Use this thread to describe your ideal state. Describe the mechanics of it. For example would your state be authoritarian in nature or ruled by elected officials like in a democracy. Would your state have a Code of Law? If so describe it. Would it have a Constitution? If your ideal state would not be a state at all explicitly describe what you have in mind. Also use this thread to criticize and complement various political ideologies or forms of organization.

I feel a "liberal vs conservative" *****fight coming on...

Anyway, to me, the ideal state would comprise elements of both meritocracy and democracy. In other words, your vote is a choice between three or four competent state-runing entities.

>>I feel a "liberal vs conservative" *****fight coming on...

I usually have alot of fun attacking both liberals and conservatives. Nice username btw. Can we have custom titles here?

>>Anyway, to me, the ideal state would comprise elements of both meritocracy and democracy.

Describe this democracy. Would all citizens be accorded equal rights. If so, why? Would these rights be conferred upon birth?

>>In other words, your vote is a choice between three or four competent state-runing entities.

In your ideal state who should be accorded the right to vote? Would political parties exist in your ideal state? Also how would you make a transition from a society of your choice to your ideal state?

Originally posted by Timothy Price
I usually have alot of fun attacking both liberals and conservatives. Nice username btw. Can we have custom titles here? That's good, thankyou, and yes you can!
Originally posted by Timothy Price
Describe this democracy. Would all citizens be accorded equal rights. If so, why? Would these rights be conferred upon birth?As Aristotle said "the State exists to enable it's citizens to live a full life". For this, the citizens must have equal rights... at any given age. For example, six-year-olds would have the right to free education but not to vote, and sixty year olds the other way around. So, basically, rights would be conferred by birth, but they change with age.

Originally posted by Timothy Price
In your ideal state who should be accorded the right to vote? Would political parties exist in your ideal state? Also how would you make a transition from a society of your choice to your ideal state? Political parties are inevitable, but I'm not sure if you're talking about an ideal state that is possible, or a purely ideal state.

Basically, for me there are two kinds of decisions a government should NOT make.
1) those that are too trivial. i.e. "Should I drink tea or coffee?"

2) those that are too important i.e. "Should our country put the people first, or the nation first?"

As for the right to vote, everyone who is not
1) Serving a prison sentence

2) Mentally ill or otherwise incapable of making the decision

3) minors

Why? Basically, you have a dilemma: you need competent rulers who have power (monarchy), but you also need to make them accountable to the people (republic). Therefore, you need an electoral system which 1) can only elect competent people, and 2) where everyone can vote.

If you have ONLY democracy or ONLY monarchy you have a recipe for ochlocracy or despotocracy respectively.

>>That's good, thankyou, and yes you can!

How do I do that? I would like to change my custom title to Eternal Cynic?

>>As Aristotle said "the State exists to enable it's citizens to live a full life". For this, the citizens must have equal rights... at any given age. For example, six-year-olds would have the right to free education but not to vote, and sixty year olds the other way around. So, basically, rights would be conferred by birth, but they change with age.

Are you familiar with Aristotle? Yes it was Aristotle’s opinion that the state exists by nature, man was a political animal, and destined to live in a polis (state). The function of the state is to increase the self-sufficiency of its members but how does this mean that individuals must be accorded equal rights, including the right to vote, for citizens to be able to live a full life? What is the function of the individual? Also why should *equal rights* but conferred upon birth, rather than being earned, for they could be *more* appreciated? Should any citizen be able to vote, and should any citizen’s vote have the same value as another’s? If so why? Should the illiterate be running the ship of state, in an ideal state?

>>Political parties are inevitable, but I'm not sure if you're talking about an ideal state that is possible, or a purely ideal state

How are political parites inevitable? Does this not presuppose that the ideal state would be some form of democracy? Yes statesmen should be responsible to the public but why must they become populist demagogues out of political self interest?

>>Basically, for me there are two kinds of decisions a government should NOT make.

I think this depends more on which type of government we are talking about.

>>1) those that are too trivial. i.e. "Should I drink tea or coffee?"

With this I pretty much agree.

>> 2) those that are too important i.e. "Should our country put the people first, or the nation first?"

This returns us to the central question of who should come first, the community or the individual? Which in your opinion, should take precedence?

>>As for the right to vote, everyone who is not

Lets take a look.

>>1) Serving a prison sentence[i/]

Criminals should be stripped of their citizenship.

[i]>>2) Mentally ill or otherwise incapable of making the decision

Would this be because these people are irrational and we want rational people making decisions?

>> 3) minors

I agree, but I would like to know why in your opinion minors should not be allowed to vote.

>>Why? Basically, you have a dilemma: you need competent rulers who have power (monarchy), but you also need to make them accountable to the people (republic). Therefore, you need an electoral system which 1) can only elect competent people, and 2) where everyone can vote.

Does *equal rights* however give political power to the incompetent and the irrational rather than the rational and the most qualified?

>>If you have ONLY democracy or ONLY monarchy you have a recipe for ochlocracy or despotocracy respectively.

IMO there are other forms of government than those based on absolute power or social equality.

Ideal state? One utilizing a strict interpretation, and unconditional allegiance to the original U.S. constitution.

86, what does Novus Ordo Seclorum mean? Where is it from? I am looking for some cool Latin with historical context to put under my American flag tatoo. Ideas?

>>Ideal state? One utilizing a strict interpretation, and unconditional allegiance to the original U.S. constitution.

It appears to me we stopped listening to the Constitution a long time ago.

Originally posted by Timothy Price
How do I do that? I would like to change my custom title to [i]Eternal Cynic? Ask Manu. And no plagerism! (j/k)Originally posted by Timothy Price
Are you familiar with Aristotle? Yes it was Aristotle’s opinion that the state exists by nature, man was a political animal, and destined to live in a polis (state). The function of the state is to increase the self-sufficiency of its members but how does this mean that individuals must be accorded equal rights, including the right to vote, for citizens to be able to live a full life? Because to live a full life, you must have as much social freedom as possible. And how is one to attain social freedom without beginning with social equality tim?Originally posted by Timothy Price What is the function of the individual? Also why should *equal rights* but conferred upon birth, rather than being earned, for they could be *more* appreciated? Should any citizen be able to vote, and should any citizen’s vote have the same value as another’s? If so why? Should the illiterate be running the ship of state, in an ideal state? Basically, in a state where education is ideal, there should not be any incompetence to understand politics, and this only leaves those who do not WISH to be part of the process. AS for rights being earned, how do you propose this is done, without a basis of rights to start with?Originally posted by Timothy Price How are political parites inevitable? Does this not presuppose that the ideal state would be some form of democracy?Have you studied political history? If so, you will see a common pattern. Across all countries, those with similar views will unite. Even on DA it can be observed. Once they are in a group, is it not logical that formal organisation should follow?Originally posted by Timothy Price Yes statesmen should be responsible to the public but why must they become populist demagogues out of political self interest? How can they be responsible to the public if public support does not matter to them Tim?Originally posted by Timothy Price This returns us to the central question of who should come first, the community or the individual? Which in your opinion, should take precedence? In matters of religion, sexuality, etc. the individual; but in economics, the community. Why is this, before you ask? BEcause social freedom and economic freedom are to some extent mutually exclusive. There is no point in freedom of speech if you can't afford an education, is there?Originally posted by Timothy Price Would this be because these people are irrational and we want rational people making decisions?Basically, yes. There is no point in freedom do make a decision, if you do not know what it entails.Originally posted by Timothy Price I agree, but I would like to know why in your opinion minors should not be allowed to vote. Because they cannot have had enough education to make political decisions. IS that the same reason as yours?Originally posted by Timothy Price Does *equal rights* however give political power to the incompetent and the irrational rather than the rational and the most qualified? I am using an absolute, not a relative standard. Either you have the mental stability to make the decision, or you don't. wouldn't you agree?Originally posted by Timothy Price IMO there are other forms of government than those based on absolute power or social equality. Like what?

Originally posted by 86Dude
Ideal state? One utilizing a strict interpretation, and unconditional allegiance to the original U.S. constitution.

I agree with that.

To paraphrase Clarence Carson, leviathon -- huge and expansive government -- has come to America in the 20th century by way of all sorts of laws, government organizations and agencies which allege to be for the public good but in fact are to the public's detriment. They operate by bureaus whose government tentacles penetrate into the lives of the citizens. They take away power and authority of the citizens have over their lives and property. The Presidents, Congress and Supreme Court do this by ignoring the Constitution especially the tenth amendment which states that, "The powers not delegated to the US by the Copnstitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

The government that exists now is oppressive because it is unconstitutional and it does bad things. In addition it is like a religion in that it taxes citizens. As P.J. O'Rourke noted, "The federal government of the USA takes away a fifth to a quarter of all our money each year. That is eight times the Islamic zakat, the almsgiving required of believers by the Koran; it is double the tithe of the medieval church and twice the royal tribute that the prophet Samuel warned the Israelites against when they wanted to anoint a ruler."

Well, I think that voting should be apportioned the way shareholders vote in a company-- let's drop our pretenses and just have a government that everyone has "stock" in.

The more shares you own, the more of a voice you have. It comines the best of capitalism and socialism.

Everyone, at birth would receive 1 share.

>>Ask Manu. And no plagerism! (j/k)

Ok, thanks. I will PM him.

>>Because to live a full life, you must have as much social freedom as possible. And how is one to attain social freedom without beginning with social equality tim?

I disagree because it seems here you are equating the good life with social freedom. If that was indeed the case it would seem to follow half of the American public is miserable since they usually fail to vote. Do you support anarchy? In my opinion the best life is one lead by reason and rationality since reason is man’s means of survival. I would like to apply this principle to the community, which is also a composite. In my ideal state, the best state, should be one ran by reason rather than desire which I equate to freedom of choice. Running the state should be in the hands of rational and qualified statesmen, not the irrational masses. I do support some sort of particpation by the public, but not one based on social equality especially innate citizenship, perhaps some form of meritocracy. We already legislate against unreason, we already place limits on social freedom. I myself am not a utilitarian.

>>Basically, in a state where education is ideal, there should not be any incompetence to understand politics, and this only leaves those who do not WISH to be part of the process. AS for rights being earned, how do you propose this is done, without a basis of rights to start with?

I myself do not think education can solve all problems and even in an ideal state education alone will never produce citizens of equal competency. Why should citizens be guaranteed rights they do not exercise or value? Should we make it a goal or not to ensure the most competent are making the most important decisions in the state? Would citizenship and thus the right to vote be valued more if it was earned rather than simply thrown away? I suggest upon birth children born within the state should be made subjects of the state and granted a limited number of inferior rights. Full citizenship, with the right to vote, can be earned through a rigid meritocracy that rewards the most competant who could thus make better and more qualified political decisions. Citizens would have superior rights to subjects of the state in my system.

>>Have you studied political history? If so, you will see a common pattern. Across all countries, those with similar views will unite. Even on DA it can be observed. Once they are in a group, is it not logical that formal organisation should follow?

Yes I am quite a fan of political science. I have also noticed that the best state arrangement is one in which the population is united in a common cause with the vice of political bickering and partisanship. In the United States this is best demonstrated by unity displayed in the Confederate States embarking upon independence and also in the early days during and after the American revolution. Partisanship it appears to me ensures mediocrity and puts petty interests above those of the society. In an ideal state we should prefer unity to disunity.

>>How can they be responsible to the public if public support does not matter to them Tim?

If their *class* is dependent upon the population for their survival. See The Republic.

>>In matters of religion, sexuality, etc. the individual; but in economics, the community.

Why have you come to this conclusion? Should the state legislate and punish pedophiles?

>>Why is this, before you ask? BEcause social freedom and economic freedom are to some extent mutually exclusive. There is no point in freedom of speech if you can't afford an education, is there?

Are you referring to free market capitalism? Could you please clarify you position I do not want to misrepresent you. There is no such thing as freedom of speech in America, there never has been. There have always been limits on freedom of speech. The question has always been to what extent. I have not suggested privatization of the public education system. This almost ensures inequality. Should unequal citizens be accorded equal rights?

>>Basically, yes. There is no point in freedom do make a decision, if you do not know what it entails.

If we want rational people making decisions does not according citizens upon birth with innate voting rights virtually assure irrational decision making? Why should the irrational and the unqualified be performing the most important function in the state, running it that is? Why not have some form of requirments and confer voting rights upon completion?

>>Because they cannot have had enough education to make political decisions. IS that the same reason as yours?

My system is based on competency and reason, not the extent of one’s education totally. I do believe their should be a prerequisite level of knowledge in order to vote however.

>>I am using an absolute, not a relative standard. Either you have the mental stability to make the decision, or you don't. wouldn't you agree?

If your standard is reason then do you agree that there are plenty of voters who are irrational, yet not insane? Should these people be allowed to vote?

>>Like what?

Timarchy for example. There are many sorts of state arrangements. I as of yet to do not have a label for what I would describe as *my system* although it would be in part Platonic.

don't go away tim, I'll postmore tomorrow.

1) An economic system in which limited free enterprise is alowed to practice but where there are safety valvues so that the poor will be supported. Employment shal be guranteed. For those unable to work support shal be guranteed.
2) Universal health care shal be a right.
3) Guns and weapons of mass destruction shal be abolished.
4) Military service shal be entirely voluntary. Soldiers shal be paid a livable wage.
5) Education shal be free to all citizens to the University level and beyond. All citizens shal be free to pursue the livlihood of their choice.
6) There shal be freedom of speech, of the press, of free association.
7) The Army shal only be used to defend the nations borders.
8) There shal be complete freedom of religion for all people of faith.
9) People should have the freedom to make their own choices as long as it does not interfere with the rights of others, drugs, prostitution, liquor and junk food would all be legal for consenting adults.
10) The penal system should be based on positive reinforcement and rehibilitation. Rape, torture and the death penalty have no place in the modern prison.

>>An economic system in which limited free enterprise is allowed to practice but where there are safety values so that the poor will be supported.

Why exactly should we even care about the poor, let alone support them? The only citizens we must support are those who are productive members of society. We shouldn't concern ourselves with retired toothpaste technicians—especially if it means taxing the most productive members of society.

>>Employment shall be guaranteed.

Let me get this straight. Are you actually proposing that employers be forbidden to fire unproductive workers just because it would violate their supposedly inherent right to work? Should the state guarantee the most thoroughly useless and unproductive members of society a job? What purpose would this guarantee serve?

>>For those unable to work support shall be guaranteed.

Please explain to me exactly why productive members of society should be taxed in order to support useless vegetables.

>>Guns and weapons of mass destruction shall be abolished.

First of all, how precisely do you propose protecting the citizens of your state from external threats? Do you seriously believe that foreign nations will not take advantage of your voluntary and incredibly illogical disarmament? How could such a deliberately counterproductive move improve the lives of any of your citizens?

Secondly, the notion that you are going to somehow abolish all the weapons in your nation is ridiculous. Do you plan to disarm Police Officers too, or just the civilian population? If you are talking about disarming the civilian population, then how exactly do you propose to go about disarming criminals? Do you really think that all criminals will voluntarily hand over their firearms? Of course they won't, because criminals are as incredibly ridiculous as your policies.

>>Military service shall be entirely voluntary. Soldiers shall be paid a liveable wage.

I suppose people are just going to volunteer to fight in an Army that has just abolished all of its nuclear weapons.

>>Education shall be free to all citizens to the University level and beyond.

Are you actually proposing that all citizens, including the most worthless, be given a free University education?

>>The Army shall only be used to defend the nations borders.

And what is to be used to defend against nuclear attack?

>>The penal system should be based on positive reinforcement and rehabilitation.

It costs over 500,000 dollars to unsuccessfully rehabilitate a murderer. A bullet costs about 15 cents. Please clarify the reasoning behind your proposal that we should spend even more money on the most despicable and worthless people in society. And when you are done, explain the net benefit to society rehabilitating murderers has.

Ideal State....


Until last week, I'd have said Colorado. Nice weather, normally, but I'm not big on having my house burned down.





*sorry- this thread needed some humour*

Originally posted by Fordman50
86, what does Novus Ordo Seclorum mean? Where is it from? I am looking for some cool Latin with historical context to put under my American flag tatoo. Ideas?

Means "New World Order". On the back of every U.S. one dollar bill for the last 70 years at least. Now theres a conspiracy theory for you.

I have several ideas for the ideal state. None of which are perfect because they're the product of a human, and would involve humans living in them. So ideal structure would be so complext it would make the actual creation impossible. but anywho:

A) The free state. Much like our current state. Social liberty, with just enough economic intervention by a centralized gov't to keep things moving and keep everyone more or less happy. Except the soial conservatives. The populous would have elected representatives but much like our own system a constitution would be in place to guarentee freedom from the desires of the majority. This is the comfortable world.

B)The meritocracy state (videogame land): All technology and consumr items would be controlled by the gov't. Acquisition of the technology would be the result of demonstrating skills and abilities through a testing and qualification system designed to prove that you can duplicate the skills that the technology replaces. It would decrease specialization in the society. It would increase a broader ability by the general public to do more tasks. The gov't would have authoritarian control over technology, but human's would have basic social freedoms other than this, and property rights.

C) The natural world. Total anarchy, with the only rule being that no one forms alliances. Man at his most primitive. Out in the wilds. No civilization, no nothing. No laws against anything. I'd expect murder, violence and mayhem. Why? Because it focusses on humans as humans, not humans as members of a civilization. Increases the stength of our stock.

Justin

Originally posted by Timothy Price
I disagree because it seems here you are equating [i]the good life with social freedom. If that was indeed the case it would seem to follow half of the American public is miserable since they usually fail to vote.
Firstly, I am not a utilitarian either, therefore I do not equate "the good life" with lack of misery, although happiness is needed. Secondly, having the RIGHT to vote does not entail the DUTY to vote. It is possible to have social freedom, and exercise none of it. If that is your good life, then why not? Because you still have the choice to exercise some or all of it.
Originally posted by Timothy Price
Do you support anarchy?
No I don't. It is a recipe for mob rule.
Originally posted by Timothy Price
In my opinion the best life is one lead by reason and rationality since reason is man’s means of survival. I would like to apply this principle to the community, which is also a composite. In my ideal state, the best state, should be one ran by reason rather than desire which I equate to freedom of choice. Running the state should be in the hands of rational and qualified statesmen, not the irrational masses.
I only partly agree. What should be in the hands of the rational, as you say, is HOW the state should be run, in other words, the positive of politics. The normative aspects should be in the hands of the people, in the form of elections.
Originally posted by Timothy Price
I do support some sort of particpation by the public, but not one based on social equality especially innate citizenship, perhaps some form of meritocracy. We already legislate against unreason, we already place limits on social freedom. I myself am not a utilitarian. Neither am I, because I substitute happiness in the principle of utility for social freedom. Social freedom will, imo, result in happiness and "the Full Life". What participation do you envision exactly?
Originally posted by Timothy Price
I myself do not think education can solve all problems and even in an ideal state education alone will never produce citizens of equal competency. Why should citizens be guaranteed rights they do not exercise or value? Because it causes less problems than trying to take them away. You can see that my State has a teleological, not a deontological system of ethics.
Originally posted by Timothy Price
Should we make it a goal or not to ensure the most competent are making the most important decisions in the state? Would citizenship and thus the right to vote be valued more if it was earned rather than simply thrown away? I suggest upon birth children born within the state should be made subjects of the state and granted a limited number of inferior rights. Full citizenship, with the right to vote, can be earned through a rigid meritocracy that rewards the most competant who could thus make better and more qualified political decisions. Citizens would have superior rights to subjects of the state in my system. Well, I sort of agree. For me, the Legislators have the right to legislate, and make those "middle decisions". In other words, how to implement the will of the people, as long as that will does not largely infringe upon the social freedom of others.Originally posted by Timothy Price
Yes I am quite a fan of political science. I have also noticed that the best state arrangement is one in which the population is united in a common cause with the vice of political bickering and partisanship. Any attempt to introduce "political union" will result in totalitarianism or failure.
Originally posted by Timothy Price
In the United States this is best demonstrated by unity displayed in the Confederate States embarking upon independence and also in the early days during and after the American revolution. Partisanship it appears to me ensures mediocrity and puts petty interests above those of the society. In an ideal state we should prefer unity to disunity. Unity to what end? Unity has no worth in itself, it is an expedient to other things, besides which it is unachievable.
Originally posted by Timothy Price
If their *class* is dependent upon the population for their survival. See The Republic. But in Plato's republic, the lower classes would not be able to change the course of the State... unless through revolution.
Originally posted by Timothy Price
Why have you come to this conclusion? Should the state legislate and punish pedophiles? Yes, because they inhibit children's social freedom both in later life and in their childhood, MORE than their social freedom would be inhibited by legislation against them.Originally posted by Timothy Price Are you referring to free market capitalism? Basically Yes. Libertarianism is an incredibly naive concept.Originally posted by Timothy Price
There is no such thing as freedom of speech in America, there never has been. There have always been limits on freedom of speech. The question has always been to what extent. I have not suggested privatization of the public education system. This almost ensures inequality. I’m glad you didn't advocate privatisation, because that does as you say ensure inequality. If you fund it through the government you need taxes. Taxes reduce economic freedom... you see my point?
Originally posted by Timothy Price If we want rational people making decisions does not according citizens upon birth with innate voting rights virtually assure irrational decision making? Why should the irrational and the unqualified be performing the most important function in the state, running it that is? Why not have some form of requirments and confer voting rights upon completion?In principle I agree with that idea, but it would be open to terrible corruption. Secondly, under my system, the intelligent, that is the legislators, would be running the state, with a liscence from the people.
Originally posted by Timothy Price
If your standard is reason then do you agree that there are plenty of voters who are irrational, yet not insane? Should these people be allowed to vote? Yes they should, for the reason I stated above.
Originally posted by Timothy Price
Timarchy for example. There are many sorts of state arrangements. I as of yet to do not have a label for what I would describe as *my system* although it would be in part Platonic. Well, your ideas do indeed resemble those of Plato. I prefer Aristotle's ideas.

anything else to say?

well?

Cynic I fully intend to reply to this topic. I have several topics to reply to. Have patience daniel son :).

ok thanks.

bump

>>Firstly, I am not a utilitarian either, therefore I do not equate "the good life" with lack of misery, although happiness is needed.

I am not a Utilitarian so I do not think happiness can or should be equally allocated throughout society. I do not base my decisions on what will bring the most people happiness. Happiness is needed in society but reason is more so. I believe reason to be more of a path to the good life than happiness.

>>having the RIGHT to vote does not entail the DUTY to vote.

While this is true, I think this devalues voting. I would much rather require every citizen to vote, to increase social participation in society and the affairs of state and if the individual does not want to make a choice, a none of the above option could be provided.

>>It is possible to have social freedom, and exercise none of it.

I think this devalues the *rights* we enjoy. I think this causes us to take these rights for granted. I would like to change that. I think if voters were more educated with the affairs of state, and the voting process, this would increase their worth as citizens.

>>If that is your good life, then why not? Because you still have the choice to exercise some or all of it.

I do not think there is a choice to the good life, but rather a path to it guided by pure reason.

>>No I don't. It is a recipe for mob rule.

Pure democracy is in essence mob rule. Republican government is less so but I see these barriers being knocked down in society, my society at least.

>>What should be in the hands of the rational, as you say, is HOW the state should be run, in other words, the positive of politics. The normative aspects should be in the hands of the people, in the form of elections.

The rulers of the state in a republic or democracy are based on the choices of individuals. If individuals make irrational choices, especially many of them, this almost assures we will have irrational leaders. A state ran by irrationality usually turns out to be a poor arrangement flowing back to the citizen level in the form of bad government choices. I do think individual citizens should participate in the electoral process but I believe by putting some kind of qualification into the system we can increase the rationality and direction of the state and make citizenship thus more valued. I think things are valued more when they are earned and I think citizenship and the rights accorded by it should be highly valued by a citizen.

>>Neither am I, because I substitute happiness in the principle of utility for social freedom. Social freedom will, imo, result in happiness and "the Full Life". What participation do you envision exactly?

I think the “fullest life” is one guided by reason, not pure freedom. I think the best arrangement is one in which a harmony is reached between social freedom and reason. I think my arrangement comes close to creating this harmony which is a goal because the social privileges of citizenship can still be maintained by earning them through a path guided by reason. I think individuals in the state should be divided into three classes: foreigners, subjects of the state, and citizens. Foreigners within the state should have inferior rights to citizens because they are guests of the citizens of the state. Subjects of the State are individuals born or naturalized within the state that have yet to meet the requirements of citizenship by earning it. Citizens are individuals who have achieved social freedom and superior rights through merit or by fulfilling a certain set of requirements. Breaking the law a certain numbers of times can knock one down to subject status. Individuals in the United States cannot vote until their 18th birthday anyway. I think however this *age* is not the best requirment to confer the ability to vote. There are many 17 years old who are more intelligent and better able to make rational decisions than many 30 years olds. I do not think the age barrier is adequate.

>>Because it causes less problems than trying to take them away. You can see that my State has a teleological, not a deontological system of ethics.

I am not arbitrarily taking away the rights of citizens I am just putting them at the top of a ladder and saying if you want citizenship and equal rights YOU must climb this ladder and achieve this point. If you abuse your citizenship it can be taken away from you and all the privileges thus. I am not so sure we should judge everything by end it achieves rather than the means.

>>Well, I sort of agree. For me, the Legislators have the right to legislate, and make those "middle decisions". In other words, how to implement the will of the people, as long as that will does not largely infringe upon the social freedom of others.

I agree that legislators should legislate the law, not the people directly. I think it is important to force legislators to depend on the vote of the competent, rather than appealing to the uneducated incompetant. I think there will be many cases where the will of the people is not in the best interests of the community and that there must be a check on the irrational whims of the masses. I would like to put a major check, if possible, on there sheer amount of disinformation that comes out of the mass media. I would prefer to have rational educated and objective reporting and have citizens get their information from impartial and unpoliticized sources. Again I put reason, ahead of social freedom and desire.

>>Any attempt to introduce "political union" will result in totalitarianism or failure.

I disagree. This seems to presuppose that a great deal of force is necessary for reform. I think I am living in a totalitarian society already, one in which the irrational powered by mass propaganda rule over the most rational elements of the state. I think this is a bad arrangement.

>>Unity to what end? Unity has no worth in itself, it is an expedient to other things, besides which it is unachievable.

Hmm I seem to disagree. I think the more united a country is in a common endevour, the better. I despise the state my country is in now. It is slowly disintegrating into an amalgram of people with absolutely nothing in common at every level. I think this feeling is best expressed in the sentiment of Federalist Paper #2 by John Jay:

With equal pleasure I have as often taken notice that Providence has been pleased to give this one connected country to one united people -- a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs, and who, by their joint counsels, arms, and efforts, fighting side by side throughout a long and bloody war, have nobly established general liberty and independence.

I also think the centralized bureaucracy in place in the United States is a bad arrangement given the size of the country. I think the population was much more harmonius as a whole when the constituant states had more control over there own populations. I favor local control in essence. I think this was done away with a lot by the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution which made every American an American citizen. The system in place before this arrangement was that you were first a citizen of your state, then a de facto citizen of the United States. This put more power at the state level and was IMO much better.

>>But in Plato's republic, the lower classes would not be able to change the course of the State... unless through revolution.

There were no really over classes in Plato’s Republic. The family, private property, and accumulation of wealth were abolished amongst the guardians who ran the society. All these things were reserved to your *lower* classes. Plato’s classes were interdependent.

>>Yes, because they inhibit children's social freedom both in later life and in their childhood, MORE than their social freedom would be inhibited by legislation against them.

What if a pedophile and a child consensually have sex? In this case lets use a 12 year old girl and a 50 year old man. You are legislating against their *social freedom* and you seem to presuppose this will limit the social freedom of the child later in life. I also would legislate against this but I would put the child’s unability to reason as the reason why I would legislate against it. Consent and thus social freedom do not seem to be adequate to prevent irrational children from making irrational consensual and free decisions.

>>Basically Yes. Libertarianism is an incredibly naive concept.

I dislike Libertarianism. I am also critical of both capitalism and socialism.

>>I’m glad you didn't advocate privatisation, because that does as you say ensure inequality.

Under the current system I would advocate privatization but we are talking about an ideal state here. In an ideal state we cannot possibly hope to achieve the dissolution of classes, economic that is, without having everyone under one roof in terms of education. The United States Government has made an utter disaster out of the public education system by forcing good children to be brought up in a learning environment with a lot of children who simply have no interest in learning, in truth, that is the failure. Equality in terms of education is not my goal.

>>In principle I agree with that idea, but it would be open to terrible corruption.

Perhaps, but IMO not nearly as corruptible as the system in place today. I think some form of codification of standards would be a good idea rescindable only in some kind of overwhelming agreement, like a Constitutional Amendment for example.

>>Secondly, under my system, the intelligent, that is the legislators, would be running the state, with a liscence from the people.

You system appears to me to be exactly what we have in place today. Maybe this is not the case, if so you should clarify as to what you want to reform. Under your system, citizenship and thus the right to vote, is conferred upon birth as a right. Once this individual reaches a certain age, regardless as to his ability to reason or make an educated choice, he has an equal lot with a citizen who has indeed climbed the ladder. This means that we can be assured that the irrational and rational have equal voting power, if not the irrational masses more so, and that the legislaters selected will be poor to mediocre with an occasional random good choice. This IMO is not the best arrangement. My arrangement I believe would still have the stamp of approval of the people, but in order to make a choice they would have to as I say climb the ladder.

>>Yes they should, for the reason I stated above.

Why should irrational people making irrational choices be preferred to rational citizens making rational choices? If someone is not willing to step up to the plate, why should they be accommodated is what I am getting at.

>>Well, your ideas do indeed resemble those of Plato. I prefer Aristotle's ideas.

Actually I do as well. I like Plato but Aristotle, Nietszsche, and Machiavelli better

Originally posted by Patrick Bateman
>>An economic system in which limited free enterprise is allowed to practice but where there are safety values so that the poor will be supported

Why exactly should we even care about the poor, let alone support them? The only citizens we must support are those who are productive members of society. We shouldn't concern ourselves with retired toothpaste technicians—especially if it means taxing the most productive members of society..

The reason we should care about the poor is because it is the right thing to do...its that simple. If we let people stay poor they will turn to crime and create more problems for society. The true measure of a society is its quality of justice, economic and otherwise.

>>Employment shall be guaranteed

Let me get this straight. Are you actually proposing that employers be forbidden to fire unproductive workers just because it would violate their supposedly inherent right to work? Should the state guarantee the most thoroughly useless and unproductive members of society a job? What purpose would this guarantee serve?.

Not exactly, but in a number of countries the right to work is guranteed. If you are unproductive your current employer can fire you but you will be given work by the government or they will find work in the public sector. This is done in Czechoslovakia.

>>For those unable to work support shall be guaranteed.

Please explain to me exactly why productive members of society should be taxed in order to support useless vegetables.

I would refer you back to question one.

>>Guns and weapons of mass destruction shall be abolished
First of all, how precisely do you propose protecting the citizens of your state from external threats? Do you seriously believe that foreign nations will not take advantage of your voluntary and incredibly illogical disarmament? How could such a deliberately counterproductive move improve the lives of any of your citizens?

Secondly, the notion that you are going to somehow abolish all the weapons in your nation is ridiculous. Do you plan to disarm Police Officers too, or just the civilian population? If you are talking about disarming the civilian population, then how exactly do you propose to go about disarming criminals? Do you really think that all criminals will voluntarily hand over their firearms? Of course they won't, because criminals are as incredibly ridiculous as your policies.
.
If you are scared of criminals get a cell phone and a large dog.

>>Military service shall be entirely voluntary. Soldiers shall be paid a liveable wage

I suppose people are just going to volunteer to fight in an Army that has just abolished all of its nuclear weapons..

Would you rather have a draft. I think most parents would be opposed to allowing their own kids to be drafted.

>>Education shall be free to all citizens to the University level and beyond.

Are you actually proposing that all citizens, including the most worthless, be given a free University education?



Yes because education is power. If we give people education they will become more self sufficient. An educated nation is a powerful one.

>>The Army shall only be used to defend the nations borders
And what is to be used to defend against nuclear attack?.
Maybe we should outlaw war and it will become a mute point.

>>The penal system should be based on positive reinforcement and rehabilitation

It costs over 500,000 dollars to unsuccessfully rehabilitate a murderer. A bullet costs about 15 cents. Please clarify the reasoning behind your proposal that we should spend even more money on the most despicable and worthless people in society. And when you are done, explain the net benefit to society rehabilitating murderers has. .

I woul say to that we should not put a price tag on human life. It is easy to say that we should put people to death but who should decide who is fit to live or die. What about innocent people who end up in prison?

Criminal can you reorganize your quotes they seem to blur into each other. I cannot tell what Bateman is saying, who he is replying to, or if you are replying to him.

Originally posted by Cynic
Basically Yes. Libertarianism is an incredibly naive concept.

You Brits brew the world's best beer, make great guitars and amps, and export supurb musicians, but sometimes I wonder if the Brits can handle freedom with all that insane worshipping of the so-called royal family. ;) Libertarianism is basically the closest system that confroms to the Constitutionally Federated Republic of America.

Originally posted by Timothy Price
I dislike Libertarianism. I am also critical of both capitalism and socialism.

Are you implying these are two ends of a spectrum or are you intentionally leaving out other economic/political systems? Are you also critical of the Totalitarian Police State in which all the arts and sciences are forced to conform to the insane ravings of a lunatic dictator? The problem with the Superman theory is that there is always a bigger wolf around the corner. Man is by nature corrupt. The only government suitable for here and now is one that makes consolidation of power difficult. This was the original intent of the US Constitution and it is possible to return to it if enough citizens voted Libertarian.

>>Are you implying these are two ends of a spectrum or are you intentionally leaving out other economic/political systems?

Obviously Socialism is not an *end* of the spectrum whereas Anarchism is about as far to one side as you can get. No this was not implied. If I had intended to make that clear I would have.

>>Are you also critical of the Totalitarian Police State in which all the arts and sciences are forced to conform to the insane ravings of a lunatic dictator?

This is an irrational statement because it presupposes that this leader would be in some way an insane lunatic. Yes such a system with absolute authority placed in *one* individual is open to corruption.

>>The problem with the Superman theory is that there is always a bigger wolf around the corner.

I assume you are returning once again to Nietzsche's concept of the Ubermensch. Tell me, what exactly do you know about this idea and precisely what have you read about it? From what I gather you do not seem to have a good idea of what you are talking about. Compared to Nietzsche's Overman mankind would be a ridiculous joke, a thing of shame.

>>Man is by nature corrupt.

Man is not by nature corrupt, but corruptable. This is because man is a political animal free to make volitional rational or irrational choices. We seek to rid ourselves as much of this *corruption* as possible.

>>The only government suitable for here and now is one that makes consolidation of power difficult.

This is a system that has a pros and cons. Taking power it seems out of the hands of the government leads it to be open to be assumed by private interests, specifically oligarchs and those who own the organs of mass communication who subsequently abuse it.

>>This was the original intent of the US Constitution and it is possible to return to it if enough citizens voted Libertarian.

The U.S. Constitution was destroyed by the Lincoln Administration and later on the ratification of the illegal 14th Amendment. The 14th Amendment destroyed a Union and created a centralized bureaucratic nation state.

>>The reason we should care about the poor is because it is the right thing to do.

It is probably right in your mind for me to donate my computer to the Salvation Army, but that doesn't mean it's practical—let alone logical. Instead of relying on Judeo-Bolshevik morals, we should use logic and reason to decide these issues. We must look at:
1. Whether there will be a net benefit or net detriment to society as a result of the undertaking.
2. Whether or not we are placing capital before valuable human lives. [Note: I am not claiming that all human lives are valuable, but I do suggest that only those which are valuable must come before capital.]
3. Specifically, we must examine whether supporting the poor is worth taxing the middle and higher classes; whether or not the good done by this act outweighs the harm:
a) If there is a labour shortage, utilizing the poor may prove valuable.
b) The poor may be conscripted into the military if there is a shortage of soldiers.
c) Would the value of the products produced by the poor eventually outweigh the initial cost to the state?

>>If we let people stay poor they will turn to crime and create more problems for society.

That is a different story entirely. When you said the poor will be supported, it sounded as if you wished to keep the poor on welfare, but not offer them any type of help or government employment. I agree that members of the lower classes who, if not for their financial situation, could raise above their seemingly stagnate status, should be assisted. We must not, however, attempt to raise a toothpaste technician to the status of a teacher.

>>The true measure of a society is its quality of justice, economic and otherwise.

The true measure of a society is the quality of living of its citizens, and the quality of its citizens themselves. It matter not how few innocents are wrongly convicted if the society itself is infected with moral and cultural decay. The purpose of the state is to insure the well-being of its citizens as a whole, and improve their place in the world and in the cosmos by any means necessary. Sheer weight of capital is not an accurate gauge of the success of a government either. The quality of the people themselves is.

>>Not exactly, but in a number of countries the right to work is guaranteed.

This is only applicable to those who possess the desire and means to work, I assume. It would be quite irresponsible for the government to hire a borderline retard just because not doing so would violate his supposed right to work. But I agree that:
1. Those who have the physical or mental means to work are at least eligible for employment.
2. Those who can and will work must be employed.
3. Refusing to employ those would could serve the state is a crime against the well-being of the nation.

>>If you are unproductive your current employer can fire you but you will be given work by the government or they will find work in the public sector.

That seems reasonable, but what if they were fired by their original employer because of laziness, and they continue to exercise the same behaviour when employed by the government? This, at least in my mind, would serve as proof that the individual had not the will to work, and thus their right to work would be confiscated.

>>I would refer you back to question one.

That does not answer my question. I will restate it:
1. Exactly why should working members of society be taxed so that a person not capable of communication may continue lying in the hospital indefinitely?
2. Suppose there was a famine in the nation. Would workers be served before the weak?
3. Instead of tying up resources keeping vegetables alive, wouldn't citizens be better served if their government put the same resources to use developing new medical technology?

>>If you are scared of criminals get a cell phone and a large dog.

Again, that doesn't answer my questions. I will again restate them:
1. How precisely do you propose protecting the citizens of your state from external threats?
2. Do you seriously believe that foreign nations will not take advantage of your voluntary and incredibly illogical disarmament?
3. How could such a deliberately counterproductive move improve the lives of any of your citizens?
4. Do you plan to disarm Police Officers too, or just the civilian population?
5. How exactly do you propose to go about disarming criminals?
6. Do you really think that all criminals will voluntarily hand over their firearms?

>>Would you rather have a draft?

A draft would be necessary if the country was invaded or if rearmament was needed.

>>I think most parents would be opposed to allowing their own kids to be drafted.

They probably would be opposed if they knew their sons were going out to face an enemy in possession of nuclear weapons, and that their own army had no defence against such devices. Furthermore, the popularity of conscription is not an issue if either the war or the state itself is popular. Patriotism also has quite a bit to do with it.

>>If we give people education they will become more self sufficient.

True, but there is no shortage of problems with your proposal:
1. Offering a university educations to hundreds of millions of people is not only economically unthinkable, is it also would do more harm than good.
For instance:
a) People who are university educated are unlikely to be willing to do menial jobs, which means your state would likely be wholly dependent upon foreign labour.
b) An inordinate number of resources would be spent on this program. Not only would it cost gross sums of money, it would also require the training of thousands and thousands of new professors; something which would harm the quality of education, and also take resources away from other, more productive, sectors.
c) The menial labour required to extract natural resources from your nation would likely have to come from abroad.
d) This extra education would be wasted on those who possess neither the intellect nor the motivation to succeed in university.
e) Many people, even now, do not graduate from high school. What makes you think that they would be willing to graduate from university?

>>I would say to that we should not put a price tag on human life.

There is no shortage of human life, especially the degenerate kind.

>>What about innocent people who end up in prison?

Innocents end up in prison regardless of the system. After twenty or more years of imprisonment, these unlucky people often suffer from various mental problems. In short, benefits of their reintroduction into society do not outweigh the harms.

Originally posted by Timothy Price
While this is true, I think this devalues voting. I would much rather require every citizen to vote, to increase social participation in society and the affairs of state and if the individual does not want to make a choice, a none of the above option could be provided. But then you encourage people to use their votes irresponsibly, or else all those who wouldn't turn out would go "none of the above"

Originally posted by Timothy Price
I think this devalues the *rights* we enjoy. I think this causes us to take these rights for granted. I would like to change that. I think if voters were more educated with the affairs of state, and the voting process, this would increase their worth as citizens.I agree with you there.
Originally posted by Timothy Price
I do not think there is a choice to the good life, but rather a path to it guided by pure reason. Well, think about micheal Jordan. Maybe his path to the full life is basketball, but it isn't for me. Therefore I have a choice.
Originally posted by Timothy Price
I think the “fullest life” is one guided by reason, not pure freedom. I think the best arrangement is one in which a harmony is reached between social freedom and reason.
I think that reason is a component of social freedom. If I am not able to reason out which party would have the best impact, I do not truly have the freedom to vote.
Originally posted by Timothy Price
I think my arrangement comes close to creating this harmony which is a goal because the social privileges of citizenship can still be maintained by earning them through a path guided by reason. I think individuals in the state should be divided into three classes: foreigners, subjects of the state, and citizens. Foreigners within the state should have inferior rights to citizens because they are guests of the citizens of the state. Subjects of the State are individuals born or naturalized within the state that have yet to meet the requirements of citizenship by earning it. Citizens are individuals who have achieved social freedom and superior rights through merit or by fulfilling a certain set of requirements. Breaking the law a certain numbers of times can knock one down to subject status. Individuals in the United States cannot vote until their 18th birthday anyway. I think however this *age* is not the best requirment to confer the ability to vote. There are many 17 years old who are more intelligent and better able to make rational decisions than many 30 years olds. I do not think the age barrier is adequate. Well, I agree (I'm one of those 17-year-olds:)), but I think that itr would be well nigh impossible to ascertain who is competent to vote.

Originally posted by Timothy Price
I agree that legislators should legislate the law, not the people directly. I think it is important to force legislators to depend on the vote of the competent, rather than appealing to the uneducated incompetant. I think there will be many cases where the will of the people is not in the best interests of the community and that there must be a check on the irrational whims of the masses.That is what my constitution would be for.
Originally posted by Timothy Price
I would like to put a major check, if possible, on there sheer amount of disinformation that comes out of the mass media. I would prefer to have rational educated and objective reporting and have citizens get their information from impartial and unpoliticized sources. I think the best way to do that is to make media corporations as small as possible.

Originally posted by Timothy Price
Hmm I seem to disagree. I think the more united a country is in a common endevour, the better. I despise the state my country is in now. It is slowly disintegrating into an amalgram of people with absolutely nothing in common at every level. While I agree this is bad, I think that a country needs diversity to exist. After all, what would society be like if it were composed entirely of, say, John McCains? This is hyperbole, but you see my point
Originally posted by Timothy Price
What if a pedophile and a child consensually have sex? In this case lets use a 12 year old girl and a 50 year old man. You are legislating against their *social freedom* and you seem to presuppose this will limit the social freedom of the child later in life. I also would legislate against this but I would put the child’s unability to reason as the reason why I would legislate against it. Consent and thus social freedom do not seem to be adequate to prevent irrational children from making irrational consensual and free decisions. I do not consider a minor capable of making such a decision, so the question of consent does not arise.

Originally posted by Timothy Price
You system appears to me to be exactly what we have in place today. Maybe this is not the case, if so you should clarify as to what you want to reform. Under your system, citizenship and thus the right to vote, is conferred upon birth as a right. Once this individual reaches a certain age, regardless as to his ability to reason or make an educated choice, he has an equal lot with a citizen who has indeed climbed the ladder. This means that we can be assured that the irrational and rational have equal voting power, if not the irrational masses more so, and that the legislaters selected will be poor to mediocre with an occasional random good choice.
One of the main things I would change is education. It seems to me that the only thing I learn in my education is how to pass various kinds of exams. IMO, education should teach the young how to be good citizens (rational). In any case, my ideal state adheres to the theory rather than the practice of the current society, with some changes. For example, I would like to see a lot more transparency in the way my country is run. I also want a genuine parliamenary democracy, not a pseudo-presidential spin doctor with a rubber stamp house of Commons.

Originally posted by Timothy Price
Why should irrational people making irrational choices be preferred to rational citizens making rational choices? If someone is not willing to step up to the plate, why should they be accommodated is what I am getting at. One of the most important rights of all is the right to be wrong. My constitution would prevent this right from going to excess.

Originally posted by Timothy Price
Actually I do as well. I like Plato but Aristotle, Nietszsche, and Machiavelli better Neither N nor M appeal to me. Both seemed to be looking for a cop-out to the world's problems, but I'm no expert.

>>But then you encourage people to use their votes irresponsibly, or else all those who wouldn't turn out would go "none of the above

In an ideal state I want to build a more united community. I want all citizens to participate in performing certain functions, to make them closer to one another. While someone could always vote for the none of the above category, at least they would be exercising their citizenship, and having earned it, feel like they are more a part of a community. I think people use their votes irresponsibly today, under my system, I think we can eliminate a good deal of this.

>>I agree with you there.

Yes the measure of a state is the value of its citizens.

>>Well, think about micheal Jordan. Maybe his path to the full life is basketball, but it isn't for me. Therefore I have a choice.

Michael Jordan enjoys playing basketball and is being perfectly rational be pursuing that goal. Yes you have a choice to be irrational, but in an ideal state, this is something we want out of the affair of state.

>>I think that reason is a component of social freedom. If I am not able to reason out which party would have the best impact, I do not truly have the freedom to vote.

I agree that reason is a component of social freedom, but I will say the reason we have social freedom is because of reason. If we are unable to make rational choices, we will soon find our state collapsing in anarchy or coming under foreign domination. Reason must be the guiding force of the community, ruling over irrational desire, just like in one’s mind. You can always vote for none of the above.

>>Well, I agree (I'm one of those 17-year-olds), but I think that itr would be well nigh impossible to ascertain who is competent to vote.

I think we can easily weed out plenty of those unqualified and irrational people. No system is perfect, but we should always strive to making the system better, rather than worse.

>> That is what my constitution would be for.

Perhaps we can go on to discuss a constitution for an ideal state and point to several examples like the Athenian, French, American, and Carthaginian constitutions.

>>I think the best way to do that is to make media corporations as small as possible.

Yes this is obvious. I would like to take the profit motive out of these organizations to limit their ability to distort the news to drive up ratings. I feel that in the United States we have too many Americans simply tuning into the network where they hear what they want to hear. Perhaps some kind of Constitutional check would be necessary.

>> While I agree this is bad, I think that a country needs diversity to exist. After all, what would society be like if it were composed entirely of, say, John McCains? This is hyperbole, but you see my point

I disagree. I do not think it is necessary to have this *cultural* diversity we are no supposedly *enjoying* in the American South. I am perfectly content enjoying my culture and associating with people like myself. I think the more diversity the United States is packing on the less of a real country it is actually becoming. I think the United States is slowly but surely unraveling at the seams. Sadly I think we have less political diversity in the United States, and in Britain too, because of this *diversity.*

>>I do not consider a minor capable of making such a decision, so the question of consent does not arise.

I think minors can make consensual decisions, just not rational ones and I would legislate against such action.

>> One of the main things I would change is education. It seems to me that the only thing I learn in my education is how to pass various kinds of exams. IMO, education should teach the young how to be good citizens (rational).

I think in order to truly create good rational citizens we must teach them what is right and wrong, about ethics and morality, philosophy and fill their heads with less irrelevant facts they will discard with in a few years time. I would like to reform the education system but it seems to me one of the main problems with it is that many children are simply not school to learn and thus pull other better children down with them. I think some sort of segregation which in the United States is unfortunately achieved economically would make the system better off.

>>In any case, my ideal state adheres to the theory rather than the practice of the current society, with some changes. For example, I would like to see a lot more transparency in the way my country is run. I also want a genuine parliamenary democracy, not a pseudo-presidential spin doctor with a rubber stamp house of Commons.

It seems democracy comes hand in hand with rhetoric to be honest. I am not the biggest fan of the Labour Party or the Tories. What are your opinions on them? What do you think about the BNP?

>>One of the most important rights of all is the right to be wrong. My constitution would prevent this right from going to excess.

Perhaps you can tell me how your constitution would go about this and perhaps why should we ensure the right for our leaders to make wrong decisions?

>>Neither N nor M appeal to me. Both seemed to be looking for a cop-out to the world's problems, but I'm no expert.

I disagree, I think both of them were more so than other tuned in to exactly what the world’s problems were, Nietzsche especially. Nietzsche is a brilliant social scientist who discovered the inversion of man’s values and the coorelation between Christianity, its morality, communism and the descent into moral nihilism and the crisis it would one day create, which is happening now IMO.

My Ideal State would consist of me, a tropical island, and hundreds of naked beautiful women. It would be called The Republic of Van Patten.

The purpose of the state should always be to protect and extend the rights of its citizens. That much is obvious. One of the largest issues we face is the rights of the individual versus the rights of the majority. We National Socialists take the side of the majority rather than the individual, the nation over the corporation, and patriotism before religion. There are some limits, however. We do not deprive our own people of their rights in order to pander to foreigners. No, and again no. We believe that the first priority of the state is to provide for its own citizens. That means that as long as there are citizens of the state who are in need of support, no foreign aid should be given, no corrupt regimes propped up. The state must take whatever action necessary to ensure the survival of its most productive citizens.

Given that, the rights of citizenship must only be granted to those who are of use to the state, and thus to the people as a whole. No useless person, therefore, may be a citizen of the state. No one of foreign blood, no person who holds their religion before the state, no one who is, or who is a suspected danger to the state, and no one who is merely a drain upon the system and the race may enjoy the rights of citizenship. If, however, a non-citizen is found to be actively working against the state, then this enemy must be dealt with in such a manner that neutralizes the threat he or she poses. If this means death, and if death is in the best interests of the state, then so be it.

All non-citizens may live in the country as guests, but only if granted the proper permission. They must be able to prove that they are here temporarily, and pose no threat to the state or the race. If these guests are found to have no real reason that justifies their presence, and if they may pose a danger to the state, then they must be either detained under government supervision or deported. If detained, they will only continue to be fed as long as the citizens remain fed as well. Again, the interests of citizens come before the interests of non-citizens.

A person’s blood alone may be found to pose a threat to the race. A person of inferior blood, such as those infected with HIV, those who are disabled, or those of a incompatible race must be dealt with so that the threat they pose is no more. In the case of a person infected with HIV, the person in question must be executed. If the carriers of the disease are eradicated, eventually more lives will be saved than if we allowed the disease to run rampant. If a person threatens the integrity of the race by means of inferior blood, and if he or she plans to stay in the state as a guest, then he or she must be sterilized. If one of the inferior blood [such as a mentally disabled man] is being supported by a private citizen, then he should be sterilized also. And finally, anyone who paints the sky green and the grass blue should be sterilized.

The state itself should be an amalgamation of the Party and government infrastructure, gathered under the umbrella of a strong leader. The Party itself should depend upon this leader, for without an incorruptible leader, National Socialism is bunk. The Party should not be formed under a corrupt or weak leader, and likewise should disband if such a leader should ever attempt to take hold. Regardless of these precautions, the faith in the leader must be absolute. Bickering and backstabbing only harms the credibility of the state—credibility which is much needed to successfully rule the country.

The press should not be in the hands of leaders of the state. Rather, it should be in the hands of citizens of the state, for foreign ownership of the media must be avoided at all costs. It should not be illegal for the Party to own newspapers, but it should not be the job of National Socialist papers to suppress the truth. On the contrary, the state leadership should be so benevolent that it is in the best interest of the Party to publicize the truth, not to suppress it. Nevertheless, the art of propaganda must be utilized to keep the people on the side of the state, if only for the good of the people themselves.

As long as external and internal enemies are present, a strong military is needed to protect the rights of citizens from these threats. The military should also serve the purpose of providing young people with discipline, and offering them an alternative to manual or intellectual labour. The military should be present at every aspect of life, from a teenager’s first job, [think Deutsche Arbeitsfront] to keeping neighbourhoods clean. Crimes within the armed forces must not be tolerated. In fact, they must be held to be even more contemptible than those crimes committed by civilians, for the last thing the state needs is to be associated with atrocities against its own citizens. One too many otherwise great states have fallen victim to the publicity curse of the government atrocity.

Last, but certainly not least, is the task of improving the race as a whole. The state must not only take action to protect the rights of its citizens, it must also take action to ensure that its citizens receive all the benefits of natural selection. To this end, a eugenics program must be implemented. The specifics must be worked out state scientists, but one thing is for certain—we must not allow our biological advancement to stagnate.

"[i]The main plank in the National Socialist programme is to abolish the liberalistic concept of the individual and the Marxist concept of humanity and to substitute therefore the folk community, rooted in the soil and bound together by the bond of its common blood."
-Adolf Hitler, On National Socialism and World Relations, January 30, 1937

Originally posted by Dr. Goebbels
The purpose of the state should always be to protect and extend the rights of its citizens. That much is obvious. One of the largest issues we face is the rights of the individual versus the rights of the majority. We National Socialists take the side of the majority rather than the individual, the nation over the corporation, and patriotism before religion. There are some limits, however. We do not deprive our own people of their rights in order to pander to foreigners. No, and again no. We believe that the first priority of the state is to provide for its own citizens. That means that as long as there are citizens of the state who are in need of support, no foreign aid should be given, no corrupt regimes propped up. The state must take whatever action necessary to ensure the survival of its most productive citizens.

Given that, the rights of citizenship must only be granted to those who are of use to the state, and thus to the people as a whole. No useless person, therefore, may be a citizen of the state. No one of foreign blood, no person who holds their religion before the state, no one who is, or who is a suspected danger to the state, and no one who is merely a drain upon the system and the race may enjoy the rights of citizenship. If, however, a non-citizen is found to be actively working against the state, then this enemy must be dealt with in such a manner that neutralizes the threat he or she poses. If this means death, and if death is in the best interests of the state, then so be it.

All non-citizens may live in the country as guests, but only if granted the proper permission. They must be able to prove that they are here temporarily, and pose no threat to the state or the race. If these guests are found to have no real reason that justifies their presence, and if they may pose a danger to the state, then they must be either detained under government supervision or deported. If detained, they will only continue to be fed as long as the citizens remain fed as well. Again, the interests of citizens come before the interests of non-citizens.

A person’s blood alone may be found to pose a threat to the race. A person of inferior blood, such as those infected with HIV, those who are disabled, or those of a incompatible race must be dealt with so that the threat they pose is no more. In the case of a person infected with HIV, the person in question must be executed. If the carriers of the disease are eradicated, eventually more lives will be saved than if we allowed the disease to run rampant. If a person threatens the integrity of the race by means of inferior blood, and if he or she plans to stay in the state as a guest, then he or she must be sterilized. If one of the inferior blood [such as a mentally disabled man] is being supported by a private citizen, then he should be sterilized also. And finally, anyone who paints the sky green and the grass blue should be sterilized.

The state itself should be an amalgamation of the Party and government infrastructure, gathered under the umbrella of a strong leader. The Party itself should depend upon this leader, for without an incorruptible leader, National Socialism is bunk. The Party should not be formed under a corrupt or weak leader, and likewise should disband if such a leader should ever attempt to take hold. Regardless of these precautions, the faith in the leader must be absolute. Bickering and backstabbing only harms the credibility of the state—credibility which is much needed to successfully rule the country.

The press should not be in the hands of leaders of the state. Rather, it should be in the hands of citizens of the state, for foreign ownership of the media must be avoided at all costs. It should not be illegal for the Party to own newspapers, but it should not be the job of National Socialist papers to suppress the truth. On the contrary, the state leadership should be so benevolent that it is in the best interest of the Party to publicize the truth, not to suppress it. Nevertheless, the art of propaganda must be utilized to keep the people on the side of the state, if only for the good of the people themselves.

As long as external and internal enemies are present, a strong military is needed to protect the rights of citizens from these threats. The military should also serve the purpose of providing young people with discipline, and offering them an alternative to manual or intellectual labour. The military should be present at every aspect of life, from a teenager’s first job, [think Deutsche Arbeitsfront] to keeping neighbourhoods clean. Crimes within the armed forces must not be tolerated. In fact, they must be held to be even more contemptible than those crimes committed by civilians, for the last thing the state needs is to be associated with atrocities against its own citizens. One too many otherwise great states have fallen victim to the publicity curse of the government atrocity.

Last, but certainly not least, is the task of improving the race as a whole. The state must not only take action to protect the rights of its citizens, it must also take action to ensure that its citizens receive all the benefits of natural selection. To this end, a eugenics program must be implemented. The specifics must be worked out state scientists, but one thing is for certain—we must not allow our biological advancement to stagnate.

"[i]The main plank in the National Socialist programme is to abolish the liberalistic concept of the individual and the Marxist concept of humanity and to substitute therefore the folk community, rooted in the soil and bound together by the bond of its common blood."
-Adolf Hitler, On National Socialism and World Relations, January 30, 1937


Brain dead stupid ****ing wanna be Nazi...

Do the world a favor and eliminate yourself from the gene pool OK

How's that for Eugenicism dumb****..

Originally posted by Corporate Avenger



Brain dead stupid ****ing wanna be Nazi...

Do the world a favor and eliminate yourself from the gene pool OK

How's that for Eugenicism dumb****..

He's not braindead, it takes alot of work to come up with a piece of science fiction! :)

Well he didn't even come up with it. I think Dr. Goebbels should stick to the White supremacists boards where the other abused children get their rocks off pretending they're Nazi's..

Originally posted by Corporate Avenger



Brain dead stupid ****ing wanna be Nazi...

Do the world a favor and eliminate yourself from the gene pool OK

How's that for Eugenicism dumb****..

You know the rules. No matter how far out and insane you and I think his views are his allowed to state them and shouldnt be personally attacked by you.

I think posting that garbage is a personal attack on every rational person.

Oh well, I'll keep it clean from now on..

I understand...believe me.
But we should all try to play fair.
I think most everyone here has the sense to understand exactly what philosophy he advocates and the insanity behind that philosophy.
Take solace in that fact.

:)

this is a good thread... please don't get it closed.

Originally posted by Timothy Price
Criminal can you reorganize your quotes they seem to blur into each other. I cannot tell what Bateman is saying, who he is replying to, or if you are replying to him.



>>An economic system in which limited free enterprise is allowed to practice but where there are safety values so that the poor will be supported.

Why exactly should we even care about the poor, let alone support them? The only citizens we must support are those who are productive members of society. We shouldn't concern ourselves with retired toothpaste technicians—especially if it means taxing the most productive members of society. [/QUOTE]

The reason we should care about the poor is because it is the right thing to do...its that simple. If we let people stay poor they will turn to crime and create more problems for society. The true measure of a society is its quality of justice, economic and otherwise.


>>Employment shall be guaranteed.

Let me get this straight. Are you actually proposing that employers be forbidden to fire unproductive workers just because it would violate their supposedly inherent right to work? Should the state guarantee the most thoroughly useless and unproductive members of society a job? What purpose would this guarantee serve? [/QUOTE]

Not exactly, but in a number of countries the right to work is guranteed. If you are unproductive your current employer can fire you but you will be given work by the government or they will find work in the public sector. This is done in Czechoslovakia.




>>For those unable to work support shall be guaranteed.

Please explain to me exactly why productive members of society should be taxed in order to support useless vegetables. [/QUOTE]

I would refer you back to question one.



>>Guns and weapons of mass destruction shall be abolished.

First of all, how precisely do you propose protecting the citizens of your state from external threats? Do you seriously believe that foreign nations will not take advantage of your voluntary and incredibly illogical disarmament? How could such a deliberately counterproductive move improve the lives of any of your citizens?

Secondly, the notion that you are going to somehow abolish all the weapons in your nation is ridiculous. Do you plan to disarm Police Officers too, or just the civilian population? If you are talking about disarming the civilian population, then how exactly do you propose to go about disarming criminals? Do you really think that all criminals will voluntarily hand over their firearms? Of course they won't, because criminals are as incredibly ridiculous as your policies. [/QUOTE]


If you are scared of criminals get a cell phone and a large dog.

>>Military service shall be entirely voluntary. Soldiers shall be paid a liveable wage.

I suppose people are just going to volunteer to fight in an Army that has just abolished all of its nuclear weapons. [/QUOTE]


Would you rather have a draft. I think most parents would be opposed to allowing their own kids to be drafted.

>>Education shall be free to all citizens to the University level and beyond.

Are you actually proposing that all citizens, including the most worthless, be given a free University education? [/QUOTE]

Yes because education is power. If we give people education they will become more self sufficient. An educated nation is a powerful one.


>>The Army shall only be used to defend the nations borders.

And what is to be used to defend against nuclear attack? [/QUOTE]

Maybe we should outlaw war and it will become a mute point.



>>The penal system should be based on positive reinforcement and rehabilitation.

It costs over 500,000 dollars to unsuccessfully rehabilitate a murderer. A bullet costs about 15 cents. Please clarify the reasoning behind your proposal that we should spend even more money on the most despicable and worthless people in society. And when you are done, explain the net benefit to society rehabilitating murderers has.
[/QUOTE]


I woul say to that we should not put a price tag on human life. It is easy to say that we should put people to death but who should decide who is fit to live or die. What about innocent people who end up in prison?

Originally posted by Timothy Price
In an ideal state I want to build a more united community. I want all citizens to participate in performing certain functions, to make them closer to one another. What functions exactly?

Originally posted by Timothy Price
Michael Jordan enjoys playing basketball and is being perfectly rational be pursuing that goal. Yes you have a choice to be irrational, but in an ideal state, this is something we want out of the affair of state. I agree.

Originally posted by Timothy Price
I agree that reason is a component of social freedom, but I will say the reason we have social freedom is because of reason. If we are unable to make rational choices, we will soon find our state collapsing in anarchy or coming under foreign domination. Reason must be the guiding force of the community, ruling over irrational desire, just like in one’s mind. Ok, we merely seem to disagree about which should come first.

Originally posted by Timothy Price
I think we can easily weed out plenty of those unqualified and irrational people. But how? and how can you be sure that the system will not be abused?

Originally posted by Timothy Price
Perhaps we can go on to discuss a constitution for an ideal state and point to several examples like the Athenian, French, American, and Carthaginian constitutions. The american constitution is the only one I know anything about, apart from the british. What features were there in the atheniain and carthaginian?
Originally posted by Timothy Price
I disagree. I do not think it is necessary to have this *cultural* diversity we are no supposedly *enjoying* in the American South. I am perfectly content enjoying my culture and associating with people like myself.
I don't agree. After all, american culture is not something that is native to north america, it is drawn from all over the world. I feel that cultures are made weaker if one tries to protect them when they are not under threat.
Originally posted by Timothy Price
I think the more diversity the United States is packing on the less of a real country it is actually becoming. I think the United States is slowly but surely unraveling at the seams. Sadly I think we have less political diversity in the United States, and in Britain too, because of this *diversity.* Again, I disagree. The only political ideas native to a country are conservative ones (I am assuming that you think political diversity is good, whether or not you agree with the ideas) Liberalism was exported from France and Britain, and commuinism from germany and Russia. With the immigrants came the ideas.

Originally posted by Timothy Price
I think in order to truly create good rational citizens we must teach them what is right and wrong, about ethics and morality, philosophy...
Personally, I think that children should be tauight HOW to think critically and rationally, not WHAT to think. Then they should reach the right conclusions.
Originally posted by Timothy Price
... and fill their heads with less irrelevant facts they will discard with in a few years time. I would like to reform the education system but it seems to me one of the main problems with it is that many children are simply not school to learn and thus pull other better children down with them. I think some sort of segregation which in the United States is unfortunately achieved economically would make the system better off. In Britain, different classes reflect different ability. Is it not so in the USA?
Originally posted by Timothy Price
It seems democracy comes hand in hand with rhetoric to be honest. I am not the biggest fan of the Labour Party or the Tories. What are your opinions on them? What do you think about the BNP?
The Labour Party: Blair has tried, and succeeded, in making the Party the British Democrats. He has largely abandoned his principles for a conservative, centre-right position.
The conservative Party: Hague tried, and failed, in making the party the British Republicans. He attempted to adopt a far-right position, and was shunned by the voters. Duncan-smith is trying to move toward the centre, but there are cries of dissent in his party.
The BNP: Griffin has tried to shed the football hooligan image of the BNP. I really do not believe that the BNP could possibly become a serious threat. The people of Britain are not given to fascism.
Originally posted by Timothy Price
Perhaps you can tell me how your constitution would go about this and perhaps why should we ensure the right for our leaders to make wrong decisions? NOt the right for the leaders, the right for the people. Whenever a government attempt to use excessive force to make its citizens do what is right, it will fail, because it would result in utterl subjective crimes, etc. Prevention against arbitrary arrest, combined with murder, rape laws etc. would make this happen.
Originally posted by Timothy Price
I disagree, I think both of them were more so than other tuned in to exactly what the world’s problems were, Nietzsche especially. Nietzsche is a brilliant social scientist who discovered the inversion of man’s values and the coorelation between Christianity, its morality, communism and the descent into moral nihilism and the crisis it would one day create, which is happening now IMO. IMHO Nietzche, instead of trying to make the weak strong, took the easy option of saying they should die. IMHO, Machiavelli said that the state is necessarily corrupt because he was too lazy to think of a way to make it less so.

garbage
insanity
What do any of you consider to be either garbage or insanity about that man's post? He was certainly the first person here with the forsight to promote eugenics. Do you dispute that a National Socialist society could function? Is it not true that executing people who test HIV positive would result in much less loss of life in the long term? Did you actually read his essay or was it enough just to know that he's a Neo Nazi (or whatever) and that therefore anything he thinks is just wrong?

--Mark