search for aestheticism and elegance can have societal and economic returns of equal magnitude. By the same token, one should not ignore those whose interests are not directly beneficial to society, regardless of the apparent absurdity of their views. Ignoring, for a moment, your choice of a man with no interests beyond survival, which may as well be a practical impossibility, your reductio ad absurdum seems to imply that such people should have their rights stripped as well.

Elongar

I would not propose that said people wouldn't be permitted to vote. However, decreasing interest for them to vote, is a more acceptable solution. How would it be possible?
A little view at EU's last elections is needed.
There was abstention, yes, alot. About 59% overall. Who didn't vote? Apparently, it was mostly poor classes and young people. Now, young people category *is* vague. Afterall, I voted, and I know few other young people who voted. It's likely to be people not interested in politics, or those who only see what effects it has on their very own life. People who don't see far, who don't see society as a whole. Young people who voted had either the EU spirit, or for a minority, completly opposed to it, and felt they would voe against EU, but again, they were a minority.

I am inclined to think (overall talking) it was mostly people who are: not in favour of EU, people who don't care about politics, and finally marginals (correct word) people (aka chavs, "punks with dogs"...).
Making sure people who don't understand and couldn't do good choics in voting wouldn't vote. Making the campaign more technical, more difficult to understand to the masses.

if they included a vote for "NONE OF THE ABOVE", i assure you, many more people would vote...at least in the UK

So much for democracy when you're limited to a few detestable choices, eh?

i have some reform proposals...for the UK at least



[spoiler]Dear Mr. Brown,

Please find below my suggestion for fixing Britain 's economy. Instead
of giving billions of pounds to banks that will squander the money on
lavish parties and unearned bonuses, use the following plan. You can
call it the Patriotic Retirement Plan:

There are about 3 million people over 50 in the work force. - Pay
them £1 million apiece severance for early retirement with the
following stipulations:

1) They MUST retire. Three million job openings - Unemployment fixed.

2) They MUST buy a new British CAR. Three million cars ordered -
Auto Industry fixed.

3) They MUST either buy a house or pay off their mortgage - Housing
Crisis fixed.

4) They must send there kids to school / collage /university - Crime rate fixed

5) Buy £50 of alcohol / tobacco a week there's your money back in duty/tax etc

It can't get any easier than that!

P.S. If more money is needed, have all members of parliament pay back
there falsely claimed expenses and second home allowances

Thanks

If you think this would work, please forward to everyone you know. If
not, please disregard.[/spoiler]

<= me after reading that letter.


If we were living in SimCity or whatever kind of ridiculously oversimplified socioeconomic simulation model, then it might just be enough. Since we're not, it's .. not even worth debating.


There I go again. Wow. Stamina.

Burning down all existing houses is a much more effective way of reigniting the housing market.

Soundwave wrote:](*,) <= me after reading that letter.


If we were living in SimCity or whatever kind of ridiculously oversimplified socioeconomic simulation model, then it might just be enough. Since we're not, it's .. not even worth debating.


There I go again. Wow. Stamina.

Indeed.

Now...to propose a few more reforms!

-Everyone gets a wage of €3000 minimum (jobless or not)
-Poor classes get their state help doubled if not tripled
-Arresting someone of another culture or religion as Europe's original one is forbidden
-University is free for everyone, and everyone is invited to join, regardless of results
-Proletariat gets instant control of all factories. Bosses get expelled from EU.
-Immigration (especially illegal one) is highly looked for and suggested
-

Don't worry, those were jokes!

In all seriousness...
-I would propose to build (or use) an island to park chavs and people of said kind. NO "heavy criminals". Sufficient amount of warders to maintain order. This wouldn't be like "No Escape" (someone mentionned me this movie when I proposed that idea in another forum, I didn't see the movie, but read the plot).
People in this island would work for the life in said island (every kind of work possible to make a mini society working). There wouldn't be joblessness. This would be to learn them how to live in society, and how to behave and be usefull instead of being parasites. They wouldn't be like in jail. It would be like an isolated society, to learn how to live in the "real" society. Not trapped in cells.
People behaving and acting well would get "bonuses", those who wouldn't, get "maluses".
That would be effective for chavs and rioters who couldn't be "sent back to home" (illegal immigrants who don't have full nationality and therefore can't be booted off). I could also propose to withdraw obtained nationality from people who obtained it since a certain period of time (let's say 5 years?), if they did something against the law (bigger than stealing oranges though). I don't remember if Universe proposed something like that in her reforms.

-Life imprisonment becomes a true life imprisonment. Life imprisonment as 25-40 years of jail stops right now. Death sentance is restablished in EU for serial killers and serial rapers. A very precise and serious investigation will be made on every "candidate" to death sentence to make sure said person isn't innocent. Those where doubt will be non existant will be awarded by a death penalty. Others, if proven innocent, will be released, however, they will still be watched by justice for a certain period of time. As, we never know what they can do!

-If riots of a certain scale (at least ## of cars burnt and buildings assaulted/burnt) occur, the neighboorhood will be surrounded and blocked by police and army. This being made in an attempt to find out the guilty ones of said crimes. Ways to denounciate/discover the guilty one have to be found out (I didn't find out yet an accurate way to prevent people telling to be found out and attacked/threatend by guilty ones). This would also enable police to do a proper investigation, guilty ones having much less chances to escape from said neighboorhood.

-Families who receive state help because of xx amount of children will now be threatend to lose parts of help. I explain myself. A family got 3 children. Two of those children don't do problems, however, the third one causes problems (he robs cellphones in streets for example). This family will now receive only 2 parts instead of three. (and the guilty one will of course also receive the sentence he would have been received if said proposal didn't exist. One doesn't stop the other, efficiency being the ultimate goal afterall) This reform will be presented and debated before being applied, about 6 to 12 monthes later. This way, nobody could claim, they didn't know. That would perhaps incitate families to educate their children better, and also stop to do them like rabbits to gain money.

That's all I think of for now. (I also got the idea of reeducation centers directed by army for "hardest" minor thugs, such as WWASP, difference being, no abuse would be tolerated. I mean, people being sent will be the "worst of the worst" before the level of murderer. No pothead, rebel-to-parents-by-listening-metal-music or oranges stealers will be sent. "Candidates" will have their entire case being looked for by a mixed jury, to avoid sending simple teenagers to such harsh center. Money-making goals will be forgotten and avoided to ameliorate efficiency of said program. I will develop that one if needed/asked, or to avoid misunderstandings possible.)

Soundwave wrote:](*,) <= me after reading that letter.


If we were living in SimCity or whatever kind of ridiculously oversimplified socioeconomic simulation model, then it might just be enough. Since we're not, it's .. not even worth debating.


There I go again. Wow. Stamina.

if this is aimed at my last post...it was meant as a bit of light humour, nothing more

[KMA]Avenger wrote:

Soundwave wrote:](*,) <= me after reading that letter.


If we were living in SimCity or whatever kind of ridiculously oversimplified socioeconomic simulation model, then it might just be enough. Since we're not, it's .. not even worth debating.


There I go again. Wow. Stamina.

if this is aimed at my last post...it was meant as a bit of light humour, nothing more

It was not aimed at your post per se.. but at the idea behind that letter you quoted. Armchair coaches write these, without looking at the bigger picture. It's a bloody big picture.

your telling me its a big picture?!?! i know AHELLOFALLOT about the workings of the world and the true power brokers/rulers of the world than the vast majority of people, even those on these boards...as i'm sure you know already so, no need to tell me the short comings of that "reform" i posted


laugh a little, you'll be happier for it and live longer i suspect

Why did my entry be unnoticed?

its long and no one reads long posts according to universe

ROCKY wrote:its long and no one reads long posts according to universe

Well I did read her starting post of this topic. And commented it.
It was a long one too.
I don't see what's wrong with long posts. Especially in a section called:


* Board index ‹ Misc ‹ Debate Central ‹ General intelligent discussion topics

Perhaps...am I unique?
That would be the positive way anyway..