State your Political Philosophy! (1000 FRIH$ to the best!)

{EDITED-IN ANNOUNCEMENTS (newest to oldest)}

Current news: The contest is officially over. The awards have been presented. These sibling topics are now open for further political philosophy discussion. But they are no longer being as closely facilitated or monitored as before. (See why, here.) (Staff is always around, though. Wink

) Nevertheless, please keep up the high-quality standards of discussion. Readers and T.P.P. will appreciate it. Very Happy

Old news: This thread (and its sibling topic) are temporarily locked during political philosophy contest deliberations. Please do not despair, for both topics will be re-opened for discussion within hopefully a week.

Old news: The deadline for questioning, challenging, answering, and offering other political philosophy additions has been set for Thursday, 19 October 2006, 6:00 p.m. GMT. At that time, the threads will be temporarily locked.

Old news: The deadline for accepting new contestants has now past.

Old news: The deadline for new entries has been set for Tuesday, 10 October 2006, 6:00 p.m. Greenwich Mean Time.

{INTRODUCTION}

What should be The Law? What should The Government look like? What should Government Authorities be allowed to do, and what should they do? What should not be in the scope of these things? Please share with us your best answers. And/or please help analyze other people’s answers. This is a contest with a serious bent.

Please don’t get bent out of shape ( Smile

) at the length of the description below. As with many contests, the “fine print” is voluminous, but it doesn’t mean this is difficult. As long as you are courteous and sincere, everyone is welcome to give this a try. More entries will make it more interesting for everybody. There will be only one winner, but every person who enters will receive FRIH$, and every person who adds to the discussion will receive FRIH$.

{SIBLING TOPICS}

This is the main sibling topic. It is for serious discussion in the context of political philosophy.

The subordinate sibling topic (located in the Contests Forum) is less serious -- even light and playful. It is entitled, Discussion ABOUT “State your Poly Philosophy! 1000 FRIH$”. Posts (after this one) that discuss FRIH$, or include questions about the contest logistics, will probably be moved to there. In other words, the contest part is to be discussed over there, while the serious on-topic part is here. I will do my best to judge these appropriately, but you can help by posting in the right place.

{STATE YOUR POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY}

I would like as many people as possible (within the next week or so) to state for us your political philosophy. It can be in the form of prose (text), a bulleted list, a poem, a table, or other forms. But it needs to be created by you. You may rainbox (use color and formatting) or not, as you like. It may be fairly short, fairly long, or in-between. You may offer more than one entry (both of course would be reflecting the same political philosophy). In general, more comprehensive is better than less; however, a subset of your political philosophy is acceptable.

To remind you (Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_philosophy):

Firstly I think that Philosophy comes first. Its what you conclude right and wrong to be, before you can make a law about it politically.

So, in a Multicultural society such as Australia(where I come from) we have a basic problem: there are so many different philosophies and religions, so how do you make political life fair?

Maybe you could start with just about the only thing that different religions and philosophies have in common : "Do not do things to others that you would not like to have done to yourself". So possibly that idea of action, or policy, could be the fundamental basis for all political philosophy.

It's not perfect, but the principle is sound.

Another concept is working towards "the greatest good for the greatest number[of people]"

To tell a short story(and make it shorter again) : There once was a wealthy Eastern King who gathered all his scholars together to perform a task that had occured to him as a great idea. He wanted all the knowledge in his library condensed down into a set of books, so he could read only the really important stuff, but the set of books was too big, so he ordered all the knowledge in his vast library reduced down to one book. But that was too big, so he forced his scholars to bring it down to one essay. But the esay was too big, so a sentence, then a word.

That word, that affected every other person, every other living thing, and even the physical structure of the universe was - "SURVIVE!" .

Everything was trying to survive. (quote and story from LRH)

It was also "The Answer to Life, The Universe, And Everything" (Quote from Hitch-Hikers Guide To The Galaxy by Douglas Adams, bbc audio + books)

So every action you take could be weighed up, in a Political Philososphy, against whether it enhanced the overall survival value of that society or not.

An example here in South Australia is the introduction of gambling machines where they were previously illegal. Much money has been wasted(approaching billions) by South Australian citizens. The gambling machines were known to be addictive, and its obvious that they serve no puspose other than some sort of entertainment. They should have remained banned, like the highly addictive drug that they are.

A good political philosophy would conclude that Gambling Machines are good only for the manufacturers and operators, and are not good for the general population.

My point is(got there at last!!) that Philosophy comes first.

You gotta think thru in a structured, logical manner before setting rules in law. Thanks for listening.

In one of my previous posts, we discussed about God and religion. Even though I had a very few replies to my discussion, almost everyone who replied agreed to my theory.

I was more curious and intrigued by the topic of the post than the lure of the points I would accrue. I always was interested in studying various cultures, religions etc. I myself belong to and adhere to the teachings of Hinduism.

In every society, religion has been a major influence and a decisive factor in the governance. Once we all acheive objectivity on that issue and look at the bigger picture, the world will be a better place to live in.

As the world is becoming more of a global village, there is a very urgent need for everyone to know the importance of keeping their religion out of their professional lives. For the society to achieve the near perfect conditions, we need to evaluate everything that is going wrong. At the same time, discard some ideas and beliefs, even though they are very dear to us.

Take all the good things out of Communism, Capitalism and Socialism and form Humanism, the ultimate model for a society.

Understand that when we were prehistoric cave people, there was no god, no religion and no controversies....ofcourse I guess they fought and ate like animals, that's a different topic. As humans evolved, God became a tool to control the society, keep them in line. We are scared of whatever we cannot see, feel or imagine. Communism failed exactly due to that. They failed to leverage the power of god! People are more scared of god than communist rulers! Funny eh...

For a society to progress, education is the key. Infact, EDUCATION is the only way! Not mere accumulation of degrees etc but an overall learning of philosophy and the bigger picture. For any society to become successful, the stress should be given on education. The educational institutes should be strengthened so much, that they don't just manufacture engineers, doctors or lawyers, but intelligent human beings.

Instead of finding various ways to invent machines that will make cooking easier, wash easier or faster computers, the focus should be on finding ways to make the society a peaceful and understanding race.

If GOD is one thing that scares people, GREED is the other thing that forces them to disobey him! Communists took GOD and GREED out of their society but not from the rulers. Where people worked hard, rulers enjoyed all the luxuries. I was surprised to read a report that the rulers in communist moscow had a different lane on the roads only for their vehicles!

For a model society, Keep GOD and GREED intact, but control them. Weed out Corruption completely. Find mechanisms to do it and the society will progress.

I can keep going on and on about various ways, structures of a society, but unless there is strong education and a control on technological development, which is making the society blind to the environmental concerns, it is impossible to live like humans. Today, we are just like robots, controlled by machines, dependent on them completely. We are more interested in increasing the bank balance, to buy that bigger house, to buy that latest mobile phone, to buy that faster car....we are blinded by this pursuit of material wealth. We need to inform and educate that this is not the reason for our existance.

Even if only Moderators and Staff are eligible to win, I'd like to give my 50c worth. My political philosophy: Lawyers become politicians (in my neck of the woods anyway), and what good has ever come from a lawyer. Vampires make you feel more fulfilled after dealing with them. Maybe first world is different but where I come from politicians only lie when their lips move. Alas me is an anarchist, nothing less can justify the self destructive nature of the Homo Sapien. Good night and farewell fare princess.

This topic got my mind spinning! Thousands of lines said, written and lived by known
and unknown people tend to claim focus at once. Difficult to be clear, but I'll give it
a shot. Even though, I must admit, I'm not compleatlly clear on the frames to
keep myself in. Nevermind that. Smile

The law, as I see it, gets broken all the time. Gouverments seem to try different
methods and ideologies, but often with somewhat similar resaults - it just doesn't
reach everyone that's included. Some doesn't want to be included, some wish to
have it some other way, some doesn't give a damn, some change their ways all
the time... I therefore belive not in one law, one society or one gouverment.
For the ones not caring some kind of parlament propablly works fine. Representatives
speaking and working for those who're satisfied with what comes around.

I, for one, isn't,
but I'm still to tired of it to want to get involved. That's why I'd like to live closer to the
nature. Take the responsibility that comes with the package, and share my life with
similar-minded. Lots of hard work, but hopefully a harmonic state. I realize and
respect that there are many people who doesn't share that dream, but see it as a
step backwards in evolution, why I'm all for small self-gouverned societies living
more or less independent of eachother. All create their own standards, laws and
gouverment, but comes togeather in equal respect for the other societies right to
exist within some terms. Ofcourse we'd have to adept to the lot given to us, but
still be able to move around. I guess what I propose is a more polarized version of
the world we have today, but with greater tolerance for differing views. All you have
to do is to respect and accept your neighbours right to a place to exist in the fashion
he or she likes to, regardless of what you think of it. You don't have to have them
over for coffee. Wink

Perhaps humans possesses some maners that contradicts with this idea, but I
honestly doesn't think so. They could be tamed, if they are, just as long as no
human beeing needs to accept beeing 'stomped on'. So, back to a sort of federalistic
world, but without warmongers and conquerers. If we have the guts to settle with
what we've got. Twisted Evil

Continued:

In my previous post, I have discussed about the importance of religion, greed and education in our lives. Once we understand their influence in scoping our future, let's discuss brass stacks about Political Philosophy.

Earth, including the inhabitants within is very diverse. Human race is one, but their customs, practices and way of life is completely different from one another. So to say that one model is perfect is completely wrong. What is wrong for one is right for the other.

We would still try to analyze and understand what would make our lives better but before that, we need to understand the bigger picture in life. I will not use complicated words and mumbo jumbo as I guess I am not trying to make a business presentation.

Humans are created on this earth for a specific reason, to maintain balance of the nature. We have to understand that unless we keep that balance, world will be thrown into choas as it is happening now.

First and foremost, as our education and technology increased, we need to understand that religion and such stuff has just been discovered by men like you and me to maintain control of the world. Ofcourse, I strongly believe that there is some supernatural force controlling the world. Go ahead and call it your god, give it a name like Jesus, Allah or Ram....but please keep it private!

The current chaos in the world is caused exactly due to the excessive influence of religion. Once a society decides to remove religion from governance, it is a positive step in development. (We are not removing it from citizens lives, they are free to follow ANY religion, but keep it private please)

Next, we have to understand that in any society, there should be a constant mix of the experienced old and the energetic youth taking form in governance. Just the old governing would not achieve anything as they think too much before acting or the youth governing would take too many brash decisions. So rather, a good mix of these both should be formed.

In a democratic society, people are given the power to choose leaders, but in countries like India and USA, democracy has turned into a sham. Money, glamour and muscle power wins you elections.

In India, you need to be a gangster or atleast should have enough muscle power to gather people for meetings before a political party gives you a ticket to participate in elections.

In USA, they spend millions of dollars on Presidential elections, total marketing blitzkrieg! Funds that can be better used on development programmes. Often a nincompoop is projected as a great leader.

India is the world's largest democracy and USA is world's oldest democracy.

Such misuse of democratic setup throws the society into anarchy. People become robots, with mechanized lives, trying to purchase happiness and pleasure with money. In their constant pursuit for more money and more pleasure, they don't realize that happiness is slipping away from them slowly, inspite of making millions of dollars(or any other currency), buying that fancy home, the latest mobile phone, the large television.

Once the society decides to elect their government fairly and with competent people, it should keep in mind the following things.

Greed is a complete no no in governance! Each and every person in the government should complete rigorous educational tests. He/she then should win the majority votes from the majority population. There should be no small print enabling people for backdoor entries or other such ways.

It should be made clear to the people in the government that punishment for them is 10 times more for any criminal activities or misuse of power.

Police. Often called a licensed gang of thieves should be controlled effectively. The Police should never become a private army of the rulers.

Except for defence issues, all other decision making meetings should be held in public view, e.g observers from the press, television, public should be randomly selected and made to participate in the meetings and their comments taken in the issue.

For example, there is an important meeting to discuss a multi-billion contract. Apart from the government officials, just like a jury, randomly selected people from the press and public should be chosen and made to be present in the meeting. Their views on the meeting should be made public the next day. This ensures fair play in the decision making process.

Choosing a good government is half the battle won in creating a perfect society. Once we know that the government is filled with honest and hard working people, the society then should look at development. With balance of nature. Educational institutes should be strengthened and be taken care of very very carefully. The students coming out of those institutes is the future of the society.

Laws should be made with consensus. Every law passed should have the approval of the majority of the citizens. Not just a bunch of law-makers sitting in a big building. Just like voting, for any major law decisions, every citizen should be given a form asking their opinion on the concerned laws. After filling up the form, including their SSN or other ID given by their government, they can drop the forms in select tamper proof boxes. It should be made mandatory for every citizen to fill up that form. Just like a driving license record, each citizen will have a record of any such non-participation in law making. The majority opinion of the citizens should be made into law. Not to inconvenience their citizens too much, such law making decisions should be clubbed together and only one form be given to citizens per month.

If forms create too much paperwork and hassles, then use technology! Create machines like ATM's all over the city where every citizen has to use his ID and password to login, select the laws that are being introduced, press his opinion like Yes or No.

There are many such ways to create a perfect model for society. For all that to work, the key thing is population control and education. For example, the above law-making process is impossible in a country like India but perfect in a place like Sweden or Auckland.

Population is a major issue in development. Control it. Give people the power to decide. Keep a control on unnecessary development and protect nature. Create a society of happy, content and good-natured people.

A personal philosophy.

Regarding organisation (and implicitly, therefore, government) of peoples.
It seems to me that capitalism is an inappropriate 'philosophy' on which to base a modern technological society for a number of reasons. The most important of these would be that of human freedom. In a capitalist society an individual is 'worth' what (s)he inherits plus what (s)he is able to generate.
For the vast majority this involves selling their labour for currency in one form or another. According to this view, society is held together, not on the basis of common welfare, but by the "invisible hand of the market" implemented through impersonal contracts. Individuals are largely reduced to wage-slaves in this type of system. The early free-market philosopher Adam Smith was clear in his opposition to this potential outcome of free markets and said (1776 - Wealth of Nations):

@ MadeinIndia,

You seem to have put a lot of thought into what is wrong with current political systems and ideas about how to make things better. You have created a smorgasbord of priorities and fixes for various problems.

If you had to give a 3 to 4 line summary of your political principles, what might that include?

In other words, would it be possible for you to reduce everything down to something smaller, that is still consistent with the bigger explanations?

If not, please explain why not. If yes, would you care to do that for us?

Princess, Infact I would have written a book on this topic...to summarize it in 3-4 lines...lemme try!

My political philosophy of the society and government is very simple. I won't quote anything complicated...Life should NOT be complicated...

1) For any society to progress, Education is the most important thing! Every society should make education it's foremost interest.

2) Governments should be created with people who have a vision, who should look at the bigger picture, our role in the nature etc..(How to elect such a government, I will post a seperate post on that)

3) Freedom of the individual should be protected, at the same time everyone should understand that religion creates more problems than helping us. Keep your religion at home and the world will be much peaceful.

4) Finally, Everyone should be reminded about the real joy of living, When we understand and respect the need for the other person to live respectfully, any society will progress. Live and let live...

Here's my two cents on this really big question: a quote.

"To discuss which form of government is best is a debate for fools;
That government is the best which is administered best!"

First off, as an American, I must talk as if it were us and no one else that existed in the world(wink).

I think the good news is that we have the blueprint, however, with the women's help that was ushered in by Family Courts, today NO ONE KNOWS HOW TO READ BLUEPRINTS!

We start with the self evidence truths. All men are created equal and have the God given right to life, liberty and the persuit of happiness.

Next, comes the Bill of Rights. Each person has these rights and they increase as the person grows into adulthood.

The key words are "Congress shall make no law that violates" the Rights given in the Constitution. So, our rights are like a bubble, or a shield that we all have.

Our system was born as a system that was a reaction to "going before the king". The law is the authority in our system and our leaders take an oath to that law.

If a bad law gets created, and this happens (perhaps daily), then this law is UnConstitutional (by bad, I mean it violates the Bill of Rights) and then this can be argued in Court.

This system provides that the laws come from the people by the lawmaking process and then lawyers and Judges INTERPRET those laws for the people. See the circle? And the lawmakers and judges and lawyers are also part of "the people".

I'd say that is the nutshell, then we have the contest in Court but I'll save that for a later date.

To go a bit off the wayside, my political philosophy rewards intelligence, and it's not a democracy in the strictest sense of the word.

To start off, let me first articulate that Democracy was not considered a viable political format when it was invented by the Greeks. Plutocracies and Aristocracies in their myriad of forms were considered the only real solutions to governance, and were implemented to great effect in the republics of ancient Greece and Rome. I tend to agree with this, but only in principle, I will explain.

America in particular has done very well by Democracy (or the representative form, at least), and has thrived. However, a good analogy would be the problem of the group of people in a room with a severely injured person. Say this severely injured person is not faring well, and needs treatment, would you take a vote on how to deal with them, or just ask the doctor?

I feel that we would be better served by true Aristocracy, which would be what asking the doctor entails. Aristocracy has been bastardized over the years to mean a number of things that it wasn't supposed to. Initially the definition of Aristocracy was "Rule by the best" meaning, the best of the populace would rule the others. Of course this leaves way too much open for interperetation, and what you end up with is people saying that they have a Divine Right to be King/Queen and the peasants end up with zero rights.

However, Aristotle invented Aristocracy to mean that the people would have their laws made by them that know the subject matter of the law. As an example, scientists would decide what the laws surrounding science would be, and Educators would decide what the laws restricing education would be. Monetary theorists and Economists would decide how money was to allocated, and criminologists would decide how to administer the prison and law enforcement systems.

Of course this is an ideal situation, and the question becomes thus: Who gets to decide which scientists and economists get to make the decisions?

Well, that is where I try and sprinkle a bit of Democracy into the mix. If aristocracy is neccessary to make the state run smarter, then democracy is required to ensure that the rights of the people are held up.

I mentioned earlier that my ideal political system would reward intelligence, it is in the democratic process that this would come into play. Bear in mind that this is not real democracy, as not all people have equal rights in this system, but all have equal protection under the law.

The populace would be divided up into three distinct classes. The top class would be those who have some kind of high-level education. (as in a college degree) They would be the people with the ability to vote in national elections, electing representatives to fill seats in all of the aristocratic areas (education, finance, military, etc.). People who have median levels of education (as in a High School diploma) would be allowed to vote in state elections, but not national elections. Those without a diploma would be allowed to vote in local city and county matters but not in state-wide or national matters.

Yes, this does take away rights, and yes there are problems with this structure, but I feel that they are far less crippling than the problems that we face in a representative democracy that we reside in today, where all of the political power is in the hands of those with the money.

Essentially all I propose is to not reward monetary wealth as we do in America today, but instead to reward willingness to learn and excel. Call it a Democratic Aristocracy.

As you can see, the discussion goes all over the place. So, how do you contain it. Well, in the US a law does not become a law until it is written. So, the blank sheet of paper would be the 'prejudice", all judging and no written standard, and then when you place a standard on it (law), then it becomes, well, a law.

How did we "contain" it? With the given of all are created equal and have the right to life, lib, and the persuit of happiness. Then, you have the "List of Rights (Free Speech, Freedom of Religion, Free Press, etc) and then any laws made thereafter cannot deny these rights. If they do, they are unconstitutional.

When the US told Iraq to write their own Constitution while under duress we did them a disservice. We should have set them up with a copy of our Bill of Rights and said, "here, start with this".

This above "contains" the discussion. If your Politics are within the Bounds then you are free and legal. Outside the Bounds? Use your free speech to convince others where there is a law that you find to be illegal. Assault someone in your "protest" and you "break one of the written laws".

Who would not want all of the freedoms in the Bill of Rights? Which golfer does not want to make his next 5 foot putt?

First contain, then discuss, or, I fear you are taking a trip to "womanland".

Fair comment and I apologise for diverting from topic. I let anger get in the way of rational judgement which is always a mistake.

Chris.

ONE QUOTE: A perfect society is unacheivable with imperfect citizens.

However, the Constitution of the United States does not demand perfection, it simply demands that if you are ever going to err you should NEVER do so on the side of the accuser.

The defendant is the beneificary of every matter in doubt within the proof to make him guilty and if, after that, the outcome is in doubt, then the defendant is the beneficiary of that doubt too.

"Better 40 guilty people go free than one innocent man be convicted". I read that when I was 1 1/3 years old...

Your having one person's votes count more than another's caught my eye, but I think that one person's "vote" counting as "one" is pretty pure in a digital sense.

The problem in the US is that so many people play the system out of bounds. "We are fighting terrorism and we have no evidence". Well, evidence is that commodity that proves your case. If you have none then why not come back again if and when you get some.

So, if you are a smart person, as you allude to, then the weight of your position would be taken into account at the ballot box when you convince others.

I've noticed that no one will define "terrorism" or the word "terrorist" in print, yet we talk about it and fight it every day in the news. I think Donald Rumsfeld would be very hard pressed to come up with a written definition that would not include himself.

We went to war with no "evidence". Therefore it was not "evidident" who the enemy was. And this is what Donald is always complaining about, "we do not know who the enemy is".

The best way to fight terrorists is, "Don't be one yourself".

The problem with any democracy is that the vote is cast with an element of ignorance, indifference and lack of intelligence/enlightenment on the subject. How many people are qualified to vote for/against embryonic stem cell research? Are they aware of cell line and animal embryonic stem cell research? Who should vote, the majority who hasn't the depth of understanding required or the minority who are qualified and experienced but unrepresentative of the whole population.

In fact an ideal government is impossible unless your ideals allow failures. If there are failures then it requires legislation, and the question of judgement becomes a problem. Is it a case of innocent until proven guilty, or guilty until proven innocent. For the former is western thought, the latter often found in islamic states. Who is also qualified to makes that decision. So now the ideal government cannot , CANNOT exist.

I might as well enter my utopian government, like a commonwealth of nations, a common wealth of people, all individually minded but of perfect discipline, where legislation is no longer required, and so being perfect the re will be perfect understanding of the situation, with a perfect choice made by all members towards the common good.

Outside the perfect, utopian ideals, I cannot, cannot single out any system above the others.

Howdy!

Howdy! Y’all are looking very philosophic!

I made some contest comments over on the sibling topic.

I beleive life has to be simple....it is there is the truth...the all powerful....time tested......and unaltered truth.To achieve the pinacle of sucess in any of the fields the aim should be to get in sync with this universal truth.
A political system should be based on truth and thats all...and here are a few truths that I think should very well define what a good political system should be.

1)Voilence begets voilence.......be it domestic or international.....history stands witness
2)When you remove all the craps around your policies there is only one thing that is left.....choice..........you choose what you want and thats what you get
3)A minus(bad thing)*minus(bad thing)=plus............only in maths...........not in real world......a wrong cannot correct another.

So what is this crap i am typing all about.......we all know that....don't we.............yes....but how will dare to implement it.Lets see how it can be done...in say India

1)I know I am not the person who is being shot at by the naxals.....so its easy to say stop voilence.but to bring back the naxals to the mainstream the should have the courage to stand up to the truth .........trust that the government will stand by it....and guidance to know the truth........tell me which of these three...is a hit down approach of govt is achieving.

2)They say we need tougher laws........hey why what you need is information.......proof........help.....from the people.You get all these then the existing laws are sufficient.There are a 1000 peple around evey antisocial in India..say.People with eyes and ears...Get their trust....create awareness...compliment them ....make the atmosphere conducive for them to fearlessly and actively point out at the antisocials.And behold we have a billion police men and women.

The one wrong thing you do mulktiplies 10 times and comes back to you.........beware........we all are responsible for what we have..........its our choice.....as I said...nothing but the truth.

I noticed Seej's comment that violence begets violence and I beleive that is true.

If you have not noticed, I am partial to the US system of Government (the written one) and in it we have the 2nd amendment. This is the "Right to bear arms".

What was the choice back in the 1700s?

Bear arms for self defense (not a little point, "defense") or "Not bear arms" and then when someone from another Country (or your own goverment) comes in WITH ARMS they take you over in short order?

There are tremendous wisdoms in the Bill of Rights. The system "opposes tyranny", and this is not a "war on terror". Can you see the distinction in those two 3 word terms?

No one has the "right" to throw the first punch, but everyone has the right to defend if someone else attacks you.

I suggest the same thinking holds true if you are bearing a legal gun for your protection or harboring a missle for your protection.

Digital truths. The Constitution of the United States. The written one, that is.

ooops.

"Opposing tyranny" is a "two word term" and and "war on terror" is a "three word term". I was 1 digit off. This is not an uncommon thing.

My point was that if our forefathers set out to have a land where everyone was equal in the eyes of the law then they had to make it a "given" to either have the right to bear arms OR not have the right to bear arms.

Certainly, the flower children would say "let's NOT bear any arms at all", but then this trusting thinking would break down the first time some Huns came down from Canada with machetes and said, "we're taken over, GO MAKE ME A SANDWICH!".

So, I think the "right to bear arms" was a good choice given the digital alternative.

My political ideal is extreme libertarianism, leaning toward anarchy.

The question was, what should the law be, and what should the government look like?

The law - the civil law of the land, could be reduced to a single paragraph, rather than the host of do this and dont do that ststutes that we live by today. It could be summed up by simply stating this:
"Every adult is responsible for his or her own wellfare and for the consequinces of his or her own actions. The parents or guardians of minors or of individuals over the age of majority who are mentaly incapable of taking resposibility will be held resposible for the actions of those persons under their care. If a party can be found, by a jury of his or her peers, to have caused damage to person or property, physical, mental, or financial, through their own actions or through negligent inaction, or to be in breach of a contract, then that party must make restitution as determined by said jury. This restitution may take the form of monetary recompense, replacement of damaged property, indentured servitude, or, in cases of violent crime such as murder, incarceration or death. A person can not be tried more than once for the same crime. The government as an entity, or any person working for the government in any capacity is not exempt from this law."

I belive this single law would cover just about everything. Murder, rape, assault, robbery, vandalism, kidnapping, harrasment, libel, blackmail, etc...
No need for drug laws. If you sit quietly in your basement and get stoned out of your gourd you aren't hurting anyone but yourself. If you get hopped up on speed and go rob a liquor store you have caused damage and will be tried for it.

The Government would be something like this:

A Citizen is a person of at least thirty years of age who has paid a fee of $x to the general fund of their local government. (x being a small fortune) This fee must be earned by the potential Citizen, it can not be an inheritance. This ensures that anyone with voting power is: a)fiancially savy; b)relatively intellegent; c)possesed of a good work ethic (or at least clever enough to bilk people of money without getting caught) and d)socially concious enough to be willing to sacrifice such a large amount of their earnings.

(You may be thinking, "But wait, dosn't that mean we would be ruled by the rich?" Well, since the fee cannot be an inheritance, that means that anyone with enough willpower and gumption has an equal chance to do their best to raise the fee. After paying the fee they would likely not be very rich anymore. The amount of the fee itself would have to be based on the economy at the time, I can't name a figure because the value of the dollar is relative - rising and falling over time. Let's say, for the sake of argument, $1,000,000.)

Citizens have the right to sit on the council of their city or town and have 1 vote in all maters that come before the council.

Each city or town may vote on one of its member to represent that city or town at the county level, each county council may elect one of its members to represent that county at the state level, and each state may elect two members to represent that state at the national level.

Each governing council may elect a chairperson, who is empowered with a second vote which may only be cast to break a tie.

Powers of the Federal government:
1. To deal with foriegn powers, send and recive diplomats, and enter into treaties for trade and mutual defence.
2. To provide for the defence of the nation.
3. The Government may NOT establish any tax on the residents or Citizens of the nation, but it may, at its discresion, provide services and charge for them on a per-use basis at a profit so as to pay for a standing army and diplomatic necesities.
4. The government is NOT a law making body. (once the One Law described above is in place there would be no need for more laws)
(this is at the federal level only, municipal governments would, most likely find the need for public ordinances such a noise laws, speed limits, etc.)

Special note on the declaration of war: War can only be declared by a vote of all adult residents and Citizens, it must be a simple majority vote, and all those persons voting YES are automaticaly drafted to serve in the military for the duration and possibly to fight in said war, ensuring that only those people who feel strongly enough to risk their own lives for the cause would vote yes.

As for the services that todays governemt provides... Private enterprise would step in to fill the gap. Private charities instead of welfare, corporations formed to build and maintain roads, intrest groups to monitor food safety, security companies hired by the city or state to provide policing. Part of the restitution that might be ordered by a jury would be to cover the cost of any police work involved.

The central idea for this came from a book called Freehold (I forget the author's name), but I liked the concept and the more I think about it the better it sounds to me. The wording of the one law is all mine though, and it might need some tweaking but I think I got across the main idea.

Responding to challenging questions about your political philosophy is a significant part of this topic (and the contest). Every entrant needs to be personally questioned, and is requested to show how their philosophy stays intact, consistent, etc. with the new things to consider. I am appreciating the much good challenging so far. And now I’m going to try to catch up with those not yet questioned as much as I would like.

Please don’t feel intimidated by the challenges. Instead, look at it as people care about what you have to offer -- because that is the truth. Everyone is welcome to add more on your own as well.

Next are 3 sets of questions and challenges (to Rico, Idoru, and rwojick).
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
@ Rico

Your philosophy seems to be that lawyers and politicians are corrupt and deceitful, and that government run by such people is worse than no government at all (anarchy).

I understand (from the sibling topic) how you don’t want to think about the things that have been unpleasant for you. So, would you care to tell us something about what the alternatives to such “bad” government could look like? Maybe you have a vision of how things could work better.

How could societies work without lawyers, politicians, and corruption?
What are the ways for people to exist in the world without government providing laws, regulations, and social order?
Do you really believe, or do you just hope, that the large-scale things that people need -- such as roads, education, defense, security, and emergency response -- could be provided without government funding and control? If so, how would those things come into existence and be maintained?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
@ Idoru

Your ideal of an agrarian “back to nature” lifestyle is very appealing. Your concept of many homogenous groups living with tolerance towards others makes sense at the basic level.

But, how would such a society deal with major social issues such as education, transportation, property ownership, crime, security, trade, and resolving disputes between people and groups? Those things don’t -- at least, at first consideration -- seem to have anything to do with nature per se.

What you say concerning human manners is interesting. In the context of society and politics, what do you think causes human manners to improve -- and what causes them to degrade?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
@ rwojick

So, your political philosophy is based on the US Constitution and Bill of Rights. You seem to admire the Rule of Law concept and expect it to be properly implemented by a just government. Is it ever? Could it be?

Is it your claim that if the US Constitution and Bill of Rights were properly administered that there would be freedom and justice in the USA?

Have you studied the Anti-Federalists who opposed the US Constitution, claiming that it was an usurpation of power (counter to the goals of the American Revolution), and that by creating a centralized government, the USA was starting down the path towards tyranny?

And the big question about the USA is -- did the experiment work? Did freedom last? Does the Bill of Rights really guarantee anything? Do you really have any recourse against runaway government, injustice, unconstitutional laws, etc.? For instance, how do the Bill of Rights 4th, 5th, and 13th Amendments stack up against the IRS? How does the 2nd Amendment stack up against all the gun laws? How do Asset Forfeiture, the War on Drugs, the War on Terrorism, and the Patriot Act fit into a free society?

Below are 3 more sets of questions and challenges (to Lennon, seej, and Jinx).
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
@ Lennon

As for the challenge, I put the 16 month thing in there as a joke, it meant "as long as I can remember."

The Consititution revolves around the Bill of Rights and the law is a shield, it is not a sword. No little distinction there.

The whole idea of the system is is set aside your prejudices and apply the law. I say "women are their prejudices" and they cannot possibly set them aside. This causes great problems.

The only way the system could fail is by poor execution, and I say women compete by executing poorly and then tirelessly standing by their position until they do things "their way" and not "the legal way". Hillary, a licensed Lawyer, voted, "we have no evidence, let's bomb Bagdhad".

Here is a test for you. It is a given in the Constitution that all accused people are entitled to due process of law. If you go to

proof.rochesterdailynews.frih.net

you will see the actual Court documents that show the lawyer accusing me filed the note of issue AFTER he and the Judge said they held my Trial.

Those are the actual documents right from the record. If I am lying then I am committing perjury and if they are lying then they are in a Conspriacy. Simple digital math.

Today the man running for Attorney General in New York (Spitzer) and the woman running for Senator (Hillary Clinton) BOTH went into my records with my signed permission and they both delivered LESS THAN their oath demanded, and yet they collect paycheck's every week.

Here is your challenge. How did the lawyer file the note of issue on March 8, 1995 and then my Trial date is written in the record as Dec. 15, 1994?

How can you file a paper to get on the calendar for trail and then have that trial already done???

Now, if you must lie, then I am not guilty because you are committing perjury (lying). If you tell the truth, then I am not guilty (denied due process). I am shielded by the 6th and 14th amendments.

I am not guilty if you lie and I am not guilty if you tell the truth. Get it?

Yet I have remained guilty since 1994 and my children, ages 4, 9 and 11 at the time, were told I needed mental help (in the record) and I was ordered to get a psychiatric exam as a condition for seeing them.

The woman Judge ordered in Lawyers for my children, they LIED about holding my Trial, and then they ordered I get a psychiatric exam as a condition for seeing MY KIDS!

The US system is as perfect as can be. The fact that it is in the hands of idiots is not my fault.
[/url]

As for "did the system work".

Well, the system identifies the tyrant, so, in the sense of identifying him, it does work.

The people who attacked the world trade center gave no written notice, they presented no evidence and they gave no opportunity for the "defendants" to respond.

I feel similarly about the citizens of Bagdhad. I was not "down" with the attack. If we had evidence and we presented it and gave 30 days to respond, I might have been.

If you want to evaluate a system first you have to run it. If you fail to run it then our system would place the terrorists you are referring to in your bathroom mirror.

I think Bush erred, but if we move in the right direction from those errors then maybe things happened for a purpose. To quote Givens, "where we is, is where we is".

@ McMuffin

Next is a very important comment for EVERYONE, concerning copied/quoted text. Following that are some related, personal comments for MadeinIndia and Bikerman.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
{PROPERLY QUOTING & USING QUOTE TAGS}

First, I’ll remind all of us that there’s a Frihost rule about needing to use quote tags.....

Oop! Sorry about the double post!
I got a 404 error the first time I hit the submit button, I wasn't sure if it went through.

Oh, and I forgot to point out an important point. In my system, Citizens would not be paid (or maybe paid only a token salary) they would still have to be gainfully employed, or have enough savings to live off of while they are active in the government. They could, of course, be reimbursed for expenses incurred in the performance of thier duties, though. The reimbursements would be public record, auditable by anyone.

As for how Hillary is not eligible to run for office, the records at

http://www.proof.rochesterdailynews.frih.net/

were sealed by state law. I then contacted Hillary and said I have proof that the case that found me guilty of "Cruel and Inhuman Treatment" was "fixed".

She wrote back saying she needed a sworn affidavit in order to go into the sealed records, so I sent it to her.

After she viewed the records she began to slobber over the truth, the way that women always do, in order to "control the truth" as a tyrant would. I have remained guilty since 1994. See 14th amendment, section 3.

So, Princess, the challenge is still on the table.

How did the lawyer suing me file the note of issue 3 months after he and the Judge said they completed the trial without agreeing to break the law in the back room? When they did this they formed a conspiracy, correct or incorrect?

If you answer truthfully then I was denied due process and I am not guilty, and if you lie or do nothing then you join the conspiracy and you are identified as the tyrants.

I do this for lawyers all the time, you cannot PROVE someone is lying under oath unless first, of course, they lie under oath.

Is the Philosopsher Princess and Hillary Clinton in the same cover up conspriacy to deny a defendant due process of law as defined in the Constitution of the United States in 1776, or thereabouts?

We know Hillary is in, and we are still waiting for the Princess.

I live in england and i think the goverment tries to interupt in peoples live way to much. They tell us to eat healthy and have recently raised the retirement age. I think the labour goverment is the worst thing that has happend to our once great country(i mean no racial offence there). He has raised tax and is a really weak priminister. I aswell as the whole of my family hope he does not get re-alected.
Although our goverment is shamefull life has come along way of the past millions of years. Even 70 years ago a disabled person would not be looked after they where expected to look after them selves(sorry for spelling) now we have trained professionals to look after them. We have devolped transport systems computers,which i think leads to one of our greatest achivements. The internet is a great invention It allows people from all corners of the world to communicate with one another. Personal hygine has improved greatly. Violence is much more controlled then to say 200 years ago. Dont get me wrong though its not a haven.
Many people aswell as me thinks the police in our goverment are pushing it to far with cctv camereas, in my town, middlesbrough, the police watch AND speak to you. I find cctv disgusting many of you have probably heard about the statistic "you are cought on cameara over 300 times a day",
T.v's modern celebrity culture is pathetic. What kind of normal person wants to watch a person is a house, i ofcourse refer to t.v's big brother. Its pathetic in the past people where famous becuase they did somthing actualy worth while now a person can become famous for staying in a god dam house on tv. This really angers me, people are more interested in other peoples lives then there own. But thats my own opinion please dont flame
My view on terrorism is this. Islamic people want what they cant have, just like children. There countries are often politcaly unstable so they blame america or the "western world". Religeon is the cause of most wars there needs to be a mutual peace agreement between all forms of religeon. Racism is one of the things i most hate. Hatefull people are often cowards. Frightend of the refugees and say things like "**** of back to your own country" i refuse to swear by the way. People as a race are the same just like cats,dogs,fish and many others so why should we hate each other becuase some of us look differnt.

Thanks for listening to my flame and im sorry if i ofended anybody it was not my intention

@ nathanuk

It’s good to see you here!

Everyone, please check out a new contest announcement over here. Smile

The most difficult thing about my ideal system would be the change of mindset needed to live there. We have all grown up in a world where we expect to be able to fall back on someone else to help us. The first thing we think when something big goes wrong is, "Why isn't the government dong something about this?" That is why we are in the mess we are in now. What we should be thinking is, "What can I do to fix this?"

If there is a car crash, almost everyone stands around rubbernecking, wondering what is taking the ambulance so long. One or two people might step in to help, and they will be hailed as heros, when they are only doing what any decent person should be doing - thinking for themselves and getting involved instead of waiting for some authority figure to tell them what to do.

If, as in your example, a company cheats its employees, it should not be up to the government to do something, it should be up to those employees. If someone is hitting you, do you stand around and wonder where the cops are? NO, you defend yourself, you hit back, or you run.
There would be nothing preventing the employees of that firm from finding other jobs, organizing a union, striking, or organizing a boycott of the factory.

With the change of mindset it would take, from submissive sheep to do-for-yourself independance, the whole idea of the government stepping in to 'fix the problem' would be laughable. Remember, the central ideal of this community would be self-responsibility. That means being responsible for your own welfare as well as your own actions.
There is no dole. If you don't work, you don't eat. If you are unable to work, there would be plenty of private charities to help out (Red Cross, Salvation Army, church groups, etc...), and with no taxes to pay, people would have more money to be able to contribute to such charities. Self-reliance dosn't mean not caring for others, or being self-centered.

No you are doing fine.

I'll read this carefully and consider a bit more before getting back.

Cheers
Chris

@ Jinx

In its purest form my political philosophy would be:
All people should be free to live and act in any manner they choose provided their actions to not encroach upon those same rights of others (“lawlessness”).

Obviously there will be elements of society who choose to encroach upon the rights and freedoms of others, and it is therefore the role of the Government to prevent this both proactively through responsible planning and retrospectively through some form of penalty.

Responsible planning allows a Government to provide tools such as education and employment to the populace so an individual could could not defend lawlessness with an argument based on primary needs, such as the need for food/shelter etc.
Whether such proactive Government involvement be Direct or Indirect is irrelevant as the purpose of all government action will not contradict the primary philosophy.

As a Government is as dependent upon the people whose freedom it protects, the people are in turn dependent upon the government. To ensure the the survival of both the Government has the right to a proportional share of each citizen's resources that are the result of its existence. Such a right normally manifests a form of taxation. Such a tariff should be at levels to ensure mutual survival of the Government and the populace.

This briefly outlines a Government's reason for existence, role within society, and the means by which it can be continued. Exactly what form it takes is again irrelevant provided the primary philosophy is adhered to.

A Government which for any reason ceases to follow the primary philosophy ceases to be a Government and a new one may be legitimately formed.

Hi Philospher Princess,

I apologize for any oversight.

@ Asgardsfall

Thanks for showing up with some good philosophical ideas!

With respect to your first point. In my definition I say "all people" and by that I mean just that, "all people". This is regardless of any individuals role within a society.
Those people whose role is to govern, must still act in accordance with the primary philosophy, that is not to encroach upon the rights of its populace.

If we were to get deeper into the philosophy, one would go further and ask, what are the rights upon which shall not be encroached. For the purpose of simplicity, and because its serves well enough we shall say that those rights are that an individual may act in any manner s/he chooses. In its most controversial sense this includes the right to bare arms, the right to commit suicide, the right for same sex relationships the right to any religious beliefs, the right to paint yourself purple stand in a corner 24 hours a day and go gibber gibber.

If however a person choses the right to bear arms, it does not however include the right shoot another person, as by definition this will encroach upon another individuals right to life.

To use religion as another example, and this board is rife with polarised opinion on this topic. I say that all people have the right to any religious conviction or belief they choose free of harassment, however they do not have the right to impose their set of beliefs upon another.

Getting back to Government officials and their relationship with the population. An individual who has encroached upon another's rights exposes themselves to a justified encroachment of their own rights to a similar degree. While I don't support the idea of an eye for an eye, it is a sound basis for a penal system and is seen in the real world where greater crimes get greater sentences. It is here a Government Official can implement Justifiable Retribution.

With respect to the Governmental taking of property as Tax, a Government exists for the benefit of its people. It has a symbiotic relationship with its people. Remember also that government is a subset of the people not a separate entity. A Government is legitimate because it is desired by and has a mandate from its people. The people choose to be governed and as such they choose to ensure a Government can survive.

To survive a Government requires resources. By definition a people will willingly give resources to their Government to ensure its survival. In its purest form Tax is voluntary. If you were faced with an increase in Tax rate or the collapse of the police and justice system I believe most people would choose to accept the Tax increase. To a lessor extent this occurred where I live around 22 years ago when our country chose to adopt a GST system without any Income Tax concessions. It was an election issue and was sold on the basis that the country had a large fiscal deficit and the new Tax would be of long term benefit to the country. The proposing party won the election by a landslide.

Needless to say this is not always the case and other real events can muddy the argument here, but all objections that can be raised are actually symptoms of a Government which is not properly fulfilling its role.

Two brief examples :
Overtaxation means a government is taking more resources that is required for it to survive, this encroaches upon the rights of the citizenry and moves it towards illegitimacy.
Similarly people who do cannot pay tax because they are impoverished is the result a Government which is not proactively fostering circumstances to meet its populations fundamental needs.

With respect to real world or historical examples I do not know of any who follow the philosophy to the letter, although I can think of several who would purport they do.
Remember this is a philosophy and to be honest I think that it, or something similar resides at the heart of most consensual Governments, however there are a number of other factors which come into the equation such as Human Nature.

If my philosophy were held as one pole of a comparison and absolute domination of a populace as the other, all Governments of the past and present will lie in between at various points.

Technically this makes all Governments illegitimate and able to be overthrown however the reality is that a population as a certain degree of forgiveness.
Certain faults can be forgiven to a point be it though incentive or apathy.
A population however can only take so much coercion before it will rise up and throw off the shackles of an illegitimate administration. That is the benefits revolution outweigh the cost and effort to implement one.
Many countries have adopted a system that allows the population the option to overthrow their Governments every 3, 4, or 5 years by popular vote.

Finally, I used the term "lawlessness" to describe a state outside of the primary philosophy. A person who encroaches upon the rights of others chooses a state of lawlessness, and I have already dealt with the justification of law enforcement above.

Fundamentally no laws should encroach upon the rights of others for example no stealing, no killing. I do concede that if we get less theoretical and more practical there will be a point of balance over what I will refer to as Preventative Laws. That is, laws designed to prevent the accidental encroachment of another's rights. This would include such things as Road Speed Limits and traffic guidelines. I believe that, as Government is a subset of the people, these preventative laws must be established by, and subject to, the scrutiny of the people they govern.

I apologise if this is a little long winded, but I think I have addressed all your comments. The thing to remember is that this is a political philosophy which would form the core of a political model. It is not the complete model.

Princess, I noticed that you have chosen the "woman's perrogative" as your reply to the Conspiracy. This is not uncommon. I like to think of how Jack Nicholson explained how he wrote about women so well in the movie "As Good as It Gets". He said something like, "I pretend I am writing about men, and then I REMOVE reason and accountability".

The US system is "of the people, by the people, for the people", so when each "people" wins an election they take an oath to tell the truth. The truth about what? Well, the system, the laws, the facts, the processes etc.

The problem here is that once they are in office then tend to form a club. And if one plays the game below the level of the the truth, the others protect them, and, before you know it, you have this large "tumor" of "people" playing the game below the level of the truth.

I tend to think that it is in this "tumor" that women tend to believe they can "make hay", so to speak. They show proud loyalties toward their co workers and not to the System and the Constitution.

Now, are women the only ones? Of course not. However, they ADD tremedous weight (and no, you do not look fat in that dress) to those unscrupulous few..errr..more than a few...men who play below the truth level.

How do you get them? At election time and in Court, but more about that later.

The Bill of Rights belong to every American with some leveling for underage children living within the household. Any law that violates the Bill of Rights is Unconstitutional and therefore an invalid standard. All laws are written (remember Hammarabi?), and those "laws" written "in your mind", ladies, well, those are prejuces and they don't count.

@ ALL POTENTIALLY NEW AND CURRENT CONTESTANTS

Deadline Set for New Entries: 1 week away Exclamation

New Questions for All Contestants: next post Very Happy

As they say, “all good things must end”. It’s been a learning experience and fun reading your political philosophies, and watching the discussions about them take place. Now it’s time to set a deadline to gather up any last entries so that judging can begin.

The deadline for new entries has been set for Tuesday, 10 October 2006, 6:00 p.m. Greenwich Mean Time. The deadline for the follow-up questions, challenges, answers, and other additions will be set soon after 10 October. In the mean time, all relevant discussion is welcome!

Now is the time to think deeply about your political philosophy and what you have written about it already -- along with any unanswered questions from others and/or thoughts you might want to add. The whole contest will be over soon and every entry will be carefully judged on what has been submitted to this thread.

There have been so many good entries that it is going to be difficult to choose the best based on the criteria set forth in my first post. I thought a few questions targeted towards everybody might help. I purposely didn’t make these questions very difficult, but tried to make them open enough for you to show how your political philosophy stands out above the rest.

Consider these “extra credit” questions. Failure to answer them will not disqualify you, but giving excellent answers may put you ahead of the pack. Good Luck!

Note: A contest schedule is announced over on the sibling thread. Discussion of this post, deadlines, or contest judging should be posted over there. Any answers to the questions in the next post should be posted here. Smile

@ ALL CONTESTANTS: NjRocket, smartass.id.au, MadeinIndia, Rico, Idoru, Bikerman, raghu.steppenwolf, rwojick, LeviticusMky, Lennon, McMuffin, seej, Jinx, nathanuk, Asgardsfall, and added HoboBarticus, just-in, billys, and any others who show up before the deadline

{SOME FINAL QUESTIONS FOR CONTESTANTS}

What is the main difference between your political philosophy and most or all other political philosophies that you are aware of in the world?

Question

Pick any other political philosophy on the 3 pages of this contest topic, and discuss something that you like about that philosophy. It should be something that is consistent with your philosophy but that you have not yet discussed on this thread.

Question

Pick any other political philosophy on the 3 pages of this contest topic, and discuss something that you do not like about that philosophy; show how an alternative approach in your political philosophy would be superior.

Question

What is the weakest link in your political philosophy? What concepts are you unsure could work, or what inconsistencies do you see that could be difficult to overcome?

Hmm...I'm not sure if I can form cognative thoughts here or not. I am currently under the influence, but I would like to share my views.

You ask what type of government would be ideal, and I respond and say "None".

Yes, that is right, none. Ahh, don't you see the beauty in it now? No government, no law, no policies, no lawyers, just you and everyone else.

Think of everything I could loot. Wait WAIT WAIIIITTT!!! Stay with me here. I have a point. You see, that is a horrible mentality. It is disgusting.

Yet, it is how quite a few people think and act. People have a "me" first mentality. Everything is now done out of the benefits to ones self. But, that can't be right... Government is the representation of what the people think we need. But if everyone in government is acting for themselves then this is impossible.

So...Government, in and of itself, is defying the nature of humans. Good, we got that out of the way. Still with me?

Ahh, but no government is impossible. LIAR!!! It is possible. The problem is the people. The people now NEED a government. They must be contained, controlled, and led on. People are scared of other people now, and they think government will save them.

The solution? Revolution!!! Lets kill all politicians!!! Wait, WAIT WAIIITTT!!! Just kidding, that is not the answer. I have a point to this also. When people are unhappy, they want to change. Yet people are scared of change and try to keep things stable. But...THey all advocate change because they don't like something in government. Then the government changes for the people. So...We get what we want...Some of us anyway.

If there wasn't a government we could of done that on our own...How stupid. I pay taxes because people are stupid. How shitty is that? Well, very, but are you still with me? How about a review?

We are advocating a lack of government, we have identified peoples need to do things only for themselves, and we have nurtured the ideal that people hate change that affects them. So. Lets continue shall we?

So Mr. Barticus, what does this have to do with anything? Well, I'll tell you. People need a government because of their current state of mind. Now, my theory is long term, I believe once people change themselves, then we can achieve a Utopian Society.

So Mr. Barticus, how do people change? What do we have to do? Well, I'll tell you. How about you raise your own kids? How about you quit complaining and do something? How about you work for a living instead of squatting on welfare? How about you instill values and morals and ethics and intelligence into your own life? How about you become knowledgeable? Read a book? Say hi to a neighbor?

Its as easy as that. Do you feel as if you can live your life without robbing someone? Now, do you think you can raise your kid to be like you? Can you go to work, and make a living, without being lazy and worthless? How about giving that homeless guy a few quarters? Can you keep yourself from cheating on your spouse? Can you stop yourself from cheating on a test?
Can you enjoy life for what you have? And not what you want?

That is the key.

So, still with me? In that case, you must actually have read my post. So here is some noodle for your caboodle.

*Ever thought about writing down everything that brings you joy in your life? Well, take some time and do it this weekend. Anything that you enjoy. Now, go enjoy them.

*Ever write down a list of all your most important posessions? Well, do it next weekend. Write down everything that you think is important to your life.

*Next weekend, write down all the things you are thankful for in your past. Events that helped to shape the person you are today.

*Now, write down all the things you want. Any and every little possession that you want.

* Now right down your important beliefs. Your morals and standings on the major issues of today.

Now look over your lists. What do you have? DO you feel fulfilled? Are you contempt with life? Are you dissatisfied? Why? Why Not? Who are you? Seriously, you just wrote down who you are. Is finding out who you are a revelation to you?

Bah hum bug, doesn't matter. this is political. I hate politics, too many lies. If you can find the decency to read this post, then you have the decency to live in an ungoverned world. Now, why doesn't everyone around you feel the same way?

Why aren't you out influencing people? Aren't those your beliefs that you just wrote down? You know what you have, you know what you want. You know what you've been through. Can't you relate to people? We are all in the same boat.

Once people begin to realize this FACT, then the world can be without government.

There is no ideal government. People are corrupted and have been since the cavemen. Greed is encouraged and rewarded, shrewdness, cunning, lieing. They are all promoted in the world we live in. Then these people get in a position of power.

Power translates to more power, catch my drift? No matter what anyone here types, through time, your government will crumble. It will change, become manipulated.

The problem is the people, not the government.

Which leaves me to question the reason for this contest. What do you hope to achieve from this? If it is knowledge and understanding, then I commend you. If it is anything else, then I don't know what to think.

I appreciate the time you all have given me if you read this. I enjoyed it, and I'm truly sorry if something seems random or distorted.

I will make an attempt to continue to check this thread. So feel free to direct questions my way. I have more thought out then I presented here, but why bore people with details?

I know I have negative points, I had to take some time from my business endeavours to learn a little life, but I will be around.

Enjoy the Day Smile

[/list][/list]

Upon review, it appears that I sort of missed the point of the contest I think. I answered the question, but I don't quiet think it is what you were looking for, I shall try again tomorry

I sure am glad I'm on holiday...... and to think at the start of the week I was just looking for some free webspace!!!

I cannot say that my Philosophy differs from every other Philosophy in the world. The topic of discussion is a debate that has been raging all over the Globe since the beginning of time, and I am certainly not arrogant enough to say I have the answer.
My philosophy is characterised by a number of different points which may differ from some philosophies

An element of anothersPhilosophy that I agree is the following provided by Bikerman.

I cannot thank the Princess enough.

As you know, I think the American Legal System is as true as a plumb bob. If you hang a yo yo down gravity will pull it directly to the center of the earth every time.

And women will mis direct informtion in order to suit their prejudices every time. Pope John Paul was wise to them and I am too.

Every legal case in American Law has an accuser, a Judge and a defendant. The ACCUSER shows up at the Court house and says "I have a proof" and "I have written it up". He gives one copy to the Court and one to the defendant. Every time.

The documents at [url]proof.rochesterdailynews.frih.net[/url] show to a certainty that the lawyer suing me and the Judge agreed to break the law on the filing of the note of issue.

If the law says "the clerk shall place the case upon the calendar as of the date of the filing of the note of issue" then clearly, the note had to be dated PRIOR to the TRIAL DATE. It was not.

The truth is a MINIMUM REQUIEMENT in American Law.

So, what did Princess do when she saw the dates? Same thing that Hillary Clinton did. "Go over here". "Look over there". "Here is the new rule, the contest is ending".

Does Princess or Hillary ever acknowledge the facts from the record or the law and tell the truth? Hell no. Why?Because the law does not agree with their prejudices.

If the law agrees with the woman's prejudice, they go by the law. If the law violates their prejudices, they enter into a game of "three card monty". As if they are smarter than everyone else.

If I wanted, and I would take on the tone on "Larry the Cable Guy"
here, " I could get that deal from Hitler".

Princess, if your answer is false and the minimum requirement is the truth then you are either "playin stupid" or "plain stupid". Either way, you do not win under the confines of American Law. Laughing

1) Differences between my own and other 'world' philosophies.
None in the sense that my system is a fairly orthodox version of anarcho-syndicalism and is therefore shared by many other thinkers. I can and would not claim it to be either my own creation or an original and new solution to the issue of government/politics
The differences between it and extant systems would be :
a) Devolution of 'power' to community and/or work-based units of control.
2) Most current democracies are in fact spectator democracies. The function of the electorate is merely to validate one of the choices presented at election time and then shut-up and get on with their work. Anarcho-syndicalism fundamentally changes this relationship and requires participatory democracy as a normal function of the system.
3) Market economics underpins the current governmental systems and political standings and philosophies of the major (therefore electable) parties. This means that the citizen is never, in reality, offered a choice which allows the selection of a non-capitalist government because all the electorally important candidates will be representatives of the current system and the differences between them will be largely unimportant, concerned with relatively minor issues of quantity, certainly not deep structural and organisational choices.

Anarcho-syndicalism fundamentally changes the relationship between citizen, government, work and society as a whole. It requires participation in decision making from every citizen and assigns the power to enforce such decisions to the lowest heirarchical level possible, thus avoiding the accumulation of capital, power and control by large bodies or organs of state. Some people (normally opponents) compare this with communism per se and draw the conclusion that the two are basically the same. This is not true for several reasons and although both can be said to be forms of socialism, there are important differences. The primary difference is that of ownership. Communism advocates public centrally managed ownership wheras anarcho-syndicalism advocates ownership by communities or worker-councils.

It should hardly need saying, but probably does, that neither communism nor anarcho-syndicalism advocate anything remotely similar to the USSR model which most people are familiar with to some extent. The USSR was based on a Stalinist system of Government and the important distinguishing feature was the central totalitarian control, which itself makes the system neither communist nor socialist in any meaningful sense.

A system with some similarities to my own
My choice here would be that of Jinx. Jinx's system is similar to anarcho-capitalism (with the retention of sovereign individual property rights and a capitalist free market, but with the anarchic organisation of the individual and their relation to government and it's organs).

In particular one example of similarity would be the reduction in centralised government and it's apparatus (in terms of scope, power and resource). Any centralised system of control soon falls prey to the 'self preservation' paradigm and ends up making decisions which are beneficial to the organisation and entity of government itself, rather than beneficial to the electorate represented by that organisation. The two may be, and frequently are, compatible; but on frequent occasions they are not.
The old adage that 'power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely' is clearly a generalisation but, like many such, contains important truths. The more centralised a system of government is, the more remote it is from the electorate (by definition) and, usually, the less accountable it is to that same electorate.

Taking the same system proposed by Jinx, the thing that I find the most problematic is the idea that control of capital and manufacturing should stay as per status quo. This could be summarised as an 'anarcho-capitalist' position. I do not share the view that citizens have a powerful hand in dealing with corporate power and I therefore believe that this system inevitably leads to exploitation of the worker/citizen just as surely as market capitalism does.

Jinx advocates (I think this is correct Jinx, please correct me if I misrepresent you here) that the market will resolve issues in the normal run of things and consumer pressure/action can be an effective control in areas of conflict between corporate and individual well-being. I do not agree because I do not share the idealist view of the citizen necessary for such a system of control. If the citizen/consumer could be relied upon to act ethically or at least with enlightened self-interest then it might work. This, however, presupposes the citizenship being accurately informed. Control of the media is a powerful weapon in the clash between corporate power and individual well-being, and one cannot assume that the citizen is either correctly informed about the present situation or fully aware of the implications, possibilities and consequences of possible actions. With control of the media left to capitalist market forces it seems inevitable that the media itself will serve the needs of the capitalist market where those needs clash with the needs of the average citizen. That such clashes would and do occur seems to me obvious but one simple example would be that of productivity.

For a market-capitalist system of production, productivity is a key factor. In simple terms the higher the productivity the better for the corporate owners. For the average citizen this is not necessarily a good thing. Higher productivity often means a smaller workforce with longer working hours and inferior conditions in the workplace. The capitalist justification is that if you don't adopt these work practices then someone else will and the jobs will be lost as a result. The citizen is very limited in their ability to influence/moderate this urge to productivity and relies on collective action (previously almost exclusively the role of labour unions and latterly also legislated by bodies such as the EEC).

Removal of legislative power in the area of labour relations and reliance on market forces and consumer power would seem to me to leave the workforce very vulnerable. The ability of the workforce to strike and picket, whilst important in themselves, would require a global organisation if it were to work effectively in a multi-national corporate setting. This would in itself inevitably lead to another quasi-governmental body primarily concerned with it's own survival whilst nominally concerned with worker rights.

Under anarcho-syndicalism the ownership of production/media and other corporate resources devolves to the community as does the decision making power. Thus workers councils would control the labour issues and the production issues of a particular producer and remove the dialectical positions of worker welfare and productivity. The capitalist formulation of productivity as a measure is designed to suit itself. Recent trends to move to 'more socially aware' measures of productivity are nothing more than diversions from the real issues.

The American Legal System has a non violent "revolution" built right into the system every four years. It is called "elections".

So what do the women folk do with this perfectly peaceful process? They undermine it!

In fact, I have a sworn statement dated June 8, 2006 on the table before the Rochester City Council as we speak. It says that the city, county, state and Federal Elected Officials "ruling over our democracy" are not eligible to hold or seek office based on the 14th amendment, Section 3.

What do they do? They "ignore" it. Ah..."ignoring"...it is the "skill" of the "ignorant"

That would be :

I think the steps of a government systems as simple as like this:

1. The Judiciary
2. The President
3. The Pariliament
4. The States
5. The Districts

The Judiciary should be Independant.

The people of each district of each state select their Member of Parliament.

1. Any law made in a country should be discussed in the parliament and the president should forward to the Judiciary. The Juidiciary should approve the final law. This will eliminate the ruling party taking advantages of the law.

2. The Judiciary is the most powerful in the entire system. The Top Panel of Judiciary will have One Judge from each state. The Top Panel will approve all the laws made in the parliament.

2a. Each Judge of the Top Judiciary Panel will representate a State and he is selected by the Members of Parliament from his state. The Parliament has the power to dismiss the Top Panel by conducting a voting in which the
President, Opposition Leader and the Defence Chief will vote.

2b. The New Top panel will elected by the District Judges from all over the country and the members of the parliament.

2c. The selection of District level Judges done by the District Level Lawyers. The District Level Judge can be dismissed by the voting of member of parliament, the runner up and the Police Chief of the District.

3. The Member of Parliaments will representate a District from their respective State. He will be the administrator / Responsible for the District. He can have separate Administrators for small towns/villages.

4. All the member of the Parliaments of a state along with his local administrators will be assembled as a State Council. The President also a member of Parilament.

5. The President is the Administrator of the Country. He can have his members of parliament as Ministers for separate fields.

6. Each Ministry will have a Top Panel having members from all the states of the country. So that any planning is done on any ministry the Top Panel will be the deciding authority of the Plan.

7. Any kind of planning on the country done only at this ministry level for thoughout the country. There state council will only execute the central governments plan.

8. The Top Judiciary Panel will review the activities of the government quarterly. This panel has the authority to dismiss the Central Government.

9. There will be a subordinate organization of Top Judiciary to conduct elections.

10. While voting people should be given a option 'I don't want to vote' along with a reason. This will bringout any kind of failure in the government system.

* The member of parliament are selected by the people of each district from each state.
* The Police Chief of District is selected by the Junior cops of the District.
* The District Judge is selected by the lawers of the district.
* Th District Judges select the State Judge who represents the state in the Top Judiciary Panel.
* The State Police Cheif is selected by the Police cheif of Districts from the state.
* The State Police Chiefs select the Defence Chief.

I think I have drafted my thoughts very short. If anyone thinks it should be broader. I 'll expand it later.

Note: In my point of view one man can not make the entire government system. It should be a panel which creates the basics of the government system. I think this is how its done in every country.

Regards

Justin.

Hi Chris,

I agree with you. Definately I have missed to keep some check point for the Judiciary. I have added some amendments to point 2.

In my view its almost impossible to make a fool proof Government system by one man. It should be a Panel.

I think government system is very serious one. It should be ideal if its allowed to work as a group on this thread and if the group wins the Frih$s are shared among them.

regards

Justin

Chris,

Why I want my government to be fully centralized is that when it comes to sharing national resources like Oil, Gas, Water it will be equally shared by the entire country provided the possibilities. For example a river runs through 2 states and the state in which the river ends or reaching the sea has lot of water problems which needs the river water more than the other state where the river stars. But the local authorities of the first state where river stars has decided not to give the water to the next state because they have the power.

what will happen to the state which is in problems? This the reason why I want the power should be centralized so that all the resources of the country can be shared properly.

Another thing... you are right the more centralized the more far from the voter. Thatswhy I have kept few people under each member of parliament to manage the local towns and villages of the district.

Each district has an MP and local administrators under him to administer the towns and villages in the district.

And about panels are inefficiant. May be true but What if the ruling party takes all the advantages of the laws and regulations.

What about people who voted for other than tha ruling party. There is no body to listen to their voice.

Because obiviously the ruling party will ignore the constituancies where they did not win.

To avoid such things I wanted a panel always.

Other things later....

Bikerman,

I would like to ask how it is that your system copes with the uneven distribution and utility of natural resources, and how these resouces might be traded amongst communities.

For example, such thoughts lead me to think that in such a decentralised society a road through a community, allowing a mineral rich community access to a trade portal could be considered a resource.

What is the level of interdependance allowed between communities?
For example ... knowing the mineral rich community needed the road, the road owning community could neglect the road and its security forcing the mineral owning community to pay for its protection and upkeep.

While this example would be extreme, this level of decentralisation suggests to me a very high level of "user pays" for those goods and services which either do not exist or cannot be supported within every community, some services as fundamental as healthcare.

Regards

Asgards fall brings up a good question. How do you distribute resources and maintain the roads to those resources.

This was the question when Hussein invaded Kuwait, as I understand it.

Iraq was digging the oil out of the ground and shipping it to Kuwait and then Kuwait, at the port, was controlling the mark up and getting filty rich.

Poor Saddam (just kidding) felt cheated, so he invaded.

We have a similar situation in the US. New York City is really just a port where things are marked up and traded.

I just happen to think that these questions are secondary to the decision making process that you have in place and I think the process in the US is enlightened, but we don't follow it.

So, our execution is poor and we get poor results. How do you correct, well, you cannot know how or where until your execution is almost flawless. If you have a pipeline with no leaks and one springs up then you know right where to fix it. If you have a thousand leaks then the best you can do is hope to be fixing more than our breaking.

answer: new pipes.

I'd suggest studying the US Bill of Rights. Every citizen is guaranteed those rights, even the dumb ones <wink>.

If someone breaks a law then the accuser begins a legal process, but the accuser(s) cannot violate the Bill of Rights in the process of their correction.
This creates a balance point and if it is respected then it can be a beautiful thing.

No law can be made that violates the Bill of Rights. No citizen can be denied any of the rights. All citizens respect those laws, so all citizens respect all others...

'cept for when you are pissed off for being held guilty upon a false process...then you get to use free speach (first amendment) to give them "what for". Laughing

It is a fair and incisive question and it will take me a while to answer it to my satisfaction so I'm just putting up a placeholder for the moment until I have a spare hour later on to do it justice.
Chris.

OK...here goes:

Bikerman,

Thank you for your response.
I'm sorry to pick on your system but to be honest it is of interest to me.
As an aside, albeit a number of years ago, I read and enjoyed Godwin's Political Justice. To a certain extent it and John Stuart Mill's "On Liberty" should be credited as most influencing my own ideas and philosophy, although I have never subscribed to nor quote any given stereotype.

On to the questions

Putting international relations aside, and looking within the National Boundaries let me paraphrase my vision of what you have described. I also apologise for any oversimplification.

The Nation is formed from a number of mostly self sufficient, humanitarian communities, who defer their autonomy to a central Tax funded (voluntary? - given the mindset) Government only with respect to the administration of such services which guarantee a minimum standard of living (Bill of Rights?? to perhaps put things in context) ... and perhaps act as arbitrator in local negotiations?

You point out such a system would require a change in National mindset and acceptance of these ideals.

Is such acceptance mandatory within the borders of your Nation? How would your Nation handle dissent?

Secondly, putting aside all materialist and capitalistic ideas such as wealth, money and possessions as I understand is requested by the changed mindset, how would your system incentivise people to do the horrible jobs? Let me elaborate a little.

Say the primary resource of a community was "swamp sludge" and this was a vital resource and was sought after. The drawback however is, the community is sited in the middle of a swamp. Its cold, damp, and harvesting "swamp sludge" is hard work.
By comparison the neighboring community's primary resource was entertainment. It has nice weather, a beach and a party like atmosphere every day.
I am assuming people are free to make their own choices and are not forced to live within their own birthplace communities like Reservations.

What is to stop a steady flow of citizens from the undesirable but essential locations to the desirable but frivolous locations, given each location has a minimum guaranteed standard of living?

I do have one more question but I'm saving it until I know how you approach the above.

Regards

I have a question for rwojick, just-in and all those that base their Philosophies around written documents (this includes written law - Justiciary).

I think you get my point.

A document is the result of a Philosophy, it is not the founding concepts or the rationale.
Do you get the sense that by founding a society on a document you are manufacturing an entire society according to the beliefs of its author.

What if they are wrong?
What if they are taking the opportunity to create an experimental society where they and their peers have a unique real world opportunity to put into practice the theories and discussions that they have studied, discussed and written about for so long.

@ HoboBarticus

Welcome, and thank you for your thoughtful, if somewhat cynical, entry.

You’d said you were going to say more, so I held off questioning till now. Feel free to add other things about your philosophy, but here are some questions about what you have already presented.

Your philosophy seems to be quite anarchist -- to the extent of arguing for no government at all. Yet you seem to claim that anarchy isn’t practical now, but that it could be if people will learn to change their selfish ways. Then you gave a nice recipe for self-knowledge and self-improvement, along with a challenge for the reader to connect with and help change others.

But, do you really think that it would be possible to change enough people’s thinking (and actions) that people wouldn’t have to fear those who say the following?

Just-In

I did read your post, and do admit it was a bit of a stretch to include you in my address, but as the top level of your Government was Judiciary and traditionally this is founded around a codified set of rules, I was wondering how you would react.
You describe a fairly complete tiered structure, but I do wonder what sort of "house" it would be for people to live in? The principles of law guiding your society could be anything from "All children with red hair should be executed at birth" to "No person should do more than one hour of work per day" Yes I do realise that bad laws could conceivably be voted out. It's just you read like a rulebook, but say so little of life under the yoke.

I hear ... life is good because I can vote to make the rules and nothing else. What is the soul of your society? What is its personality?

I am confused by your notion of what I could only describe as the antivote.

Well, I've come to believe that as a society we must follow progressively three directions.

Firstly, the creation of International associations and Unions with the steadidly increasement of their power and their authorities.
By this way

1. All of the Nations will progressively have simular interests, as with entering they will have the need to coorporate and find common ground.
2. The International associations will have the power to interfear when certain countries or communities behave irresponsibly and provocutavely.
4. Also, countries will progressively open their boarders to their neighboors, have common economical lives and benefits and behave as equals.
3. This will have as a result the decrease of the tension between the countries, thus the decreasement of the military forces, thus the increasement in education, sciences, the quality of life, the and civilization.

Secondly, simultaniously with the increasement of the power of the International associations and Union, rights and power for the everyday life has to be transered from the state to the local authorities. With this action people will live in a more democratic world and they will decide about their everyday life.

Thirdy, it would be wise to try to create a society in which mass transporation vehicles such as the subway, the tram, the buses and the troleis will be the only way of transportation.

These are the directions I believe that would be preferable for us to move forward to.

billys

You refer to "International associations". I note you use an "s" meaning more than one. There is no guarantee they will have the same agenda.
I refer for a crude probably historically inaccurate example "The Axis" and "The League of Nations". Each organisation will indeed have some common ground for its members but these goals may not encourage coexistance .
Additionally, I do not believe that opening borders makes everyone equal.
I risk being severely corrected here but it is my understanding that this is similar to what is happening to the European Union. It is possible (so I have been told) for a citizen of say Slovakia to freely move and seek employment in England. Although all member citizens are all equal in theory, I understand there is some resistance from the natives against this sudden influx of immigrants seeking a higher standard of living.
"a decrease in tension" ... I think not.

With regards to your third point ..... *sob* why? *sob* I love my cars. I realise there would be some environmental benefit but isnt your suggestion a solution to the symptom, not the problem. With only public transport available more would be required. Currently congested systems would get worse what about the cumulative waste of people time as they queue for tickets, wait for busses etc?
Where do you draw the line on the elimination of personal transport? Would I be allowed my bike? It would still require roads and cause congestion. Perhaps a skooter or a skateboard? "ONLY" is a big word.

I'll leave your second point alone. as I dont understand how you define "Union"

Thanks Philosopher Princess for giving us this great debate. More than the points, the spirit of participants excited me more.

I guess I have already taken too much of space putting my political philosophy across, would be very brief for the closing arguments.

1. My Political Philosophy always talks about "You". Others talk about "I". When the society evolves and becomes considerate enough to think about other humans before themselves, we can say we are truly developed.

2. Well, most of the threads here talk about what model of governance one should follow. No one went into the soul of the topic. There can be different models but as long as you don't discover the magic formula i.e the perfect political philosophy, all models will ultimately have faults.

3. I like all the posts and the spirit involved. If we take the goodness out of each post, this is a treasure for any Political science professor.

4. All the thoughts in my theory are strong and nothing is weakest. History is proof that education is the key to the development of society. It is a human must to make mistakes but an educated society frames just rules to deal with such mistakes. Who will look at the bigger picture of mankind? One more thing...We are not alone on this earth. There are other species including plants and trees who are rightful inhabitants of this earth. To destroy the planet in the guise of development is doing injustice to the nature.

Thanks.

The document was writtten in 1776.

It gave each citizen the rights to life, liberty, and the persuit of happiness.

Blacks and women were not included at the time, however, when they argued using the tools of truth, logic and the benchmarks of the law they could not be denied.

Its starts with the Declaration of Independance and it says "we are going to have a Country that has neither a king nor a ruling class. People who play the game under the line of the truth undermine the system, they say they want "more" than equal rights with every other citizen in the Country. I consider them idiots, and when it really matters I take my time to prove it.

Your point? No, I do not get it. Nice list of questions, though.

@ Everyone: Please check out the announcements on the sibling thread or in this thread’s first post.
~~~~~~~~~~
@ billys

Thank you for your entry! Smile

Please note that I wrote this next questioning text yesterday -- before having read Asgardsfall’s post to you above.

@ rwojick

Princess,

You are the worlds foremost hair splitter, and I am not certain this is a talent.

If all men are created equal and this "given" is "self evident" then "I have it" and you can "have it too" if you stop circling downward and cast your eyes back up to the top of the page.

As for Asgardsfall's claim that the system has no direction this is false.

The base of the system is the laws and they come from the people by voting for the lawmakers.

I can stay to the true side of the law, which I prefer to view as up, and if I stray to the down (false) side of the law then some accuser can bring me back with a written legal complaint.

This complaint has to be true and it has to be placed before a Court that is competent. And they have to give me a copy too. This is all spelled out in due process.

True. In bounds. False. Out of bounds.

If I vote for a lawmaker I go into a voting booth and cast a private ballot. I can indulge my prejudice completey.

If he gets elected then he can make a law, but it has to be Constitutional, and, after he makes it, he has to abide by it and I do too.

The "direction" comes from always "striving" to "stay on the true side of the law".

@ MadeinIndia

Thank you for your recent additions, and for being so polite in your discussions (which is always appreciated).

Education is obviously very important to you, and it is a central theme of your political philosophy. I am not challenging why those should be. But I do have a deeper question (posed within multiple related questions) on the subject. I start with a brief setup.

There would doubtful be much disagreement that people often disagree on what actually is the truth. This seems to be the case whether we are focusing on the laws of “hard” sciences or “soft” sciences; laws of human evolution; laws of political science; whether global warming is happening or not and whether humans are a cause or not; whether it will help or hurt humanity if reading and writing is stressed more than math and science, or vice versa; or the truthful interpretations of the meanings of such documents as the Bhagavad-Gita, the Christian Bible, or constitutions of various countries; whether religious principles should be taught alongside or separately from secular subjects; and of course there are many more subjects related to what is the truth.

Anyone can get a sense of such disagreements on what is the truth by reading our own beloved Frihost forums Wink

.

Carrying out Education (in the big sense of the word) presumably means educating people on the truths of the various subjects. So the question is: How can this be done when there is so much disagreement?

What are, or would be, the factors that pressure Education to be “good education”, as opposed to “bad education” or just any old education that is sometimes “good” and sometimes “bad”?

How does your political philosophy define “good education” and “bad education”?

Given the hypothetical ideal society you envision (with everything you’ve described previously), would “bad education” ever happen? If not, why? If yes, then what would be in place to help eliminate it?

rwojick,

What do you value more, the principles upon which your society stands, or "Due Process"?

Like just-in you talk about what your system is but dont mention why?
It is like understanding the plot of a book but not the theme.

While I dont disagree with the founding principles you have mentioned, they are there however because a few people thought they were a good idea at the time and nobody has disagreed enough to change them since.

I dont think this necessarily makes them the only choice, just that people have lived under the rule long enough, that the majority of people are not sufficiently hindered enough by them, to care about changing them. You pour jelly into a mould, leave it there long enough and it looks like the mould.

I think the Philosopher Princess hit the nail on the head with her question, I ask why are the Truths self evident? .... or perhaps I am just being argumentative.

A second query... Due Process is good in theory but it is not really on the side of the little guy. How would you feel about Due Process if you were served with an eviction notice from your home of 30 odd years, a home you had built, married and raised kids in, something that defines your life simply because a new highway extension was required. You get your vote, it is true but its cold comfort when a lifetime of memories get concreted over in the name of progress.

You are free, have life and liberty are free to pursue happiness. The people who save 5 minutes a day travel time are also happy, but what about you ... a minnow in a whale of a system?

Bikerman,

I'd love to fence further, but to be perfectly honest I dont find too much in your system I disagree with. My proposed system is similar from and indiviualistic point of view, although I believe yours is more extreme (backward - "in the nicest possible context") in its perspective. I still think there is a place for the private accumulation of wealth if that is what people wish to do, I think your society, if everyone adopted the mindset, it would mean full regression to a simple life of subsistance and harmony with nature, a lifestyle I would not enjoy.
I'm sorry, I love my toys far too much for that.

I believe the accumulation of wealth can be a good thing. In general (and this is a broad statement) in a society where people have roughly equal rights and equal opportunity, such as a Government can grant through implementation of a minimum standard of living, they will seek wealth to better their standing.
This is most evident in the young. They want their cars and their TVs, their flash clothes and modern homes. In an unrestricted society free of beliefs and conditioning, people will want the things they think will give them physical security and comfort. With time, in most cases the focus changes naturally. Once a comfortable and secure level of wealth is attained (and this is easier than most people initially think) goods, tend to loose their shine. In most (but not all) cases this does not mean the person strives for even more material goods, instead they start to follow other intangible pursuits. Humanitarian works, the arts, the search for meaning and so forth.
I believe there is a place for materialism within my society, it gets the young off to a good start and takes the burden of support away from the Goverment and/or local society. It does not take a universal mindset to shift away from this capatalistic phase, simply the maturity which comes with age.

As for my last question to you, it revolved around a lack of understanding how your philosophy could work across a full society, with all its variations and classes. The factual examples you chose seemed to be of societies which seemed fairly homogenous to start with. Your last answer gave me enough to know its not worth arguing the point as the ground rules would change.

Thanks

Asguardsfall,

If you are asking which do I value most then you would be talking about my prejudice. My "value" is not "written down", therefore it is not a "law".

Due Process is one of the guranteed rights of the Bill of Rights (1st 10 Amendments to the Constitution) and it is also a guarnantee of the 14th amendment.

This system would not be mathematically perfect without due process. Just the same as a computer doesn't randomly process x's and o's the American Legal System does't randomly process true and false statements. You do them in order to reach a proper conclusion.

Last week I challenged "The Princess" and I asked her to explain the false documents at [url]proof.rochesterdailynews.frih.net[/url] and she implied that I was undermining her contest and she said she would comment later. Maybe she will and maybe she won't. Happens all the time.

Now, this week, she is back on the board with a question of what do I mean by "given" and 'did you mean to say..." I have these exchanges with women all the time, and it leads me to say they are "natural born tyrants". They cannot separate between their prejudices, which are not written, and our laws, which are written. I love them anyways.

Thats ok, she can take up the challenge this week, right <wink>.

Due process is one of the many rights spelled out in the Bill of Rights. If they were explained to Osama Bin Laden he would be hard pressed to want to throw any of them back.

In the 5th amendment every citizen has the right to act in his or her own best interest. No one is a pawn in our system. If someone said go sit in the front seat of a plane and fly it into a building I would say, "not", for the many, many reasons spelled out in the Constititution...oh look....it pops up right away in the right to "life".

Its math based and its unbiased. Not unlike a pool table. Does the table know your name? Will the 8 ball go in the pocket because it favors you and not me?

Thanks Princess...

To begin with, let me go to my first post. I have mentioned that religion should not be allowed to have any say in the way any society functions. Doing so will only lead to chaos or tyranny.

I also mentioned and stressed the importance of Education. A gentleman previously posted that a society needs to focus on economics and then education. Unless you have a strong education, who will give you business to begin with? How can you calculate what's good for your economy, do proper business unless you are educated? An educated society is a prosperous society.

In my third post, I have mentioned about the importance of taking care of the nature. Here, the idea is very simple and we don't need to rack our brains to understand any of it; Your house is dirty, breaking up, not cleaned for years, you are too lazy or not bothered to clean it. How would the children in this house grow up?

Compare this with a small house but a very clean house, and the inhabitants take very good care of it. The inhabitants have a place where they feel happy, can concentrate on their work or studies and progress in life.

No one really knows what is truth. One day a newspaper quotes that some scientist in LA says Coffee is good for health. Next week another lab comes out with a study saying it is bad for health. Who do common people believe in? The same way, whether global warming is happening or not, whether the ozone layer is getting depleted or not, I really don't know but one thing I really know is...

A clean and green earth is a fertile place for a progressive society! A society where people will be happy, helpful to each other and live in harmony.

An over crowded, polluted, disease spreading earth WILL not and cannot have the perfect society! So all these political philosophies will not be of any use if our environment is not conducive enough. I am not a greenpeace activist to keep rambling about nature but I understand the importance of the nature in human being's life and future.

I did also get into details about how a society should function, the duties of law-makers and how the common man can be an active partner. This should make clear to anyone how BAD can be kept in check.

And Princess, Education can only be good, not bad. According to Dictionary.com

@ Everyone

As announced previously, we only have about a week left for discussions. I’m glad for the good stuff still going on! Very Happy

~~~~~~~~~~
@ MadeinIndia

Thanks for the response to my inquiry on Education, which will be good to consider with all else. Smile

~~~~~~~~~~
@ rwojick

@ Asgardsfall

You have offered us a lot of thinking concepts. Here is one area on which I invite you to add more: The area of rights of individuals versus the right of the government to exist -- and whether these rights ever conflict, and if so, what is to be done about it in your political philosophy.

Princess, my reply is in progress,

Rwojick, part of my reply to Princess made me sit down and read the American Constitution, the Bill of rights and the Declaration of Independance for the first time. At least I am pleased they are short.

I am now curious, you highlight the self evident truths contained in the Bill of Rights but then go on to highlight the importance of the strict adherance to Law as the 'body'.

To me, the Declaration of Independance sounds like shopping list of complaints attempting to justify the breaking of the law, not the adherance to it.
Interestingly these complaints are backed off with the pure theoretical position many of us are all placing at the heart of our theories.

For me the kicker really is, knowing now what the declaration says, it is the perfect manifestation of an actual example that illustrates my own earlier point, that where a Government starts to impose itself upon the individual rights of its citizens, the citizens are absolutely justified in disolving that Government and creating a new one. I cannot decry it as invalid.

So far as the basis of a political system based on law and a legal system, there still appears no direct connection. The Declaration does not advocate any particular type of Government, merely one which is not tyrranical and supports the "self evident truths." I therefore continue to take issue with the Due Process, the Law and our obediance to it. I notice the Bill of Rights does not contain the Right to Life, and in contradiction to the Declaration, the Constitution, through Law, has the right to take it away.

I should also point out that much of my previous comments against the Declaration are because you used existing documents themselves (a record written by others) as the basis of your philosophy. To me, this dulls your argument much like those people who preach the ideas from various other books.

If you read closely, and I do not read often, I only have a grasp of the math of the system in my heart, you will see somewhere that it is a government "of the people, by the people, for the people". See it? Its somewhere in there.<wink>

This means that if you work for the government you are a citizen who has a job working for the government. You must adhere to the law the same as a citizen who does not work for the government. People who work for the government are considered "public servants". They serve the Public.

I was served with an eviction notice at one time. The citizen who worked for the government said the law says "this" and I said no it doesn't, it says "that". Seven years later in Federal Court I prevailed. It did not take me 7 years to do the math properly, it took them that long.

On another matter that mattered to me [url]proof.rochesterdailynews.frih.net[/url] I make the argument (really it is an observation) that 1) I am entitled to due process of law, 2) the law says a note of issue must be in the Court House at Trial date 3) The Judge said the Trial date was Dec. 15, 1994 and 4) The attorney suing me filed the note on March 8, 1995.

My RIGHTS to due process were violated therefore I am not guilty.

If you were sued then you would have the right to due process. If the citizens who worked for the government cut corners and all Judges and Politicians who take an oath reviewed the facts they would have to tell the truth.

With women involved at such a level as they are today this truth comes slowly (there is a joke there somewhere) but, the Judge and Jury are unbiased, they all must tell the truth, my "observation" is made up of all true statements, your opposition must employ at least 1 false statement, therefore, therefore, the "accuser" does not "win" because "they failed to prove their case".

Life, Liberty and the Persuit of Happiness is the axiom (given) of the system. It sets the = sign. The Bill of Rights is the SHEILD that can be used by all accused persons.

If citizens who work for the government ignore the shield and overpowers the defendant then the system identifies them as the tyrants.

Americans live in opposition to tyranny and I would argue that this is not a "war on terror". I don't mean to split hairs, I just think it is a function of doing the math properly and if it stands that I can do this better than most lawyers then so be it.

@ Bikerman

Thanks for so much good input already.

Given what you’ve written about your political philosophy, I’d like to ask you further about two extremes (of people) and how they fit into your societal vision: Individualists and the chronically needy.

The words in quotes are particularly open to your choices of definitions, which will hopefully come across directly or indirectly in your writings.
~~~~~~~~~~
What would happen to individualists in your system? Geniuses, inventors, and entrepreneurs, etc. generally work “best” when free to manage their own projects. Would such people be subjected to the well-planned decisions, potentially non-well-planned decisions, and even whims of their local work committees? What would be the “process” that such a person would go through?

Would they be allowed to build their own businesses, invent things the committee thought unworthy, and reap the profits of improving things for others, or would committees tell such individualists what to work on and how to do it?

What happens when individualists have done “poor work” (e.g., devised some idea that will make the world “worse” if put into practice)? What happens when individualists have done “excellent work” (e.g., devised some idea that will “greatly help” many people if put into practice?
~~~~~~~~~~
At a different extreme, if your political philosophy were in place, what would happen to the chronically needy, lazy, shiftless, and purposefully unproductive members of society? What would stop such people from gaming the system, doing nothing, and still reaping all the rewards?

Yay Questions...

First off, I notice that no one has refuted my argument that I was denied due process. I used all true statements and you can't, no atter who you are. Second, I noticed that the Princess is sticking to her original plan to 1) end the contest when she wants to 2) end the process in one week and 3) continue the contest after one week and end it when she wants to again. <my eye is getting tired from all this winking>

Second off, I noticed the reference to the "chronically needy". This reminds me of the big fat guy who said to the little skinny guy, "from the looks of you it looks like there has been a famine". And the little skinny guy replied, "from the looks of you it looks like you CAUSED IT!"

When I was a child, many, many years ago real estate was the best investment any family could make in the US. It ALWAYS appreciated n value, somethimes faster than others, but it always went up.

When I was in my 30's I started to notice that the price of homes was way higher than the price of wages and rents. I could not justify entering the market.

But I also noticed that people who bought an overpriced house at $110,000 could sell it to a "bigger sucker" for $125,000 and make a 15,000 profit, financed by the bank. Then, they could do it again for 125 to 135 and make another profit, simply by finding another "bigger sucker".

Anyways, in the late 80's, I believe, all of real estate was totally overpriced and the US Government put the "Resolution Trust Corporation" into effect and you can look this name up on the internet.

Donald Trump and many many others turned their real estate into the goverment and walked away from GAZILLIONS in debt that they could never repay. Donald was upside down 900 million as docuemted in his book "The art of the Deal", and I hold nothing personal against "the Donald" and I think he is a good guy. He will be a huge asset should we choose "eliminate homelessness" with some "deft bookkeeping".

See, "real estate" has to do with "housing" and there is no worse "health care" than having "to sleep in the rain". Crime would go down too, if people were not "on the street" and "desparate".

In order to correct I think we have to let the wealthy keep what they have as they tend to be terribly thrifty and I have worked that into my plan. This play would have "democracy at its base" and a "controled form of capitalism" to handle money matters. And that is the same system as we have today...

I’ve posted a couple notes on the sibling thread. Smile

@ MadeInIndia

Firstly, thanks for your replies they were really beneficial for me.

Ok, I would like to reply, for startets, to Asgardsfall.

The first duty of any decent political philosophy should be to protect and preserve the Earth.

Since governing according to religion has led to so much bloodshed over the thousands of years, it's best to keep religion a matter of individual choice. Since faith in religion depends on uncomfirmable beliefs and ideas, the government should pay heed to what is observable and confirmable by the senses of man, namely science. Since science asserts that we originate in the Earth, that life as we know it cannot exist without the Earth, the preservation of the Earth and its ecosystems should be the highest priority of government.

I believe the second duty of government is to protect people from exploitation and violence. Crimes involving murder, theft, rape, kidnapping, intentional destruction of property, etc. should obviously be punished by imprisonment. However, the focus of imprisonment should be rehabilitation. I believe that criminal law should stick to this sort of vice and avoid regulating culture (gambling, drugs, etc.) because I'm convinced that outlawing non-violent crime increases violent crime and has a negative overall effect on society.

Economically, I believe that government should combine the first and second principles. I believe in well-regulated capitalism, because the economy should be a collaboration of all the nation's people, not just the brainchild those officials in charge of a socialist state, or those bigwigs in charge of a too-rich, too-powerful corporation.

To protect the Earth, the production of materials which do not biodegrade should be outlawed, pollution in general should be punishable by the dissolution of a corporate charter, food production should be localized wherever possible to reduce the need for shipping, and the planning of urban environments should be as efficient and non-intrusive to the local ecosystems as possible. To protect the people from exploitation, corporate power should be greatly limited, the minimum wage should be set very high, as should taxes on the wealthy (demand-side economics), the formation of unions should be unimpeded, and corporate personhood should be soundly rejected.

That about sums it up for me.

@ eggg

That’s fun to have a new political philosophy show up! Very Happy

Unfortunately, the deadline for new entrants has past. Please share more thinkings anyway as you can, because, really, that's the important thing going on here.

Here are a few questions, but please elaborate as you see fit; in less than 2 days from now, this topic will be temporarily locked, so there is not much time to elicit more until after the contest is over and we go back to discussion.
~~~~~~~~~~

Oops! At first I thought that eggg could be a contestant, but later I realized that the deadline had past by the time eggg’s new, considerable, philosophy showed up. I’ve edited my introduction in the above post accordingly.

aha, this will be fun

The idea of the American goverment is to provide a system of checks and balances in which a goverment of representatves governs the body of people, but even so, power is being shifted around the goverment and we will eventually head down the path of Rome. Imperialistic presidencies are the start, George Bush is an Example, he has several times used the phrase "As the President of the United States of American I have the authority" when in fact he has no such power and no one questions him simply because he is the president.

In a perfect world, the goverment would not control the people, but the people would control the goverment. I think that when a president is elected a bomb should be strapped to him and every citizen of the country provided with a button to that bomb. There by restricting the power of the presidency to what the people deem acceptable. Taxes would no longer exist, and unnessessary goverment spending would be replaced by one man forced to work to keep himself alive. The glamour of the office would be reduced, but would help keep our goverment under control.

Patsferpatrick

Let me help deepen the philosophy you have shared with us ....

What colour would the bomb be?

@ Patsferpatrick

At first I wasn’t sure if it was a philosophy you were offering, but then it became apparent to me that it was. Is its main goal to have the top leader of the government be fully accountable to the people? What are its other goals?

Your idea of an extreme direct accountability of the president to the people reminds me of some of today’s extreme direct (so-called) reality television shows, where the “reality stars” are voted off by the people watching. In both cases, there can be the adventure of what’s going to happen next? I do wonder about your claim that.....

This thread is temporarily locked (along with its sibling topic) during political philosophy contest deliberations. Please do not despair, for both topics will be re-opened for discussion within hopefully a week.

Now you have some time to work out what you’re going to post here later. Very Happy

{ANALYSES OF POLITICAL PHILOSOPHIES}

[Editors Note: In ancient Greek mythology, Analysis was the obsessive-compulsive evil twin of Ulysses, and Ulysses was the first name of U.S. Grant, the famous American Civil War General and President, whose name, U.S. Grant, also means a federal government grant, which is a political give-away of taxpayer money that is sought by special interest groups, fought over in elections, and is often the root cause of famous bribery scandals, such as the ones that brought down the Grant Administration. Actually, all of that is true except that Greek mythology doesn’t mention Analysis. I just thought I’d jumpstart these analyses off on a different foot Smile

.]
~~~~~~~~~~
Now let me get serious about my analyses. Over the last week after the contest and discussion was temporarily closed, I carefully went through each political philosophy that was presented, and analyzed its strengths, weaknesses, and presentation, according to its own merits. I did this at first, one-by-one, for each philosophy without considering the competing political philosophies.

While it’s true that I’d read all the topics’ posts along the way, and re-read many to devise questioning, I didn’t want to do any customized considerations or so-called deliberations for judging until after all entries were posted and the contest closed for more posts. This was to attempt to ensure that I equally considered and pondered all philosophies, keeping all equally fresh in my mind at once. That’s also why I have taken a good amount of time between the topics being temporarily locked and my re-opening them with the analyses, here, and the awards put over on the contest topic.

Originally, I started writing these analysis notes strictly for myself, in order to focus my attention on the roots of each presentation, so as to be able to base my contest judging on real substantive issues. As this progressed, I realized that it could be beneficial to the contestants, and possibly interesting to all the readers of this thread. So I have put some of my notes in a postable form to share. As you’d expect, what you find in the analyses below, are not all my personal notes.

During the contest I questioned the contestants, and watched as others questioned and challenged, but refrained from giving my own analysis (or opinions) of the philosophies because that might have changed the flow of the contest. As some of you realize, I can ask very pointed questions without revealing my own personal political philosophy. In my meta-philosopher mode, I am comfortable judging the merits of communism and capitalism, totalitarianism and anarchy, democracy, aristocracy, monarchy, constitutionalism, and everything in-between. I do this while attempting to be careful to keep my own political philosophy on the sidelines so that it doesn’t interfere with the judging of others.

Other good questioners can do that as well, and they were very welcomed.
~~~~~~~~~~
This has turned out to be quite a contest. Here we have 18 contest entries; 18 competing political philosophies; 18 thoughtful people who have sincerely put forth their ideas of what a superior political philosophy would be. We also have some serious questioning of each and every competing political philosophy, and the ensuing back-and-forth arguments for and against many of them. This is not to mention how much thinkings might have been (and still could be) inspired by the posters’ readers.

This contest has caused the creation of a wealth of knowledge, assertions, facts, evidence, and logical reasoning supporting and/or opposing various political systems and their implementation.
~~~~~~~~~~
In the analyses, below, as I mentioned, I have focused on each political philosophy separately. The deliberations to compare and contrast philosophies and presentations against each other came at a later stage. Next, I give a short general summary/synopsis of each philosophy, point out some strengths and weaknesses, discuss some of the best points of the presentations, and offer some suggestions for improvement or advancement. These notes are not meant to be comprehensive of each contest entry, but are merely some thoughts. There were many relevant questions posted by challengers that were not addressed, and these are mostly not reiterated here.

I hope this will be beneficial to the contestants, and to everybody who is seriously considering the issues of who should govern, how they should govern, what form of government might be beneficial, and how to prevent government from being detrimental.

The order of the contestant philosophers next is the order of their first post. I split them into 3 posts, in case that is easier for readers.

{ANALYSES OF PHILOSOPHIES -- PART 1}

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Contestant #1: Philosopher: NjRocket

{Synopsis}

This philosophy is one of government control, requiring secrecy, opting for security over freedom, and claiming that chaos would be the result of not having a strong government.

This is a very statist, almost Machiavellian, proponent of government having lots of power and using it to control the people to keep them safe and secure (and presumably happier than if the government were weaker).

{Strengths in Philosophy}

This would create a society with structure, control, and regulation, with a strong government that could protect its people, and its power base. There would be no crime or political unrest tolerated.

If it were well managed, and fairly administered, it could be a comfortable existence for the majority of its people, and certainly secure for its ruling class.

{Potential Weaknesses in Philosophy}

Questioner Indi put it quite well.

{ANALYSES OF PHILOSOPHIES -- PART 2}

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Contestant #7: Philosopher: raghu.steppenwolf

{Synopsis}

It would be difficult to summarize better than this philosophy’s author:

{ANALYSES OF PHILOSOPHIES -- PART 3}

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Contestant #13: Philosopher: Jinx

{Synopsis}

Jinx advocates that government only enforce the “One Law” against aggression, which is a cornerstone of libertarian political philosophy.

Combining that simple but arguably fair legal system with a meritocracy, where the privilege of voting costs a lot of money, the philosopher covers.....

If it wasn’t made clear already:

I'd go along with that, largely (since it is in line with the basic anarcho-syndical stance). The difference would be over the 'exception' rule. You only state violence towards another as the criteria and I would seek to use a wide definition of violence. If one takes 'violence' to include exploitation (inc financial) then I'm in accord.

Chris

Princess,

Your suggestions in your "run down" of the competition and the discussion above regarding legislation have got me thinking about how I could strengthen some of the aspects of my philosophy which didnt go so well. Now the competition is over I can try and get myself out of one or two of those corners I painted myself into.

Specifically I am referring to the self confessed weakness in my philosophy, "preventative laws." a contradiction with my original principal of individual freedom. I believe I would redefine these "Laws" as "Conventions."

Previously I used the example of Road Rules, such as speed limits etc, as a necessary limitation on peoples freedom to limit the risk of accidently killing someone or damaging anothers property.

It is a Governments role to capture the will of its people in the creation of these "Conventions". Once created the Government should make these conventions freely available to those who wish to learn them. Before getting in a car people should know you drive on the left hand side of the road, should know you give way to the right and should know speed signs indicate the recommended safe speeds.

The point however is that none of these Conventions are mandatory and there is no punishment for breaking them. If you want to drive 100 mile an hour through a school zone, no officer of the law will pull you over and give you a ticket, HOWEVER, if something were to happen, such as a child was struck and killed, you will definitly get pulled over for that offense, as you would have taken that childs right to life.

It is here Conventions come in to play so that the degree of fault may be determined. The level of an individual's guilt (and the just punishment) differs according to circumstance. You exercising your right to go 100 mile an hour versus the child's right to cross at a Zebra Crossing may carry a stiffer penalty than you exercising your right to go 40 mile an hour versus a child's right to play in the middle of the road.

I have previously said I dont believe in an eye for an eye, and I think through this system of rationalisation, suitable levels of punishments and deterrents can be determined. The accidental taking of a life is very different from the deliberate taking of a life. The degree of variation of an individual's action from accepted convention can therefore be used to determine the degree of fault and/or punishment when something does go wrong.

In addition to getting rid of those pesky speed cameras, such guidelines will protect the innocent while leaving each individual with total freedom to choose their actions. After all, when all is said and done, regardless of law, if you REALLY wanted to drive into someone crossing the road, there are no physical barriers actually preventing it. We all however choose not to.

Good, Bikerman! Seeking a more precise definition of the term violence is needed.

While I continue to ponder a consistant response to capturing the general will which is a bit more technical than defining it as "A big fluffy thing that evolves and reshapes itself as does a cloud in the sky", I would like to add my two cents on this issue of ownership.

I believe you can only truely own the fruits of your own labour.
This means you cannot own natural resouces such as minerals, land, rivers and waterways etc.

I believe that this is the case typically with natural resources in any case. Mining for instance (at least where I live) can only be done through the Government issue of permits, which are paid for annually and have expiry dates. Land is an example where I am not so sure. While small holdings can technically be repatriated doing so would never be done. We in New Zealand are still arguing over land rights from a treaty signed over 150 years ago with the native tribal leaders. Millions and millions of dollars are spent "negotiating" when technically the Government should say ... "we are the Government of this country, this country ultimately belongs to everyone. Subject to certain conditions, you may lease land and enjoy the rights people associate with ownership for the duration of the agreement."
Leasehold property is not uncommon and lease terms of 50 to 100 years are not unreasonable. Annual lease payments should be required if a holding is above the size required to house a family or individual. This would

Naturally these parameters will be determined by the Government in accordance with the *ahem* General Will.

Does the restriction over the use of Natural Resources conflict with my primary philosophy of total Individual Freedom? No.....
As resources are finite, if I were to exercise my right to set up an unsanctioned gold mining operation I would be stealing a single use resource from the remainder of the population who also have an equal right to it. As permits are controlled by the Government, who in theory represent the General Will, minerals taken by sanctioned means can be owned by the collector, by virtue of the labour and resources they invest to recover them.

First off, if I read Asgardsfall's ideal system it centered around "conventions", and no written law.

I think it was the Code of Hammarabi that was accepted as the first written laws. This was considered to be a boon to mankink in that it kept thugs from going around saying, "I'll tell you what the law is AFTER I enforce it". This was called the dark ages, but I was not there. Check for the code of Hamarabi on the internet, I didn't, but I' sure its there.

[T.P.P.: *** back-seat moderating moved to spam ***]

Since tomarow is election day in America here are a couple election day stories for you, in order to "economize" I'll start a new post.

[T.P.P.: The "new post" is political rather than philosophical, so was moved to the Discussion list here.]

Speaking of ownership, i would like to reduce communism. It claims the government owns all things, including products of labour, and all things should be divided equally amongst the population. This reduces personal identity with labour and owndership, something I personally can't argue but feel is wrong. People lose motivation, produce less, and lose their identity to possessions.

Just quickly

My fellow contestents,

Early in the contest I indicated that I thought referring to an unbiased written docement and telling the truth was the way to go but I was challenged by the eventual winner when he (or she, I have no way of knowing) wrote:

Who wrote the document?
Why was it written?
How do you know something wasnt missed off?
Why should you obey it... its just a document
How do you know the person that wrote it knew what they were doing?
What were the prejudices of the person who wrote it?
What were their beliefs?
Is the document unbiased?

I think you get my point.

I responded saying I did not get your point but Asgardsfell "won" with his plan to use and unwritten standard similar to that system "perfected" during the dark ages.

Naturally, the female Judge sided with what I would consider an inferior plan and awarded the big bag of loot to Asgardsfall.

AFTER the contest I pointed out that Hamarabi had a better idea and the "winner" latched on to what has been know for "x" (with x being todays date minus the number of years since the code of Hamarabi was first written) number of years. That is quite a flop. Laughing

Its like "deja vu all over again" Laughing

Princess, it has been a pleasure. Thank you for verifying my claims in my first contest post. I am honoring your request to remove you from my email list, I know your kind, and I have "had enough of yours".

I think Asgardsfell is a good thinker with some major flaws that can be removed, bikerman impressed me with broad knowledge and MadeinIndia has a nice aura. I did not read much of the others as I do not read that fast, but I'll stick with the document from 1776 until something better comes along.

Have a nice day.

@ Bikerman and Asgardsfall

@ Asgardsfall

I look forward to more from you when you have a chance. Here’s just a small, side thing, before I re-raise a previous issue you were also going to write on when you’re ready.

For those who dont want to hunt back to find what this post is about

@ Asgardsfall

I’m still digesting your latest -- thanks! Allow me to return to a previous point for the moment.

I came across an interesting quote today in Wikipedia.
A work colleague introduced me to "The Little Prince" by Antoine de Saint-Exupéry yesterday ... in particular the chapter regarding the King on the Asteroid (we were discussing my boss at the time).

Anyways .... on to the quote ... when I read it I felt it was indirectly illustrative of one of the points I was trying to make regarding gifts and the currency of time.

--Locked--

There has been some excellent philosophy talk here, and meta-philosophy talk on the sibling topic! Thanks, everyone! Very Happy

The discussion seems to have run its course. How appropriate to have our political philosophy contest winner have the last say of significance! Very Happy

Of course, philosophy goes with each of us everywhere. Hopefully we will choose to improve and use ours to the best of our abilities.

Good Luck and Good Life to all philosophers! Dancing

--UN-locked--

There were reasons, which I won’t go into, for closing the political philosophy discussions here. But the situation has changed, and here’s the new situation.

I am re-opening these topics for discussion, but I will not be around for facilitation, as today is my last day. That means that you are welcome to comment on previous philosophic topics, or to present new ones. I do strongly request that any posters attempt to keep to the high standards that our other philosophers have met. But I won’t be around to help ensure that.

Therefore, if anyone notices something improperly posted, please contact a Frihost Staff member via PM for help. A Staff member who agrees with your assessment, can move any true spam to the Spam Can, or move anything that was posted on the main Philosophy topic that does not fit the strictest philosophic requirements, well, they can move it to the sibling Discussion ABOUT Philosophy topic.

Without their prior agreements or knowledge, I unofficially designate both Asgardsfall and Bikerman to be co-leaders of this topic.

So, there’s lots more that could be delved into. Have at it! Thanks again to everyone who’s posted so far. Very Happy