Paradoxal Civics!

[Blaarg]

Every issue isn't the matter, a basic understanding is all I'd ask and a far too many fall short.

 

[Peng Qi]

I sincerely doubt you're educated on every issue that's relevant to American policy.

I've debated with him before, and I can assure you he's not particularly educated on any issue that's relevant to American policy.

 

[Blaarg]

Ironically, I'd have to guess you'd agree with me on this issue Mr. Authoritarian.

 

[Peng Qi]

Ironically, I'd have to guess you'd agree with me on this issue Mr. Authoritarian.

Yep, I actually do. I'm just not sure if someone who claims to not be an authoritarian can justify the same position.

 

[Blaarg]

Democracy has it's flaws, that's for sure. I just don't think a dictatorship/Monarchy is going to be any better unless you manage to get someone who is truely wise and truely has the interest of society at heart.

However, given the nature of dictatorships, it's ussually the one who's out for himself who gets the power.

And, given the nature of monarchs, it's not ussually the one who has the best interest of society who gets in power.

 

[Peng Qi]

Democracy has it's flaws, that's for sure. I just don't think a dictatorship/Monarchy is going to be any better unless you manage to get someone who is truely wise and truely has the interest of society at heart.

As opposed to Democracy, where you would need at least a 50.01% majority of morons to decide to do the right thing for society. I don't know about you, but I like the odds of authoritarianism better.

However, given the nature of dictatorships, it's ussually the one who's out for himself who gets the power.

Dictatorships? Yeah. I'm not a huge fan of military dictatorships.

And, given the nature of monarchs, it's not ussually the one who has the best interest of society who gets in power.

Better chances of the firstborn son of a monarch to decide to be a good person than the chances of 50.01% of all morons to decide to all spontaneously stop thinking about themselves for a second.

Personally, I like it somewhere in between: oligarchy.

 

[Seapeople]

Tokugawa is protective and aggressive (Pro/Agg)

 

[r_rolo1]

@ Peng Qi

Of course you are entitled to have your opinion, but I strongly disagree with you. You are right saying that universal vote gives power to a unprepared slice of the population and that oligarchy might more efficient ( stress that : oligarchies normally have serious distortions of the info that gets to the deciding elite, leading to equally strong distortions about the decisons that are made ), but you missed a catch: those unprepared people are the ones that are going to pay the bill and are the ones that feel how the things really are ( not the suited guys in a faraway capitol, that pass their days with equally suited guys, most of the times without knowing basic stuff, like how much it costs a burger of a bag of rice ). You wouldn't deny the stockholders of a company the right of voting in the policies of that company.... Why would you deny the stockholders of the state ( every citizen ) to decide the State's course of action?

 

[cheesejoff]

Peng Qi, do you consider yourself a moron or an educated person?

If a moron, your opinion of Authoritarianism is probably wrong.

If intelligent, why deny yourself the right to influence the government?

 

[Peng Qi]

You wouldn't deny the stockholders of a company the right of voting in the policies of that company.... Why would you deny the stockholders of the state ( every citizen ) to decide the State's course of action?

Well, I would deny the stockholders the right of voting in company policy if they showed a consistent ability to make choices that caused the company and, by extension, themselves, to lose money. Likewise, I'm happy to let the common man remain voiceless if it's better for him that way.

 

[Tonifranz]

Well, I would deny the stockholders the right of voting in company policy if they showed a consistent ability to make choices that caused the company and, by extension, themselves, to lose money.

But stockholders own the company and therefore your boss, right? Remember, the stockholders in theory elect the board of directors and the Board chooses the CEO and other officers, right?

 

[Peng Qi]

But stockholders own the company and therefore your boss, right? Remember, the stockholders in theory elect the board of directors and the Board chooses the CEO and other officers, right?

Irrelevant. If the CEO could get away with ignoring their bad decisions, he would. In government, the person in charge often can get away with ignoring the peoples' bad decisions.

 

[r_rolo1]

Well, I would deny the stockholders the right of voting in company policy if they showed a consistent ability to make choices that caused the company and, by extension, themselves, to lose money.

But it's their money.... They are free to sink it where ever they feel right to do so.... The CEO is only a employee, a servant, not the other way around....

Likewise, I'm happy to let the common man remain voiceless if it's better for him that way.

The problem is: who decides that?.....

I would add even further: ( nothing personal, Peng Qi, just a logical assumption.... ) A person that says that ( or acts in conformity with that assumption ) the common people is not able to take wise decisions is, by definition, putting himself aside of that people, and , likewise, should not be allowed to take decisons about them ( you wouldn't let a fanatical Lakers fan to take decisons about the hiring of the Bulls team.... )

 

[Peng Qi]

But it's their money.... They are free to sink it where ever they feel right to do so.... The CEO is only a employee, a servant, not the other way around....

I just don't think that the free market really has any valid parallel in the real world. If you've earned something, then yes, you should have a say in it; the stock holders of a company have shown that they have at least enough common sense to make some money and invest it. If there was some litmus test to make sure all voters had common sense I'd be totally in favor of such a system.

The problem is: who decides that?.....

Me, ideally.

Actually that is the primary problem. I don't favor rule by people with high IQs since they don't actually seem to know much of anything when it comes down to being a leader of men. I'd let people who have proven to be successful rule; people who have taken something small and made it into something big.

I would add even further: ( nothing personal, Peng Qi, just a logical assumption.... ) A person that says that ( or acts in conformity with that assumption ) the common people is not able to take wise decisions is, by definition, putting himself aside of that people, and , likewise, should not be allowed to take decisons about them ( you wouldn't let a fanatical Lakers fan to take decisons about the hiring of the Bulls team.... )

That's kind of silly. By that logic, nobody should be able to make decisions about anybody, since almost no two individuals share every single demographic in common.

 

[r_rolo1]

I wasn't talking about demographics or phenotypical diferences... I was talking about the state of mind. Someone that acts with shepard's mindset about the others ( "they so dumb... I must lead them to prevent their spupidy" ) implicitily is removing itself from that community, and , because of that, should not be allowed to take decisions about the others, because the there is not a common interest between that person and that community

 

[mrt144]

Such could be the case. No enforcement would be necessary if the dissenters were too frightened to act, for example.

and how is this still free speech? perhaps you're hung up on the implied use of force that a police state projects...being too afraid to speak is the antithesis of free speech.

anyway, following your posts, it seems absurd to argue with you about utopic self conforming free speech police states. after all it is utopic.

 

[Peng Qi]

I wasn't talking about demographics or phenotypical diferences... I was talking about the state of mind. Someone that acts with shepard's mindset about the others ( "they so dumb... I must lead them to prevent their spupidy" ) implicitily is removing itself from that community, and , because of that, should not be allowed to take decisions about the others, because the there is not a common interest between that person and that community

But that's like saying "men shouldn't get to have an opinion on abortion! Whites shouldn't get to have an opinion on reparations! Landowners shouldn't get to have an opinion that would affect non-landowners!" That is to say, there's no logical reason that anyone should be prevented from making decisions that affect someone who is completely different than they are.

and how is this still free speech? perhaps you're hung up on the implied use of force that a police state projects...being too afraid to speak is the antithesis of free speech.

We were talking about Military State/Pacifism, not Military State/Free Speech.

 

[r_rolo1]

But that's like saying "men shouldn't get to have an opinion on abortion! Whites shouldn't get to have an opinion on reparations! Landowners shouldn't get to have an opinion that would affect non-landowners!" That is to say, there's no logical reason that anyone should be prevented from making decisions that affect someone who is completely different than they are.

I stress that I'm talking about states of mind, not physical or patrimonial issues. If you choose to be a citizen of a country, you must have a common interst with that community. But if you think or act like the rest of the people are lambs and you're a shepard, you are admiting that you don't belong to that community and you requested the citizenship to use as a weapon to fulfill your personal ( and most likely not for the common good ) plans.

To avoid confusions, I would find somewhat ackward that people contracted a private company rule a country ( remembers me the condotieri times of Italy ), but I would admit that: the community and the private company have convergent interests ( the fact of not being exactly the kind of solution I would advice is not relevant). I would admit as well that the resolutions were only taken by the whole community ( like it stills happens in some parts of Switzerland )..... What I think it is stupid is that a person that does not identify itself with the common people of a community ( they are stupid, I am not ( of course... ) ) enters in it and pretends to govern them, claiming that it is for the common good ( "the pigs must eat apples because they need to make a lot of mental work. And because of that they need to live inside the manor, while the other animals live in the stable" ..... Rings a bell? ). For me that is simply hypocritical...

 

[Blaarg]

We were talking about Military State/Pacifism, not Military State/Free Speech.

Incorrect

Me:

Free Speech and Police State are surely paradoxal, given the in game description. Pacfism could work, technically, it would result in the weakest police state ever though.

You:

No, you could have a Police State in which most or all citizens believed in the party line and therefore no enforcement would be necessary.

r rolo1:

This reminds me something.... 1984, isn't it?

you:

You think there's never been an authoritarian situation where most of the people actually supported the person in charge?

me:

Nope, not 100% of everybody.

Yes, I'm pretty sure that's never happened.

you:

I do believe I said "most."

me:

No, you said most or all such that no enforcement was nessecary.

you:

Such could be the case. No enforcement would be necessary if the dissenters were too frightened to act, for example.

mrt144:

and how is this still free speech? perhaps you're hung up on the implied use of force that a police state projects...being too afraid to speak is the antithesis of free speech.

anyway, following your posts, it seems absurd to argue with you about utopic self conforming free speech police states. after all it is utopic.

 

[Peng Qi]

( "the pigs must eat apples because they need to make a lot of mental work. And because of that they need to live inside the manor, while the other animals live in the stable" ..... Rings a bell? ). For me that is simply hypocritical...

Wait, what? When did I say that the common good was "all of the smart people get to live in the lap of luxury while all of the stupid ones work to support the smart ones?"

Incorrect

I got my conversations crossed, that's all. Besides, "Free Speech" doesn't necessarily mean "Free Speech for all."