Political Thread

[David Lindon]

Yeah. All the hippies and that!

 

[Lord Kalthorn]

Yeah, i'm not one for violence, but they need to be beaten around the head with frozen 15kg turkeys!

 

[Lord Kalthorn]

Freedom is one of the things that we in the West and growingly everywhere cherish above all other things: why not? it allows for people to walk around in a nightie, allows people to eat what they want, spend their money on what they want, and for people born into a poor family to get Millions of pounds. We think that it is Democracy that gives us this; that it is Democracy that allows us our simple freedoms and nothing beyond Conservative or Labour could possibly give us those Democratic Freedoms. I, however, say otherwise, it is Democracy that is the only way we have of those freedoms – but that does not make it the only way to get those freedoms. Democracy has flaws big enough to pass an Elephant through which everybody notices but either does not have the power to get rid of them or does not want to get rid of them. What is this thorn in Democracy's side you may ask, and you will kick yourself for not knowing that it is Capitalism: the very lifeblood of our friend America. The World has had a plague spread upon it, based in and created on the United States of America, which I will call ‘The American Dream Syndrome'.
‘The American Dream Syndrome' is easily describable; it is each person's strive for as much money and power (or both) as possible regardless of discernable talent. However, striving for beyond one's goals is the most noble of all causes do not get me wrong – but these people are not striving to become better, they're striving to gain money. Bosses; promoting the less hard working for bribes; Police taking bribes; Privatisation in All its forms; Companies going from son to son and not most competent to most competent.
What is the answer to all of this misery and Democratic filth? For that, we must turn to the two systems we all believe to be the most degrading forms of government: Fascism and Communism. Each has its strength; both have great weaknesses. The common weakness is in the dealing out of Freedoms to the common-folk, indeed Lenin did say ‘Liberty is so precious, it should be rationed,' I do not however believe Hitler had a policy on Freedom.

I do not generally like to use long words, but what if the three greatest ever governments were stuck together under an Oligarchal-Meritocracy, creating a hybrid Fascist-Democratic-Communist State? From this long-winded name comes a shorter name - Centralisation; and here is how it works:
Centralisation? What does that mean? Well, Centralisation is just that: Centralisation. Stalin ruled under a system created basically by Lenin during the Russian Civil War called War Communism; War Communism is based upon everything being owned by the State. Centralism believes in this very philosophy. All Companies, owned by the State, all Religious buildings and institutions owned by the State, all Transportation owned by the State, all homes owned by the State, everything but personal possessions and people owned by the State. Everything is centred on the Capital and its Oligarchal Councils (A ‘Council of Elders' of sorts) followed by Councils all the way down to in Villages. All of these things are like Communism. In Centralism, there is no money, but only the Centralist equivalent called the pound (not very imaginative!); money for work is set and paid for by the State, work is done for the State and all resources go to the State. Promotion is given by the State; although recommended by the boss and decided upon through a complicated system of Honours and Meritocracy.
Fascism believes in the system of non-equality that is not unlike that of modern day Capitalism; Centralism does not believe in this to the extent of Hitler but does believe in it. Nobody is the same and centralism realises that – as a child everybody is given the same chance in the Centralist Schooling System; which is basically a hugely massive school which takes all children from the whole country and sorts with that huge base of children each into Houses then into Years and then into Groups of intelligence and tests. This system accords a great deal of certificates and Honours upon people that they go through their life with; it is these that that person goes through life with and uses in getting all jobs through the government. This system is very fair – even giving the chance of more qualifications after the required 16 years of school, extra 3 to 4 years of University and 3 to 4 years of higher education. Communism believes in total equality; ‘from each according to their ability, to each according to their need' – Centralism does not believe this, for that person's actions they should be rewarded as designated by the average of all AND by the capability of that person.

I would like to do more, and may, but as of yet it is complete

 

[Giancarlo]

I'm considered center-right... sorry for bringing up this old thread. I'm center-right, and in some issues almost nationalist such as on immigration. I'm not comparable to any British political parties, as I'm from Spain. The party I identified with most lost power this year in a very sad incident in which it was blamed for something it had nothing to do with. We also must take notice. The best economies today are ones operated under the free market, not ones of centralized tyranny or coercion. Communism more specifically may purport to offer equality, but economic equality is impossible. For several reasons, market forces such as different classes of jobs (doctors, 7/11 clerks, etc). It looks good on paper, but is impossible to attain. That essay in particular is just mainly rhetoric, it makes claims but never backs them. It stereotypes capitalism and democracy, in a rather poor inadequate manner. The State taking over lives of people is the worst thing that could possible happen. Innovation is lost in the wreckless nature of a centrally controlled market... society would then proceed to collapse. It was afterall capitalism and private industry that brought along the advances of the 21st century. The internet.. for example.. and as far as healthcare goes, it was private industry that developed super computers for hospitals, not the state. Additionally once a state controls everything and gets too large, it ceases to function in a proper way that best serves the people.

Again, I apologize for bringing this thread up.

 

[root]

I think you'll find the traditional roles of Labour liberal and conservative being left centre right is no longer the case, labour (new labour -currently in power) is far more right than the liberals -Who got my vote jus for the suggestion of the leagalisation of cannabis. - well that was in the election before last because I forgot to vote in the last one.

anyone wondering where they sit should take an online test (of course!) http://www.politicalcompass.org/
personally I sat in the same quadrant as Ghandi - communism anarchism. But I was slighly less communist and a lot more anarchist.

 

[Giancarlo]

My scores at political compass:

Economic Left/Right: +8.01 (Wow)
Libertarian/Authoritarian: -0.06

 

[Lord Kalthorn]

I'm considered center-right... sorry for bringing up this old thread. I'm center-right, and in some issues almost nationalist such as on immigration. I'm not comparable to any British political parties, as I'm from Spain. The party I identified with most lost power this year in a very sad incident in which it was blamed for something it had nothing to do with. We also must take notice. The best economies today are ones operated under the free market, not ones of centralized tyranny or coercion. Communism more specifically may purport to offer equality, but economic equality is impossible. For several reasons, market forces such as different classes of jobs (doctors, 7/11 clerks, etc). It looks good on paper, but is impossible to attain. That essay in particular is just mainly rhetoric, it makes claims but never backs them. It stereotypes capitalism and democracy, in a rather poor inadequate manner. The State taking over lives of people is the worst thing that could possible happen. Innovation is lost in the wreckless nature of a centrally controlled market... society would then proceed to collapse. It was afterall capitalism and private industry that brought along the advances of the 21st century. The internet.. for example.. and as far as healthcare goes, it was private industry that developed super computers for hospitals, not the state. Additionally once a state controls everything and gets too large, it ceases to function in a proper way that best serves the people.

Again, I apologize for bringing this thread up.

No! Its great to have a nice Politicial Thread up again. Took me a little while to remmember exactly what this was all about; but after reading what you've said its made it all a great deal clearer.

You seem to believe that a centralized market is based on tyranny or coercion? The idea of a centralized market is not to do such things. These previous mentioned things are basically the signs of Capitalism coming through into a centralized society. When people, like in Soviet Russia which you seem to be comparing my Centralism to, become corrupt by Capitalism when in the highest seats of power. Obviously nature does that too - but that can be overcome by enough power in the people through the oligarchal councils.

Another flaw of Communism; humans by instinct don't work simply to be equal to everybody else; it causes inefficency. To work as hard as you can yet a fat old whore with 15 children who does nothing but sit on her arse and get pregnant gets more than you do from the government. Money must exist - but money is not capitalism. Capital is Capitalism and that is based on land, possessions, and companies. Different classes of jobs should get differing classes of resources for their job - that is why I put in Meritocracy: to allow money by merit. The government owns all companies, all everything bar people and personal possessions. That means that the government pays everybody; as it gains from their work. This should appeal to your nationalist tendencies? For everybody to be working to make the country as powerful as possible. but by being paid by the government for what you do according to a fixed system; promoted by the government according to a fixed system; takes away that problem of capitalism - corruption - where it is possible to buy promotion, or to be related to somebody and picked in preference, or to pay yourself out of demotion.

I have to smile about that; there is no way for me to possibly back my theories - for I have no where near enough time to write out a proper essay which would turn into a thesis far to quickly and then never end in which to prove the theories and set out the organisation that would allow for a cohesive system. I obviously know how I would expect it to happen - or I wouldn't have written it - but when I have the time i will write it and I will put a link here so that i is clearer to those who are willing to read it.

 

[Giancarlo]

No! Its great to have a nice Politicial Thread up again. Took me a little while to remmember exactly what this was all about; but after reading what you've said its made it all a great deal clearer.

You seem to believe that a centralized market is based on tyranny or coercion? The idea of a centralized market is not to do such things. These previous mentioned things are basically the signs of Capitalism coming through into a centralized society. When people, like in Soviet Russia which you seem to be comparing my Centralism to, become corrupt by Capitalism when in the highest seats of power. Obviously nature does that too - but that can be overcome by enough power in the people through the oligarchal councils.

I obviously don't agree. And I think centralism is bound to become corrupt no matter which way you try to go by. We are humans. Not robots. Nice try though. Take a room full of servers doing the same monotonous tasks.. that's what you are proposing huamns do under the communist system. Capitalism isn't naturally corrupting and it isn't corruption. It by definition is the open market. Anything else is just tyranny and coercion.

Money must exist - but money is not capitalism. Capital is Capitalism and that is based on land, possessions, and companies. Different classes of jobs should get differing classes of resources for their job - that is why I put in Meritocracy: to allow money by merit. The government owns all companies, all everything bar people and personal possessions. That means that the government pays everybody; as it gains from their work. This should appeal to your nationalist tendencies? For everybody to be working to make the country as powerful as possible. but by being paid by the government for what you do according to a fixed system; promoted by the government according to a fixed system; takes away that problem of capitalism - corruption - where it is possible to buy promotion, or to be related to somebody and picked in preference, or to pay yourself out of demotion.

Nationalist tendencies? The only thing people consider me nationalist on is immigration. And I don't myself think I'm hardline at all. Actually, I'm closer to Milton Friedman on the political compass, a right-wing libertarian. The government can't own all companies. Forget it. That has been attempted and it is nothing more then a flop. Bar people from having personal possessions? Now that is borderline totalitarianism. I think your system is awful, and is full of inefficency (corruption, non-transparency, and structural errors). I'm totally against the state owning anything of the economy except arms manufacturing perhaps.

I have to smile about that; there is no way for me to possibly back my theories - for I have no where near enough time to write out a proper essay which would turn into a thesis far to quickly and then never end in which to prove the theories and set out the organisation that would allow for a cohesive system. I obviously know how I would expect it to happen - or I wouldn't have written it - but when I have the time i will write it and I will put a link here so that i is clearer to those who are willing to read it.

I just find your beliefs quite out of touch with reality. That's all. You seem to have more confidence in a bureaucrat, then you do a businessman.

Take two examples:

1972 Chile
2004 Chile

The difference? One is operated by socialism/total government control over the economy and the other is operated by a free market economy. Which works better? Well you tell me. 1972 Chile was marked by an economic collapse, and a military coup the following year. Chile this year has the best economy in South America because of innovation, and private exporting.

The bureaucrat is much worse then the businessman.

 

[Lord Kalthorn]

I obviously don't agree. And I think centralism is bound to become corrupt no matter which way you try to go by. We are humans. Not robots. Nice try though. Take a room full of servers doing the same monotonous tasks.. that's what you are proposing huamns do under the communist system. Capitalism isn't naturally corrupting and it isn't corruption. It by definition is the open market. Anything else is just tyranny and coercion.

Tyranny can only be started in a system which allows that tyrant to become a dictator. Nobody can become a dictator: because you are voted in unless you are the emperor - who still has three subordinates of equal power to throw him out if he's corrupt - theres always somebody above you to sort you out.

Nationalist tendencies? The only thing people consider me nationalist on is immigration. And I don't myself think I'm hardline at all. Actually, I'm closer to Milton Friedman on the political compass, a right-wing libertarian. The government can't own all companies. Forget it. That has been attempted and it is nothing more then a flop. Bar people from having personal possessions? Now that is borderline totalitarianism. I think your system is awful, and is full of inefficency (corruption, non-transparency, and structural errors). I'm totally against the state owning anything of the economy except arms manufacturing perhaps.

Did I say that? I said 'bar personal possessions' hence, other than personal possessions.

I just find your beliefs quite out of touch with reality. That's all. You seem to have more confidence in a bureaucrat, then you do a businessman.

Take two examples:

1972 Chile
2004 Chile

The difference? One is operated by socialism/total government control over the economy and the other is operated by a free market economy. Which works better? Well you tell me. 1972 Chile was marked by an economic collapse, and a military coup the following year. Chile this year has the best economy in South America because of innovation, and private exporting.

The bureaucrat is much worse then the businessman.

No, bureaucrats are capitalist - I have more confidence in a Military System where in capitalist definition - everybody is employed by a huge company which makes many many things. That company pays the person based on what that person does, and that company then releases the goods into the command-economy of a company to sell to the employees. The employees get free health cover, free housing, free transport; infact everything is free to that employee bar things which become possessions.

Is that a better description?

 

[Giancarlo]

Well can I tell you something? I left the previous forum I was in because of the vicious political discussions. I came to this one because it was about computers. Lets just agree to disagree because I came here to discuss computers. My fault for bringing this thread up.