BF2S Forums Who can think of a better system than the Two Party. ?

Jodah3 wrote:

I said that in the complete idealistic situation, having one person rule would be the best.  This means that the person ruling would have no bias, or personal interest.  It's also assuming that he/she sees all angles of a situation and does not overlook anything.  It would be the perfect human being.  This is, of course, impossible.  It's purely theoretical, not realistic.

At the purely theoretical, conceptual level, rule by a single person is more effective and efficient than a democracy ever will be.  Notice that rule by a single person existed long before a democracy ever existed.  Democracies formed because human nature corrupted the "idealistic situation".  The dictators were not perfect, they had human desires, human greed.

Democracies formed to protect the general populace from the human nature of a dictator.  And it works well at it.  But a democracy is NOT the perfect government, it is very ineffective and inefficient.  The perfect government is what I described above.

that's what i've been saying since the first page of this thread. it's so obviously true, yet people seem unable to accept it.

Krappyappy wrote:

dictatorships are the best form of government, easily. if the leader is intelligent and does what needs to be done, there's nothing like autocracy for complete efficiency.

Last edited by Krappyappy (2005-12-15 14:23:30)

Krappyappy wrote:

i'm talking about the IDEAL dictatorship. in philosophy, as in physics or chemistry, ideal conditions are rarely achievable. that doesn't change its properties or characteristics. the IDEAL dictatorship is absolute power given to an absolutely competent ruler. such a system is uncomparably more efficient and effective than a slow moving representative government. the ruler makes the right choice and no one can second guess him. if you think that any other form of government can do a better job than that, you're deluding yourself. an IDEAL system is the best, period, and it's not possible to be better than it by definition.

Krappyappy wrote:

that's what i've been saying since the first page of this thread. it's so obviously true, yet people seem unable to accept it.

Because it's impossible in reality. Once again, talking about a "hypothetical" situation in which the ideal government can only exist if absolutely no human beings are actually involved is akin to designing an aircraft while ignoring the laws of physics.

You assume that even if you find this absolutely competent ruler that everyone would even agree to his ideals. Again, impossible. Both sides of the coin make the "ideal" government a complete and utter fantasy. Let's pretend that you find a single soul that would actually rule with only the good of humanity in mind. What if he determines that for the good of humanity religion should be outlawed? Even if half the people agreed with him that would still leave the other half of the population that didn't. So again, even if you find this wonderful human being that would just love and care about everything and everyone, who's to say that he's right? To rule properly would mean he'd have to literally know everything there is to know in the universe, otherwise there would always be disagreements.

In the real world and in your fantasy world a dictatorship is not a good idea. You forgot to consider the fact that everyone would want to have that power at some point.

Last edited by FeloniousMonk (2005-12-15 16:32:36)

oberst_enzian wrote:

i took away what you wrote because it kept giving me a syntax error and trying to find it was making my eyes bleed

Interesting. First of all, capitalism is an economic system not a form of government. Free market capitalism is ideal to protect individual rights and freedoms moreso than it would be in a communist state where just about every product and service is controlled by the state.

Secondly, human nature can be indeed be seen as objective because while the more complex facets are, as you said, reflections on my relations with others, the core principles are undeniable. Self preservation and the continuation of the species is hard wired into every human being ever born, even if their rational or emotional choices allow them to ignore those instincts.

Yes, we are sentient but regardless of how evolved or enlightened we may become we will still remain animals. I think I understand what you're saying though I don't see how my arguments are mutually exclusive. Maybe I'm just not getting that part of your point. 

The very definition of anarchism is a lack of organization and structure. Those small individual communities you mentioned are called towns. Back in the day they were tribes but forms of governments like that simply can't exist in an isolationist fashion while at the same time actively advancing human productivity and improving our quality of life. Without centralized structure we would all still be using carts and buggies, plowing our individual fields, or maybe not even doing that and just wandering as nomads. To be honest maybe that's best for humanity; a few anthropologists have suggested that the worst thing to ever happen to our species was the development of agriculture because it forced people to stay in one spot. This facet of ancient life is what in turn led to the creation of larger governments and to where we are today. I guess it depends on one's idea of what's good for society...

Also, capitalism doesn't lend to the exploitation of the people unless they allow it to. People continually bitch and moan about how terrible WalMart is for buying Chinese goods and treating their employees like crap but people still shop there. The only ones to blame are the people that are supporting their actions with their money. WalMart has yet to force anyone to shop there, but human nature, the desire to increase reward while reducing effort (something inherent to all living creatures and exemplified by us in terms of wanting to get more bang for our buck) is what allows companies like this to do what they do. In a truly free market the only exploitation of the people will occur only when the people allow it to happen.


Also, what's happening now in Iraq is not democracy being forced upon people. The majority of the people there want democracy; it was the dictatorship that was responsible for the slaughter of innocents. The majority of the people are now free to make their own choices as to how they would like to be ruled. People who don't want the democracy are only killed because the only way they're fighting the democracy is by trying to murder those who would prefer to be free. I just happen to believe that personal freedom and liberty is something that all humans are inherently born with, something that comes with that aforementioned sentience and when that is removed from people they deserve the chance to get it back. The people who would take it from them have given up their own right.


How do you figure that? Socialism requires that my hard earned money be used to support someone that doesn't work as hard. Socialism removes incentive for actual improvements and quality work because people will get paid the same. Socialism takes away part of my freedoms by assuming that part of what I have accomplished is obligated to someone else.

But that doesn't mean socialism is pure democracy; socialist parties have forced themselves into power before and thus democratic governments are not required for socialist economies. Capitalism is not intended to benefit the minority, it's intended to give everyone the exact same opportunities. If people who claw their way to the top are allowed to exploit that it's the fault of the people who do the exploiting and the fault of the people who allow it to happen but the concept of free market is intended to be the most beneficial for the entire populace.

Democracy, nor the concept of representative republic, is also not designed to benefit the small minority. Again, it gives everyone an equal chance and equal voice because the whole basis behind it is that in those systems the governments are run by the people, sometimes directly, sometimes not, but still are controlled by the people. The fact that dingbats in this country have failed to give enough of a shit to vote for others is not a problem with the system, as it's worked wonderfully before, it's a problem with the people.

While both forms are still hampered by the faults of human beings and thus neither can truly be perfect, democracy, unlike communism, has actually worked in the past and in the present has a better chance of benefiting more people. The bottom line remains that communism strips freedoms by taking the effort from hard working people and giving it to those who can't or won't produce as much. That final form y'all mentioned, the anarchy, is detrimental to the advancement of the human race.

That's just my opinion, though. I just see personal liberty coupled with personal responsibility to be more important than anything else in the world.

i think a large part of the american disdain for communism lies in the american culture of excess. fast cars, big guns, and burgers bigger than your head. the concept of having 'just enough and not any more' is just foreign to americans.

he asked 'what system is better' without stipulating that it can't be 'ideal' systems, so those are included because they fit the description of 'better.'

Last edited by Krappyappy (2005-12-15 22:05:37)

Krappyappy wrote:

i think a large part of the american disdain for communism lies in the american culture of excess. fast cars, big guns, and burgers bigger than your head. the concept of having 'just enough and not any more' is just foreign to americans.

he asked 'what system is better' without stipulating that it can't be 'ideal' systems, so those are included because they fit the description of 'better.'

What's wrong with enjoying what you've worked for? The concept of "just enough and not any more" is fine for some but I like fast cars, big guns, and cheeseburgers. Why should I have to live by the rules of a communist who demands that I share everything I own with people who haven't worked as hard as I have?

Krappyappy wrote:

because you'll get to share in everything that people who have worked harder than you have. at least that was the premise behind khruschev's "beef and potato stew" vision of communism. it would seem that this logical chain ends at the person who has worked the hardest and accumulated the most. however, your objection to sharing does not take into account people who have more than others but did not work hard to get it [i.e. paris hilton].

Why on earth would I want to share in the rewards of people who have worked harder than I have? That's the problem with socialism and communism: people feel that because they're human they're owed something by world. I don't see it that way, I feel that I deserve what I work for and nothing else. If I get lucky and wind up with something extra then it's mine to do with as I please. Paris Hilton hasn't had to work for anything but that's because she was lucky enough to be born to rich parents, parents that did work their asses off to get to where they are. So Paris should be thrown into the street and forced to start from scratch just because you weren't born to a rich family?

If you invented some great new product, became a multi millionare, would you then deny your children of the best you could afford? You'd sooner take care of people you don't even know than your own flesh and blood?

My home, my truck, my possessions, my land, my guns, my education, my degrees, my titles, my reputation...I worked for all of those. Nothing was simply handed to me and I sure as fuck wouldn't demand that my neighbor who makes nearly twice what I do be required to share with me. He worked his ass off, too, why should he have to share with anyone else?

furthermore, how hard you work is not a reliable measure of how much you gain. capitalism has the tendency to snowball - the more you have, the easier it is to get more. i could break my back cleaning septic tanks and never gain as much as a venture capitalist who only has to invest his money somewhere and lounge around while it becomes a bigger fortune. so if we're only entitled to how much we get for hard work, shouldn't i have more than the capitalist?

So you think being a venture capitalist is easier than working on septic tanks? Do you understand all the intracacies of the economy, do you comprehend all the nuances of the stock market? Can you manipulate investment strategies to minimize risk while maximizing returns? What's to say that the venture capitalist isn't working twice as hard with his brain as you are with your body while cleaning those tanks?

You're entitled to how much you work but if society has deemed that working on septic tanks is only worth twelve dollars an hour then it's your choice to make that much money. Some people are just better with money and if they're able to manipulate the market to better themselves then no one should be allowed to stop them nor should they be forced to share the fruits of their efforts. WHy punish them because they're smarter than the folks who clean septic tanks?

Krappyappy wrote:

being a venture capitalist does not equate to being good with money, it only equates to having a lot of it. you don't have to put for ANY EFFORT at all if you wish - you can get other people to do all the work for you. you then proceed to lounge around like i mentioned before.  a mentally deficient person can be a successful venture capitalist if they're rich enough, with some element of luck involved.

Oh really? How do venture capitalists get their money in the first place? Sure some are born into it but you're trying to tell me that the majority of them don't earn their way up to the top by being smart with money in the first place? No effort? So researching a company, its' ideas, its' abilities and flaws, the market its' trying to break into, the risks and rewards involved, and the legal issue involved take zero effort? Do you know any venture capitalists that lounge around or are you just assuming these things out of sheer jealousy because you don't have the ability and knowledge to make your money work for you instead of the other way around?

A mentally deficient person cannot be a venture capitalist unless that person has a staff of employees doing all the work for him. You think these people just look in the newspaper for random companies to sink money into and then go swimming in their champagne pools? With all due respect you seem to know very little about working with money in the big leagues.

the only thing besides already being rich that defines a venture capitalist is the assumption of risk - he will pay the price if things don't work out. but risk alone is also not a just way to distribute wealth. soldiers risk their lives for almost nothing, comparatively speaking.

Soldiers volunteer to risk their lives. Simple as that.

you said people are entitled to what they've worked for. doesn't it logically follow then that people aren't entitled to what they didn't work for? i didn't work for any of your possessions, so i am not entitled to them.

You didn't work for my possessions yet you are not entitled to my possessions. But if you buy a lottery ticket and score ten million dollars do you think that the state should be allowed to share your ten million with the entire population? You didn't work for it so why should you have it? Did you work for your last christmas or birthday present?

You are not entitled to the things that others have worked for but if you manage to get more than you work for through sheer luck then no one should be allowed to take it from you. As long as you haven't stolen from anyone else then there is absolutely no reason that you should be forced to share anything you have. THe bottom line is that MY hard work should not be allocated to supporting someone who did not work as hard as I have. I didn't go to school for as long as the neurologists I work with and thus I don't make what they do. I don't feel like they owe me any of their paychecks, they worked for their positions and thus they deserve what they get.

Forced redistribution of wealth breeds laziness and stems human innovation. Without competition there is no advancement in society.

opportunity between someone who was born into a millionnaire family and someone living in a leaky shack are inherently unequal.

And now why the hell should that son of a millionare ever be punished for being born into wealth? What did he do wrong? Paris Hilton being rich while that coal miner breaks his back is not unjust, it's simply life. Life is not fair, it's not supposed to be. But to assume that one who works for something or is lucky enough to have better opportunities should be taken down to the level of a third world country simply because other people were born poor is most certainly not just.

Communism is not about justice, it's about forcing people to work for others.

No, he shouldn't be punished. But nor should anyone be required to help him. Why should the millionare have to suffer? The coal miner's son is punished by life and circumstance but you suggest that it's fair to then punish the millionaire's son by society.

How do you know he didn't earn those millions? Did Donald Trump steal anything or was he just so damn good at real estate and surrounding himself with skilled employees that he was able to become who he is today? Of course it's about taking people down to a certain level because unless everyone is completely equal then there will always be people bitching that someone with a single more loaf of bread at the end of the week is "living in excess".

Communism forces all people to live equally but the bottom line is that people are not equal. Some people are smarter, some people are stronger, some people are more charismatic and some people are simply luckier.

Do you need your computer? Do you need to play Battlefield? If you believe so strongly in fairness and equality then why haven't you sold your personal belongings and shared with those of a third world nation?

The father may have earned his own way. Is he supposed to deny his son the best life possible because some coal miner's son has a shitty life?

We have no moral obligation to fix the problem. What makes you think anyone does? I'm not saying the poor shouldn't suffer, merely that they shouldn't be punished by other humans for being poor. The rich should not be punished for being rich though there's nothing stopping them from suffering either. Life without some level of suffering is impossible.

Ah so I can't assume that you don't have a computer with internet access and a $50 computer game? Now who's being hypocritical? If you're going to tout a position then you should at least be willing to support it with your own actions. If someone that believes so strongly in communism can't force himself to sacrifice for his fellow humans than how can you presume to tell me that I have to do it?

Doesn't matter if the child hasn't earned it. The parent has achieved that point and is allowed to give his child whatever he pleases. You think that child should be taken away from his family because he didn't "earn" his parents' wealth?

Communists feel the need to fix it by punishing those who are smarter. It's ridiculous to think that suffering can be eliminated; there isn't a single aspect of life on earth that doesn't involve suffering. Either way it still doesn't justify punishing the wealthy. In your mind do two wrong make a right?

I don't give two shits about tournaments, we're talking reality here. If you're touting a position then why aren't you supporting it with your actions? I don't argue a single position that I don't stand by in my daily life.

I believe in freedom over all else. In terms of government, constitutional democracies offer the best protection of that freedom. In terms of economy, free market capitalism offers the best protection of that freedom.