[icespeed]

what if i happen to disagree with you what's going to hurt you or anybody else?

and could somebody definitively define freedom? is freedom to be able to do whatever we want? but then we're just slaves to our desires, aren't we?

[Sheepy]

does it matter how its run as long as the people under it are happy?

[Knight Templar]

Thus, naked chicks.

[Ghostavo]

So why the socialism KT? Don't naked chicks sufice?

[Knight Templar]

Yes, they would be the focal point. Socialism is just icing on the cake.

[GoulMeister]

a socialist democracy where everyone 18 up gets a vote automaticaly if a citizen of the state, no registering as this stops people from voting, the states would be responceible for health care and other social concerns as this is the point of a government to protect it people, free health care for all and a social payment scheme for unemployed people  and social housing of good quality, otherwise why pay taxes, also army and police etc, the government would consist of a president of limited power so no chance of a dictator etc, and a parliment or senate which the people elect by majority vote, no proportional representation or electoral colledge, the people can call for a general election if 10% of the populace sign a pettition or something, also if war ect is declared or the constitution needs changing a vote must be taken and decided by the people, the government stays in power for 4 years or another short term. also no hereditary peers like the house of lords in england or the senate in ireland which is not voted for by the people as this is undemocratic,  opinions please.

[Knight Templar]

And voting would be ****ing mandatory.

[Blaise Russel]

Originally posted by icespeed
what if i happen to disagree with you what's going to hurt you or anybody else?

Obviously we'd adopt a common standard. Like science.

and could somebody definitively define freedom? is freedom to be able to do whatever we want? but then we're just slaves to our desires, aren't we?

Well, we're always enslaved to who we are and what we know.

[Knight Templar]

Originally posted by Blaise Russel


Obviously we'd adopt a common standard. Like science.

And boobs. Don't forget boobs.

[an0n]

Originally posted by Blaise Russel
Well, we're always enslaved to who we are and what we know.

Not me.

Well, not in the way you mean.

[Knight Templar]

/me is enslaving to his own domineering will

I'm such a naughty boy sometimes.

[aldo_14]

Proportional democracy; seems to work quite well in (devolved) Scotland, albeit the parliament is still a bit toothless.

 It's similar to the UK's general constituency based elections (i.e. top candidate in an area is their MP, which means that a party can have lots of votes but few MPs if they don't win enough constituencies - see Lib Dems), but with the addition of x seats which are given on the basis of overall voting percentage for a party.

There's the obvious minor problem that said MPs don't actually represent a specific ward, but I think that is minor because IMO  most people vote upon national party lines as upon local issues.

NB: US democracy would be much more democratic if the electoral college voted proportionally to the percentage of votes received for either candidate (I think Colorado is due to do this- ?), which would simply be fairer.

 There also should be a very low cap on the amount of donations available to a political party to campaign, and donations should instead go to a central pool which is equally distributed to either side upon election time (including 3rd parties, possibly on a basis of number of states where they stand+previous vote).... if no-one is willing to donate, impose a $1 a year 'democracy tax' or something.

[an0n]

Not to be a conformist whore, but proportional representation lead to the rise of the Nazi's.

I am of the opinion that a nice, stable facist omnicidalocracy is the best.

Basically: "Shoot 'em all and let God sort 'em out."

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by an0n
Not to be a conformist whore, but proportional representation lead to the rise of the Nazi's.

I am of the opinion that a nice, stable facist omnicidalocracy is the best.

Basically: "Shoot 'em all and let God sort 'em out."

Sooo.... you'd like the Nazis, then?

[Styxx]

The only thing worse than anarchy is government.

Can't remember whose quote that is, though...

[pyro-manic]

Ugh. There's a fundamental problem with this: people are bastards. There's no system that can work perfectly, because some idiot will always decide that he could run things better, and will stir things up and break it.

My ideal system would be something along the lines of the Culture - the civilisation in Iain M. Banks's books. Basically, the people do what they want, while the Minds run everything.

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by Lightspeed
Read the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. 'tis all written there

While it may not be the perfect system of government, it'd certainly work a lot better, because the "dictator" is not aware of his situation or power. And you'd keep the simple people happy as well, with the dummy "president"  

Power corrupts, but it is far less likely to corrupt someone who isn't aware of his influence. The people striving for a powerful position are by nature the wrong sort of people for the job. The ideal person to be in power absolutely doesn't want to have the job.

I dunno, the old bloke who lives in a shack and talks to his cat sounds a lot like Dubya.