Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Samhain · 08-23-2002, 12:54 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Trebaxian_Vir:


LOL! So you want us to adopt an archaic
government?
It goes something like this:
primitive communism, slave society, feudalism,
capitalism, socialism, communism.

Ideologic nonsense, Vir. Governments should only hold two purposes:

1. To protect its citizens, from domestic and international threats

and...

2. To serve its citizens to its upmost potential.

Anything more and a goverment begins to lose purpose for its citizens. Citizens are the primary source of power within a government, and governments should only be put into place to protect and serve its citizens, nothing more, nothing less.

Totalitarianist · 08-23-2002, 12:41 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Arrowman:


Actually, it goes like this:
primitive communism, slave society, feudalism, unrestrained free market capitalism, regulated capitalism
<insert ideology, force and oppression>
socialism, communism
<insert inevitable collapse of communist system because it goes against basic human nature, which is why you had to use force to impose it in the first place, and oppression to maintain it>
...socialism, regulated capitalism.

Which is where we in the West have been all along, thankfully.

Wrong.

Totalitarianist · 08-23-2002, 12:57 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Arrowman:

You're in your early teens, right? You rarely leave your house, right? I'll assume you've never been to a communist country, let alone lived there for any period of time.

You do know what communism is.. do not you? Silly teenager.

What Communist countries? You do know that no
country has hitherto established true
Communism... right?
And no, I do not play your obscure video game.
The only console I have is the original Nintendo
with some French game and Mario.
I can elaborate on how I came up with my every
Trebaxian idea, who or what inspired the idea,
and the precise steps and paths I traversed to
arrive at the idea, but it would be utterly
futile, for the only response I would receive
would be a mere "Oh," or perhaps, "So you never
got it from Alpha Centaura." And I would stand
there, a fool, completely exasperated, once
again, for wasting my time, all for a most
unsatisfying response. I suppose it is better
than ad hominem of the highest degree, which has
hitherto been the content of the vast majority
of the replies to my posts on II.
...And I am fourteen, not thirteen.

Totalitarianist · 08-23-2002, 01:04 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Samhain:


Ideologic nonsense, Vir. Governments should only hold two purposes:

1. To protect its citizens, from domestic and international threats

and...

2. To serve its citizens to its upmost potential.

Anything more and a goverment begins to lose purpose for its citizens. Citizens are the primary source of power within a government, and governments should only be put into place to protect and serve its citizens, nothing more, nothing less.

I disagree. Governments ought to be stable, not democratic (mob rule), and they should progress the society or humanity technologically and scientifically. All decisions ought to relate to the progression of humanity, and the end justifies the means.

Graeme · 08-23-2002, 01:56 PM

Somebody really, really, REALLY needs to get laid.

Samhain · 08-23-2002, 02:29 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Trebaxian_Vir:


I disagree. Governments ought to be stable, not democratic (mob rule), and they should progress the society or humanity technologically and scientifically. All decisions ought to relate to the progression of humanity, and the end justifies the means.

It has nothing to do with rule, Vir, that's what I've been trying to tell you. "The government that rules least, rules best." People have enough problems just trying to rule themselves, how about we let alone the idea of ruling others for a change? Let people rule their own lives, but let us protect them and serve them as necessary, as I said, nothing more, nothing less.

Quote:

Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism it's just the opposite.

-John Kenneth Galbraith

Bible Humper · 08-23-2002, 03:16 PM

Trebaxian, the citizens that would constitute your society seem to have absolutely no worth to you beyond their potential to contribute to the efficiency of the utopia. At the extremes you go to, wouldn't it be best if your citizens weren't conscious beings at all?

It seems that you have completely reversed the roles of society and the citizenry, it is as if this society is meant to be a transcendant religious concept that every sacrifice must be made on behalf of. Rather than the society serving the citizen, at least in theory, the citizen serves the society.

If efficiency is all you want, why bother with inefficient human beings with all their foibles, why not be the Fuhrer of an ant hill? Actually, ants need too much to eat, why not be Chairman of a virtual society instead? The "society" is indeed even more efficient this way, and it is actually attainable.

Give me your best sales pitch, tell me why I should hope that your dream becomes a reality.

Totalitarianist · 08-23-2002, 03:28 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Samhain:
It has nothing to do with rule, Vir, that's what I've been trying to tell you. "The government that rules least, rules best." People have enough problems just trying to rule themselves, how about we let alone the idea of ruling others for a change? Let people rule their own lives, but let us protect them and serve them as necessary, as I said, nothing more, nothing less.

-Your notion of "government" is a vulgarisation.

-That would be downright anarchy and complete chaos. Humans are selfish, miserable, anti-social social wretches, rapists, and thieves at heart. It is socially unacceptable, however, for any individual to become possessed by the above mentioned activities, for we all fear the prospect of someone inflicting any sort of pain upon us: but if we were all allowed to indulge in these natural biological inclinations--the universal, but temporary, cure of human personal pain--it would cause the downfall of humanity. We ought to be governed by a totalitarian regime to prevent this from happening. (Of course, you will deny this on account of the years of force-fed government and corporate propaganda you have endured.) Consequently, we ought to surpress certain emotions.

-I am surprised, for someone saying ""The government that rules least, rules best," that you are not a Communist or socialist. (Not the form of Communism that I support, however.)

..And that quote is a vulgarisation as well.

-Interaction with others dictates our thoughts and actions more than any form of government.

-Government is good, anarchy is bad.

Totalitarianist · 08-23-2002, 03:49 PM

If efficiency is all you want, why bother with inefficient human beings with all their foibles, why not be the Fuhrer of an ant hill? Actually, ants need too much to eat, why not be Chairman of a virtual society instead? The "society" is indeed even more efficient this way, and it is actually attainable.

-Every one wants to create something that will outlast one. For me, this is science, art, and philosophy (including political philosophy). The greatest thing I can build, therefore, is something that will not only outlast me, but will embrace all three of my interests. In order to attain this life-long ambition, I must perfect myself cognitively in relation to science, philosophy, and art; and in order to preserve what I wish to establish--after I die--I must be forceful, totalitarian.

Trebaxian, the citizens that would constitute your society seem to have absolutely no worth to you beyond their potential to contribute to the efficiency of the utopia. At the extremes you go to, wouldn't it be best if your citizens weren't conscious beings at all?

-Humans are perfectly efficient for "getting the job done," in relation to their inclinations.

-Who would praise my greatness after I die?

It seems that you have completely reversed the roles of society and the citizenry, it is as if this society is meant to be a transcendant religious concept that every sacrifice must be made on behalf of. Rather than the society serving the citizen, at least in theory, the citizen serves the society.

-I am concerned with the preservation and stability of my society and scientific, technological and military advances.

-Mass alienation, derived from mysticism ("religion"), is what I am against. Religion must be abolished.

[ August 23, 2002: Message edited by: Trebaxian_Vir ]

Bible Humper · 08-23-2002, 04:39 PM

Quote:

-Every one wants to create something that will outlast one. For me, this is science, art, and philosophy (including political philosophy). The greatest thing I can build, therefore, is something that will not only outlast me, but will embrace all three of my interests. In order to attain this life-long ambition, I must perfect myself cognitively in relation to science, philosophy, and art; and in order to preserve what I wish to establish--after I die--I must be forceful, totalitarian.

A legacy, is that all? The entire social order of the planet should be turned on it's head for the sake of your legacy?

I assumed that you at least believed that your dream was actually for the benefit of mankind, even if the average Joe wouldn't realise it. The truth is so petty.

Quote:

-Humans are perfectly efficient for "getting the job done," in relation to their inclinations.

No they aren't, don't forget about the massive police force you envisioned to keep the people under control. Remember your plan to clone "scary, deep voiced black men" for your secret police?

Quote:

-Who would praise my greatness after I die?

Hehe. Seriously though, why not replace all those lazy, emotional waterballoons with machines or insects? Efficiency is all that matters, right?

Why not?

Quote:

-I am concerned with the preservation and stability of my society and scientific, technological and military advances.

What good are these things to the rest of your society? Your people would be slaves, do they care about your latest marvel when they have nothing to gain from it and probably won't even find out about it?

Quote:

-Mass alienation, derived from mysticism ("religion"), is what I am against. Religion must be abolished.

You would just replace one religion with another, your ideology demands human subservience to a non-human thing which is "greater than ourselves".
Whether the object of worship is Sky-Santa's dogma or the state's dogma is irrelevant, there aren't all that many differences.

Your plan to "preach Darwinism" is an example of what I'm talking about here.

[ August 23, 2002: Message edited by: Bible Humper/ SCoW ]

08-23-2002, 03:49 PM	#59
Totalitarianist Banned Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Canada Posts: 1,234	If efficiency is all you want, why bother with inefficient human beings with all their foibles, why not be the Fuhrer of an ant hill? Actually, ants need too much to eat, why not be Chairman of a virtual society instead? The "society" is indeed even more efficient this way, and it is actually attainable. -Every one wants to create something that will outlast one. For me, this is science, art, and philosophy (including political philosophy). The greatest thing I can build, therefore, is something that will not only outlast me, but will embrace all three of my interests. In order to attain this life-long ambition, I must perfect myself cognitively in relation to science, philosophy, and art; and in order to preserve what I wish to establish--after I die--I must be forceful, totalitarian. Trebaxian, the citizens that would constitute your society seem to have absolutely no worth to you beyond their potential to contribute to the efficiency of the utopia. At the extremes you go to, wouldn't it be best if your citizens weren't conscious beings at all? -Humans are perfectly efficient for "getting the job done," in relation to their inclinations. -Who would praise my greatness after I die? It seems that you have completely reversed the roles of society and the citizenry, it is as if this society is meant to be a transcendant religious concept that every sacrifice must be made on behalf of. Rather than the society serving the citizen, at least in theory, the citizen serves the society. -I am concerned with the preservation and stability of my society and scientific, technological and military advances. -Mass alienation, derived from mysticism ("religion"), is what I am against. Religion must be abolished. [ August 23, 2002: Message edited by: Trebaxian_Vir ]</p>

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

08-23-2002, 01:56 PM	#55
Graeme Banned Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada Posts: 5,447	Somebody really, really, REALLY needs to get laid.

08-23-2002, 03:16 PM	#57
Bible Humper Veteran Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: Ontario, Canada Posts: 1,125	Trebaxian, the citizens that would constitute your society seem to have absolutely no worth to you beyond their potential to contribute to the efficiency of the utopia. At the extremes you go to, wouldn't it be best if your citizens weren't conscious beings at all? It seems that you have completely reversed the roles of society and the citizenry, it is as if this society is meant to be a transcendant religious concept that every sacrifice must be made on behalf of. Rather than the society serving the citizen, at least in theory, the citizen serves the society. If efficiency is all you want, why bother with inefficient human beings with all their foibles, why not be the Fuhrer of an ant hill? Actually, ants need too much to eat, why not be Chairman of a virtual society instead? The "society" is indeed even more efficient this way, and it is actually attainable. Give me your best sales pitch, tell me why I should hope that your dream becomes a reality.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.