Why I recommend WWIII (718 hits)
Category: NoneRating: 0.17 on 60 reviews (Rate this item) (V)
Submitted by ampersand (View user info) at 2007-06-19 00:44:13 EDT
Procreation is the goal of life. It is the single common ground of every organism on this earth, common even to those organisms which do not possess a mechanism for desire. As homo sapiens procreated over and over, he eventually gave birth to something called humanity. It started with sounds which were reduced to characters which became words which evolved into languages and have now brought us to this massive collective concious called the internet. Along the way humanity has created ways to harnass its own mass and increase the overall efficiency of its machine. These attempts at improving efficiency are called governments.
Today different parts of the world operate independently (a significant issue which will be addressed itself further down the page), each with their own form of government. The most common forms are communism and capitalism. The problem with communism is that it stops working in groups much larger then twelve. The problem with democracy is that it stops working in groups much larger then thirteen. Anyone who tells you that either system of government works on a large scale is seeing the world as he wants to see it, not as it is. But the problem with communism was not Stalin or Russia and the problem with democracy is not George W. Bush or America. The flaws run deeper. Trying to put human beings in a communist or democratic system is like trying to put the square peg in the round hole. In order for democracy or communism to succeed, they must be imposed on a perfectly homogeneous, perfectly static environment. Democracy could bring order and structure to such an environment but it makes an entity out of this structure, an entity which is inherently different from and unequal to the systems constituent members. This ruins the equality of the system. Communism is merely a version of anarchy in which everyone agrees to be kind and polite.
Either way though, such an environment will never exist. Despite our forefathers' thoughts on the subject circa 1776, only the nihilist, who sees no purpose to life whatsoever, believes that all men are created equal. The rest must see that since there is procreation is the purpose to life and, given the genetic variation amongst human beings, it is necessary that some people have genes better suited to serving this purpose. This is the cause of entropy in mankind. The minor genetic variations between men cause them to slowly seperate into layers just as sediment in a glass jar. In happens on both the scale of a single person's lifetime and also the larger scale of mankinds entire history. Some people float to the bottom and some people rise to the top. The top middle and bottom all tend to breed more often within their own circles and so variation, and therefore stratification, is amplified over time. The difference between the most and least genetically advanced humans today is necessarily greater then it was at the end of the pleistocene.
Every society has had an elite. And as each society progresses on its own timeline, that elite pulls itself further away from those beneath it. It never regresses towards them. And anyone who can grasp the concept of a triangle (imagine an equaliteral triangle with a side pointed down and a corner pointed up) will see that, as the elite grows in status, it must proportionally diminish in size, relative to the rest of the population. The flaw of both communism and democracy is that their theory asks a population to resist this trend and remain level. That is why autocracy, the goverment of one, a much older and now mostly disregarded form of government, is the ideal system for human beings. It is the extreme end of the aforementioned trend: it is an elite of one. It is humanity's natural state. A system is always most efficient in its natural state.
Humanity finds itself with another problem though. In modern times, we are all intimately aware of one another. What happens in Paris and Tokyo daily makes the pages of the New York Times. The pages of the New York Times are daily read in every city in the world. So, even if every country in the world converted to autocracy, we would still find ourselves troubled for the fact that there would now be more then 200 autocrats, each of whom presumes himself to be without superiors or equals (and presumes correctly, within his own ideology). The natural state of a human system requires an elite of one. Humanity must therefore start World War III. There are less then a handful of countries with any real hope of winning a world war so, if they no one troubles themselves with conventions and accords and treaties, the entire war could be fought in a year or two. And, as to war must go the grain which would otherwise feed advancement and development, the sooner it's over, the better.
Once there is only a single autocratic ruler who controls the whole earth, humanity will finally have assumed its natural state. Humanity should see to this as quickly as possible: it is presently dependent for existence on both the earth and the sun and both are finite resources. Unless interstellar travel becomes an option, humanity expires with the sun and the rest of the solar system as well. Instellar travel is therefore necessary to the advancement of mankind and is more likely to develop in a world that is directing its entire intellectual output towards its development. If humanity can cut its bonds to this earth and this star, it will have bought itself enough time to enjoy a renaissance on a universal scale. But, eventually the universe will fill, as did the earth. And, rather then kings of countries, it will be filled with kings of entire star systems. Then a war for the whole universe will be necessary.
After this war, humanity will again find itself in its natural state and, again, it will find itself with a problem. The earth and the sun are finite resources. So is the universe. This fact can not be avoided, but nor should it be made an excuse for the death of humanity. Consider all the gains that man has made in the last 10,000 years. Consider that, intellectually speaking, mans growth is an exponential function. Consider how much we will know and accomplish in 100,000 years. If there is anything within the universe which can exceed the universe, it is mankind.
User Reviews
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2007-06-20 15:59:36 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
great idea
as long as you're not involved,eh?
Submitted by ampersand (user info) at 2007-06-20 14:24:22 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
goddamn right. look. i recommended WWIII.
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2007-06-20 12:28:02 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
and you are?
Submitted by ampersand (user info) at 2007-06-20 12:11:19 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
caul you are so not useful. carry on.
Submitted by ampersand (user info) at 2007-06-20 12:10:35 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
i will respond to that but I have a submittal due friday so I cant fuck around right now.
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2007-06-20 11:31:54 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
"think, like, a 100,000,000 years man...you know? we'll instaurate a geniocracy and like the pattern will be complete, man...and everybody we,ll be like...far out!
you know? think bigger, dude!"
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2007-06-20 10:36:04 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by ampersand (user info) at 2007-06-20 09:49:31 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
I'm not talking about what individuals desire. I'm not saying individual people do not want freedom and equality and all that. But just because Martin Luther King Jr. had a dream doesnt mean I'm wrong. You're trying to describe the properties of the beach by discussing the properties of a grain of sand. They arent the same.
History goes in cycles just like the stock market goes in cycles, little patterns pass us by every day. If you zoom out far enough though, bigger ones start to show up. Voting rights, MLK Jr. and Hitler are all only relevant on a small scale. Think bigger.
---------------------------
Think bigger? You asked for an example where freedoms grew and the gap between the weak and the strong closed. I gave you several that spanned hundreds of years. From the magna carta (1215) to today protection of the rights of the under class has grown.
From athenian democracy to the "rights of man" their has been a move to protect the rights and equality of man.
How about you give me an example of a tyranny that has suceeded in increasing its power gap for hundreds of years? Show me a pattern like you are talking about that is bigger than the pattern I showed.
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2007-06-20 10:03:44 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
when in short of arguments, tell your interlocutor to "think big" and "open his eyes"
your feelings aren't arguments...stfu
Submitted by ampersand (user info) at 2007-06-20 09:49:31 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
I'm not talking about what individuals desire. I'm not saying individual people do not want freedom and equality and all that. But just because Martin Luther King Jr. had a dream doesnt mean I'm wrong. You're trying to describe the properties of the beach by discussing the properties of a grain of sand. They arent the same.
History goes in cycles just like the stock market goes in cycles, little patterns pass us by every day. If you zoom out far enough though, bigger ones start to show up. Voting rights, MLK Jr. and Hitler are all only relevant on a small scale. Think bigger.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2007-06-20 09:00:41 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Your argumemnt is poorly written if your main point is that "man gravitates towards tyranny".
I and, judging by the comments, most of the readers came away with the main thrust being tyranny is what we should have. Nevermind the impossibility of finding a leader so perfect he will be perfect for life and pick a perfect successor, if your argument for it is that people gravitate towards it then your idea is even more laughable than I thought.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2007-06-20 08:55:09 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by ampersand (user info) at 2007-06-19 17:07:58 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
...Now find the group which has, over a period of time, skewed away from tyranny and towards equality. I will bet you anything you'd like that you can not find such a group. Regardless of what is natural for any single man, perfect tyranny is natural for mankind...
Repeated above is the central point in my argument. Show me I'm wrong. You can lick away as much icing as you want, it wont benefit either of us if you keep ignoring the cake.
---------------------------
Look at the UK. Yes there are still knights and royalty, but compare their rights with those of the "common man" now and 600 years ago. You don't see them being closer to equality? Look at any country in europe that still has nobility.
Look at the expansion of voting rights in the US of over the last 100 years.
History isn't a one way course towards tyranny, systems of govt rise and fall. You are taking an incredable limited and niave view of history if all you see is that people grab for power, and people try to better themselves and those like them.
History goes in cycles. There have always been grabs for power by people, there has also been grabs for equality for the people (even if it rarely trickled down to the bottom rungs). And the vast majority of societies where the common man has a shot isn't in the tyrannies.
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2007-06-20 08:49:19 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by ampersand (user info) at 2007-06-19 17:07:58 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Repeated above is the central point in my argument. Show me I'm wrong. You can lick away as much icing as you want, it wont benefit either of us if you keep ignoring the cake.
===
don't be ETS and assume you got the Truth, with a capital T.
"THE TRUTH IS THERE, DO YOU WANNA SEE IT!?"
Submitted by Saeki (user info) at 2007-06-20 08:36:38 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
A single, autocratic ruler for all of mankind? I'd be worried about the massive race wars that would result.
Submitted by Antioxident (user info) at 2007-06-19 23:34:11 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
No Comment
Submitted by i_can_get_you_a_toe (user info) at 2007-06-19 19:13:11 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
No Comment
Submitted by ampersand (user info) at 2007-06-19 17:07:58 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
...Now find the group which has, over a period of time, skewed away from tyranny and towards equality. I will bet you anything you'd like that you can not find such a group. Regardless of what is natural for any single man, perfect tyranny is natural for mankind...
Repeated above is the central point in my argument. Show me I'm wrong. You can lick away as much icing as you want, it wont benefit either of us if you keep ignoring the cake.
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2007-06-19 17:01:51 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
darth tyrannus wounded anakin
Submitted by Zeglamancer (user info) at 2007-06-19 16:56:21 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
the only thing better than seeing a well organized 4+ paragraph statement someone took time and consideration to type out logically and coherently, and not reading it.
Is to let them know I read the first sentence then skipped straight to the part where I let them know I didnt read it.
Have a LUEshi day!
.......................................................... __ . __........................
........................................................./'`: : `\,---`.„.....................
......................................................../|,-'`¯¯`\(o)_\,----,,,_...........
..................„~*¯¯`"\,............ _„_.........( `\(o),,_/` ¯ : o : : :o `-, ......
................./ : · :(",.~;*'¯¯¯"\, (_,-- ``"~,....\ : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : `\.....
.................| : · :,/`,-*~;~··-„,/ ('` ``)/· ,...\.,/` : : :_„„,: : : : : : : : : : : \...
................| : · / ,/`,--\ \'`c\,---„1 ‹'`--(_ ,/ / : : :,/` · · ): : : : : : : : : : : |...
.................) : µ'` .\ (c) `¯ . . ·`), . ,-~`.. \ : : :| · · '"\, : : : : : : : : : : :/...
.............../` ,/_~-, .`;;`„-„,__,./, ```/....... `\: :\ · · · · `*-.,_ : : : : : :,-' ....
...............`-/¨;--;~' `"*-=,=-_`" ,) ,/`..........`› : `\, · · · · · · ¯"~---,--`.......
...„„.........__\, · ', · . . . `\„_,/ ,/;-;_ ....... /` ` | ./ · · · · · · · · „-"............
.( :·`\,-~*`¯ · · ·`¯` `~--~*~---~;/`,-~*```*--, `1` / : | · · · ,---~*"`...............
. \·:··:"*~-,,„„____„„,.-~"`¯¯¯¯/ / · · · · · '\,) , / : :| · · · ·\......................
...`"'~-,„„„„„„,,~'`` . ( · · · ,.__| | · · · ·, `\„„/ ,/`: : / · · · · ·| ....................
.........................\`"""` · · ·`'~;-,„,,_)"`_-' : : / · · · · · · | ....................
......... (`*"-,„,-"¯¯"`-;„· · · · · · , /'``,-~"`¯: : : :/ · · · · · · |.....................
.......... | : :(,;-===-„, `\,· · · ,-`| · ·/ : : : | :,/` · · · · · · ·| ....................
......... . \ : :\, · · · · \\ · `\. ·)· / · / : :\ : :`~,_ · · · · · ./ .....................
............ \\,_`~.,_„,.-*\\, `/,/„/` ,/ : : :`';-.„_ : ¯-, · · · /,.......................
..............`\,,`"| : :`-,„_„))'`"` ·,/`_„,~*'` · · ( · , ,`)· ·,-; `'\,....................
.................`*-\ : : : `~----~*` / · · · · · · · · ""~"` ·/` ·( _ :)..................
............. ,.¬-,--\ : : : : : : : : / · · · · · · · · · ·,,-"`.....'-„,-'...................
..............| |: :*:\ : : : : : : :_/ „____„„„„,---~*`.................................
............./ / : : : `~-„„„„„,.;;`,,.--`.................................................
............| | : : : :|¯ : ,/ ¯ ..........................................................
.............\,\,_,„./---~`...............................................................
..........................................................................................
Submitted by icarus1987 (user info) at 2007-06-19 16:31:57 EDT (#)
Ranking: -1
It's been done.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2007-06-19 16:22:22 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by ampersand (user info) at 2007-06-19 15:40:38 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Your problem is with the connotations of the word tyrant. Tyranny is not an evil by definition. Every Roman emperor was a tyrant and many were very, very good rulers.
If anyone actually feels like reading Platos Republic, I think you might actually end up prefering my oiled tyrant to his golden rulers. Plato certainly did not advocate a democratic republic. There is no free speech in Plato's republic. There aren't even nuclear families. If you fuck your wife and she gets pregnant, you aren't going to raise that child. Is the prize of representative government worth the price of censorship and forced eugenics?
-------------------
what representative government is advocating censorship and forced eugenics now? Pretty tough to find one, however I know many Tyrannies that are actually enforcing those.
I mean you make a great debate if you were debating with Plato thousands of years ago. Why don't you wait a few years until you have read more than one book about govt before you decide how the human race should be ruled.
Submitted by ampersand (user info) at 2007-06-19 15:40:38 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Your problem is with the connotations of the word tyrant. Tyranny is not an evil by definition. Every Roman emperor was a tyrant and many were very, very good rulers.
If anyone actually feels like reading Platos Republic, I think you might actually end up prefering my oiled tyrant to his golden rulers. Plato certainly did not advocate a democratic republic. There is no free speech in Plato's republic. There aren't even nuclear families. If you fuck your wife and she gets pregnant, you aren't going to raise that child. Is the prize of representative government worth the price of censorship and forced eugenics?
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2007-06-19 14:45:02 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
fuck that, tyranny is cool.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2007-06-19 14:36:06 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by ampersand (user info) at 2007-06-19 14:15:12 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Regardless of what is natural for any single man, perfect tyranny is natural for mankind. I can not put it in any simpler terms then that.
-------------------------
That is simply wrong.
When has man ever lived under tyranny and been happy, or not attempted to end it?
Submitted by ampersand (user info) at 2007-06-19 14:15:12 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
You people blow my mind. You pick one sentence out of an argument and attack it as though it existed on its own without the hundreds of other words I put around it. Stop picking out specific examples and learn to look at the big picture. Look at trends. Its fucking natural because its what happens to any large group of people over time.
Suppose that the combined power of every person in a particular group sums up to 100 power units (PU). This model has two extremes. At one end those 100PU are divided amongst every member equally: perfect equality. At the other end a single man possess all 100PU: perfect tyranny. I'm not sure whether either extreme is possible in practical terms (I lean towards tyranny being possible but equality impossible) but it doesnt matter. Now pick any group in history and it fall fairly neatly somwhere between those two extremes. Now find the group which has, over a period of time, skewed away from tyranny and towards equality. I will bet you anything you'd like that you can not find such a group. Regardless of what is natural for any single man, perfect tyranny is natural for mankind. I can not put it in any simpler terms then that.
Power will only corrupt a man who is not strong enough to wield it.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2007-06-19 13:01:31 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by ampersand (user info) at 2007-06-19 12:49:56 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
"unless there is a system in place that gives people the power to make sure the next ruler is he eventually won't be."
Wrong. Presuming we do get the right guy in power (or if not precisely the one best human, someone close to him) (which is not as dangerous a presumption as it seems) he will know better then anyone else who should carry the torch after he dies. No other system is necessary if we get the first one right.
----------------------
So you think that not only is there a person out there so perfect they will never decide to abuse their power, but that they will also have the ability to pick someone else that perfect to lead after they die?
Yeah, that is way better than any govt we have. Just pick the perfect leader and give them all the power.
Submitted by raebuf (user info) at 2007-06-19 12:59:52 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
"Once there is only a single autocratic ruler who controls the whole earth, humanity will finally have assumed its natural state."
______________________
What a moronic belief. I don't normally chastise others for their beliefs, but this one is just fucking idiotic.
What is natural about dictatorships?
Fidel Castro?
Hitler?
Numerous 'kings' of nations befallen for their greed and misruling?
...putting ultimate and supreme power into the hands of any single person is a grave mistake.
"Power tends to corrupt; absolute power corrupts absolutely."
-Lord Acton
Submitted by ampersand (user info) at 2007-06-19 12:49:56 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
"unless there is a system in place that gives people the power to make sure the next ruler is he eventually won't be."
Wrong. Presuming we do get the right guy in power (or if not precisely the one best human, someone close to him) (which is not as dangerous a presumption as it seems) he will know better then anyone else who should carry the torch after he dies. No other system is necessary if we get the first one right.
Submitted by ubetidid (user info) at 2007-06-19 12:42:01 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
"America is a skyscraper who's architects continuously add floors at the top but completely neglect the crumbling foundation."
I think you might be on to something there...
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2007-06-19 12:40:33 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2007-06-19 11:01:55 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
All I can say is, don't read my posts if they irritate you so much. It's pretty simple.
Also, I doubt you're 12 years older than me judging by your picture, not that it matters. I know people 3 times my age that don't have a fucking clue what's going on in the world. Meet a new one just about every day.
===
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2007-06-19 10:15:01 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
"Procreation is the goal of life."
I stopped there. I can already tell that you are about 17 or 18 years old at most and you still don't know shit about the world, although you think you do. Actually, sometimes you catch glimpses of it as it rolls past your one track mind with the top down and a hooker in the back seat, but then you go back to making senseless statements like the one that started this post.
Submitted by PioneerBill (user info) at 2007-06-19 12:19:56 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
No Comment
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2007-06-19 12:19:42 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Once there is only a single autocratic ruler who controls the whole earth, humanity will finally have assumed its natural state.
--------------------------
Our natural state has never been to follow one ruler as a united species.
I am not going to try and argue that I know the perfect political system, but here are definately some that are better than others, and I have yet to see an example of a kind all powerful ruler.
Even if you have a benign all powerful ruler, he (I am a sexist little pig aren't I) won't live forever, and unless there is a system in place that gives people the power to make sure the next ruler is he eventually won't be.
Submitted by ampersand (user info) at 2007-06-19 12:06:51 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
I think its not a pig with wings. I think if Caesar had managed his relationship with Brutus (and Brutus' mother) history would've turned out alot differently. But in any event thank you for your thoughts, I'll keep them in mind.
Submitted by simple_catalyst (user info) at 2007-06-19 12:01:09 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
solid +0.
Submitted by ampersand (user info) at 2007-06-19 11:56:00 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
"You should not judge a person based on a half hour of idle thought."
I agree with that. But please understand, I'm not judging you so much as I'm judging ME at your age.
But, one thing separates us apparently, because at your age I was a relativist, meaning there was no such thing as "better" person or "worse" person. Come to think of it...I still believe that. Go figure.
===
Well perhaps we are only seperated by our thoughts on the purpose of life. If you suppose there is no purpose, or choose not to think about it, then from that stand point no human being is better then another. But is you suppose a purpose, be it Darwinian or otherwise, then its necessary that, as we are not all perfectly identical some of us are better suited to this purpose then others. Its unavoidable.
===
To assert that the lowliest people should have no representation in government is a symptom of the Darwinist attitude that is pervading today's education system. When everything is thought of in Darwinist terms, the "divine right of kings" doesn't look so far-fetched. But please, Jesus, God, whoever, don't take us back to that.
===
The problem with letting the people rule, or have a say in rule, is that most people dont know whats good for them.
===
We fought a pretty bloody civil war over it as I recall, and we got a pretty good Constitutional Republic out of the deal. It wasn't perfect, but a little tweaking here and there and it still could be pretty kick ass. 'Twould be a shame to throw that all away now. While I'll readily agree that overthrowing our current government looks pretty attractive, we shouldn't throw the baby out with the bathwater.
===
But we've backed ourselves into a corner now and I dont see any Republic-oriented ways out of it. We elect a president for a term of four years. He spends those four years trying to get the next four. Then he spends the next four trying to make sure that America is looking good (and LOOKING is exactly the right word) by the time hes out. Congress is even worse (do you know of any other group in the world that sets its own pay rate and still has to swindle its customers, us, to earn a living?).
The American government is 10x too large and its educational system is 10x too small. Even if we elect a president who knows this and knows what to do about it, hes handcuffed by the politics of a representative system. So much of what needs to be done is so thoroughly politically-suicidal that no politician is willing to do it. So its never going to get done. America is a skyscraper who's architects continuously add floors at the top but completely neglect the crumbling foundation. If it keeps going in its current direction it will fall much sooner then anyone would like to think about and it will take the rest of the world with it. There will be a new dark age and it will be longer then the first. Eventually society will rebuild, but getting from the ruins of America to whatever comes next will take longer then it took to get from the ruins of Rome to America today. And if we do it wrong society will collapse into another, yet longer dark age. Ad infinitum. Or rather, ad until the sun turns into a red giant in about 5 billion years. And then thats it. For as long as the universe lasts after that point, there will be no human beings in it. And that is a dark universe to my eyes.
Submitted by Adamdidit2u (user info) at 2007-06-19 11:45:26 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Articulate.
However, I'd like to see WWIII started for the sole purpose of eliminating a large portion of the population. Think about it, lose 1-2 billion people (mostly brown people) and there would be less pressure on the planet in almost every concievable way.
Neutron bombs for all!
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2007-06-19 11:37:54 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by ampersand (user info) at 2007-06-19 11:18:36 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
You arent grasping the concept here ETS. Every time we impose a republic of any sort, be it with a capitalist economy, a communist economy or an economy based completely on pickles and butterflies, it fails. Mankind tends away from equality. The elite seperates itself and twists the whole damn thing into an oligarchy. Do you really believe your representative in congress is serving you right now? Do you think hes even trying to serve you? Do you think the the prefects and consuls of Rome tried to serve their citizens? Lets stop making pretensions at being a republic and call America what it is: a fucked up beauracratic, oligarchy.
And then lets replace it. I'd rather have a level headed tyrant, running a well oiled machine, with the luxury of time and power to act in the interest of the future then a collection of several hundred senior citizens all of whom concerned merely with the perpetuation of their political careers rather then with the function of those careers.
-----------
In all fairness, I didn't read the whole post. I should have if for no other reason than because I hate it when others do that to me, but seriously...listen to yourself... "I'd rather have a level-headed tyrant"...
Is that anything like a proverbial pig with wings?
Look, all we can do as citizens is continue to defy those that say we do not have the rights we know we have. There are really a lot of things we can do to defy them. Convert all your Federal Reserve Notes to silver or gold and arrange with local merchants to trade only in that commodity. We can still speak our minds. We can still bear arms...sort of, as long as there isn't a Katrina-like emergency..or a presidential declaration of state of emergency for no reason which can't be reviewed for up to 6 months by congress...or unless it's to carry an automatic weapon, which is what would be required to make any militia "well regulated" by today's standards...you catch my drift.
Just remember this...your human rights are given to you by God, not by man. Assert them at all costs against any kind of tyranny, be it from an oligarchy, a democracy, a republic...whatever. Resist to the death. Speak the truth and no one can hide from it for long.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2007-06-19 11:26:49 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by ampersand (user info) at 2007-06-19 10:20:18 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
I'm 19. Jimmy and Apollo are correct that I'm mixing terms, but its irrelevant. What I'm trying to say is that every system under which humans have so far organized on large scales is incorrect for humanity. Genetically, and in other ways too, some people are better then others. Therefore there is a best and worst person. It seems reasonable to me that the best person excercises autocratic rule over the rest.
----------------------
"You should not judge a person based on a half hour of idle thought."
I agree with that. But please understand, I'm not judging you so much as I'm judging ME at your age.
But, one thing separates us apparently, because at your age I was a relativist, meaning there was no such thing as "better" person or "worse" person. Come to think of it...I still believe that. Go figure.
To assert that the lowliest people should have no representation in government is a symptom of the Darwinist attitude that is pervading today's education system. When everything is thought of in Darwinist terms, the "divine right of kings" doesn't look so far-fetched. But please, Jesus, God, whoever, don't take us back to that.
We fought a pretty bloody civil war over it as I recall, and we got a pretty good Constitutional Republic out of the deal. It wasn't perfect, but a little tweaking here and there and it still could be pretty kick ass. 'Twould be a shame to throw that all away now. While I'll readily agree that overthrowing our current government looks pretty attractive, we shouldn't throw the baby out with the bathwater.
Submitted by ampersand (user info) at 2007-06-19 11:18:36 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
You arent grasping the concept here ETS. Every time we impose a republic of any sort, be it with a capitalist economy, a communist economy or an economy based completely on pickles and butterflies, it fails. Mankind tends away from equality. The elite seperates itself and twists the whole damn thing into an oligarchy. Do you really believe your representative in congress is serving you right now? Do you think hes even trying to serve you? Do you think the the prefects and consuls of Rome tried to serve their citizens? Lets stop making pretensions at being a republic and call America what it is: a fucked up beauracratic, oligarchy.
And then lets replace it. I'd rather have a level headed tyrant, running a well oiled machine, with the luxury of time and power to act in the interest of the future then a collection of several hundred senior citizens all of whom concerned merely with the perpetuation of their political careers rather then with the function of those careers.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2007-06-19 10:31:11 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
"The flaw of both communism and democracy is that their theory asks a population to resist this trend and remain level. That is why autocracy, the goverment of one, a much older and now mostly disregarded form of government, is the ideal system for human beings."
--------------
I just couldn't help myself so I started skimming down the post and came across this little gem.
I'm gonna say this one time, and I suggest you do some serious reading on this subject before you talk completely out of your ass any more than you have to.... It's called a REPUBLIC.
It's what we live in. And a lot of people much smarter than you like, I don't know, say, PLATO and THOMAS JEFFERSON, knew that it was the best form of government possible - a system with checks and balances and assurances of civil rights that prevents the kind of abuses of power we've seen throughout human history.
200 MILLION dead by their own government's hands in the 20th century alone according to some estimates! Think about that before you go spouting out your stupid, ill-informed ass about the benefits of autocracy.
As the saying goes, "Democracy is two wolves and a rabbit voting on who's for dinner." And Communism is giving up the rights of the one for the rights of the many, a complete contradiction. And why don't we just call your "autocracy" what it really is...a fucking Dictatorship. The only differences between a Dictatorship and a Monarchy, even a "Constitutional" one is in name alone. They are both disasters waiting to happen... If not with this guy, the next guy. If not with him, the guy after him. Eventually, some sociopathic fuck will come along who thinks everyone should worship him as a god and, OH WHAT LUCK! He's got a crown too! And command of a largely unquestioning police force! And what's that??? The people have no right to keep and bear arms? No right to speak out against the leader? Interesting... But hey! They've got plenty of cake! And, SHIT...IS THAT A CIRCUS!?!?!
Submitted by ampersand (user info) at 2007-06-19 10:20:18 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
I'm 19. Jimmy and Apollo are correct that I'm mixing terms, but its irrelevant. What I'm trying to say is that every system under which humans have so far organized on large scales is incorrect for humanity. Genetically, and in other ways too, some people are better then others. Therefore there is a best and worst person. It seems reasonable to me that the best person excercises autocratic rule over the rest.
I understand that life is just a flash in the pan of the universe and that biological time scales are tiny compared to the universal time scale. Even though we regard evolution as an extremely slow force, in terms of the universe, its quite rapid. I would say that the human brain is so far the sum of all evolution on earth. From a Darwinian standpoint you might argue in favor of bugs and insects but, personally, I consider interstellar travel entirely beyond insects, now and forever. Perhaps I'm incorrect but thats a digression for another day. The point is that without interstellar travel, humanity dies with the sun. With it, we have the whole universe at our feet to grow and expand through as we would.
Spare me your jokes about the universe being better off without us because its not. And spare me your condescencion, just because you are older then me doesnt mean you know more then I do. You should not judge a person based on a half hour of idle thought.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2007-06-19 10:15:01 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
"Procreation is the goal of life."
I stopped there. I can already tell that you are about 17 or 18 years old at most and you still don't know shit about the world, although you think you do. Actually, sometimes you catch glimpses of it as it rolls past your one track mind with the top down and a hooker in the back seat, but then you go back to making senseless statements like the one that started this post.
How far off am I?
Submitted by raebuf (user info) at 2007-06-19 10:06:32 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
ampersand = desolatemisanthrope
Submitted by SunnyG (user info) at 2007-06-19 09:59:11 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
No kid...just no.
Submitted by apollo88 (user info) at 2007-06-19 09:57:28 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
communism is a form of economic development its opposite is capitalism not democracy.
Communism (unless corrupted) is actually the ultimate democracy.
Submitted by St_Jimmy (user info) at 2007-06-19 09:36:24 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
"War is delightful to those who have had no experience of it."---Desiderius Erasmus
Submitted by St_Jimmy (user info) at 2007-06-19 09:35:24 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Let me guess, you're about 17.
I say that because most of what you said was wrong, but the piece as a whole does have a bit of truthiness to it.
Just an FYI, democracy is not equal to capitalism. Capitalism is an economic theory while democracy is a type of government.
However, auto +2 for trying to write something smart.
Submitted by TheUniter (user info) at 2007-06-19 08:56:41 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
Submitted by Flapjacksupreme (user info) at 2007-06-19 07:33:07 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Why I recommend that you stop posting... http://www.ubersite.com/m/109351
Submitted by czwij (user info) at 2007-06-19 05:33:19 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
i come here to be amused and entertained.
essays are not my thing, sorry.
Submitted by Nellypaal (user info) at 2007-06-19 05:26:35 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Completely flawed rubbish
Submitted by beeltea (user info) at 2007-06-19 05:10:32 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by Bushy (user info) at 2007-06-19 04:03:30 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
pure tripe
---
yeah well your mother's menudo
Submitted by Maestro (user info) at 2007-06-19 04:40:50 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
No Comment
Submitted by Bushy (user info) at 2007-06-19 04:03:30 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
pure tripe
Submitted by beeltea (user info) at 2007-06-19 02:07:27 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
well i'm sold
Submitted by Plus2 (user info) at 2007-06-19 01:24:12 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
You would really, really like the book "A Short History of Nearly Everything" by Bill Bryson. It is not philosophy, but it does neatly summarize the larger picture of where humans fit in the loop.
Hey, you don't even need to pay for it. Just pick up a copy from your local library, which is funded by your government by the way. :-D
One of the chapters explains just how many things can wipe humanity off the face of the earth. Yellowstone volcano erruption, quake, ice ages, polar magnetic shift, supervirus, meteor, huge solar flares, etc. Humans shouldn't last too long.
Submitted by pandora (user info) at 2007-06-19 01:18:31 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Okay, I read further, and I see that you're suggesting we leave Earth and continue all this bullshit elsewhere. I vote "no".
Submitted by pandora (user info) at 2007-06-19 01:15:21 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
The word is "than", not "then". And 10,000 years doesn't mean shit in the grand scheme of things.
I'm sure the Earth will live on long after we kill ourselves/render our environment uninhabitable/get wiped out by a natural disaster.
Not to be a downer, but we're like a flea on a dog's ass.
Submitted by Wompom (user info) at 2007-06-19 01:12:43 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
you are eerily on course in some regards but far off in others. Stick to fiction, you might be good at it.
Submitted by lungfish (user info) at 2007-06-19 00:58:26 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
This would have been great if the last paragraph simply read, \"PSYCHE!!\"
I disagree with many, if not most points used to structure your argument, but I\'m not going to argue about it because: (1) by nature, I am not terribly argumentative; and (2) I just ate a huge bowl of ice cream and I\'m lactose-intolerant and am starting to cramp which means massive ugliness is about to unfold in the bathroom.
Please excuse all the backslashes. They are the fault of one Bart Cilfone, whom I love as a brother. Not really, but it might suit me to kiss his ass for a while.
Submitted by ilikesteak (user info) at 2007-06-19 00:51:43 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
this was sooooo boring