Political Crossfire Forums

[augustus kafka]

bah, haven't been able to defend my claims in a while, sorry about that.

yes, i think that anarchy can't be sustained for long periods of time and it's our nature to form governments. but on the topic of a perfect country...

someone said that humans are imperfect, therefore we always create imperfect systems. but let me point to an example where that's not entirely true.

science. we've discovered laws that the universe is governed by, correct? these laws are perfect, they're never wrong, etc. etc. what i'm suggesting is that we make governing a kind of science. that we educate rulers based on scientific principles. i.e. A student in a math class gets asked 2 + 2, and he answers 4. it's logic. they keep making it more complex, via algebra and calculus. but there's always certain rules, and they're never wrong, and a student must memorize those rules and operate within them. so what i'm suggesting is whether it is possible to watch human history over, say, a couple thousand years, and find patterns in it. and then, from those patterns, derive laws; for example: country A is a capitalist republic. event Q happens to it while it is suffering crisis F. according to history, the best step this country could take is step Y. that's what i'm saying might be possible. of course, it wouldn't be that simple. but you have to admit that there are trends in history that have been observed again and again, and that, over a long enough time, maybe these trends are so absolute that they can be considered laws. and when they're considered laws, a ruler who is well educated in those laws can figure out what history has shown to be the best step to take to avoid the least fallout, etc. etc.

but, again, it would mean that every possible opportunity in every event and using every type of government, ruler, etc would have to be tried. we'd have to wait perhaps hundreds of thousands of years. but this is just philosophy. could this, in theory, happen?

[Robin Hood]

Quote: There is usually and alfa male that dominates the pack and directs them, similar to a president or dictator

Our society is constructed through human thought NOT solely biological impetus. Biologically we are best grouped into sets of 120 or thereabouts.

[DevilMan]

[quote="augustus kafka"]bah, haven't been able to defend my claims in a while, sorry about that.

yes, i think that anarchy can't be sustained for long periods of time and it's our nature to form governments. but on the topic of a perfect country...

someone said that humans are imperfect, therefore we always create imperfect systems. but let me point to an example where that's not entirely true.

science. we've discovered laws that the universe is governed by, correct? these laws are perfect, they're never wrong, etc. etc. what i'm suggesting is that we make governing a kind of science. that we educate rulers based on scientific principles. i.e. A student in a math class gets asked 2 + 2, and he answers 4. it's logic. they keep making it more complex, via algebra and calculus. but there's always certain rules, and they're never wrong, and a student must memorize those rules and operate within them. so what i'm suggesting is whether it is possible to watch human history over, say, a couple thousand years, and find patterns in it. and then, from those patterns, derive laws; for example: country A is a capitalist republic. event Q happens to it while it is suffering crisis F. according to history, the best step this country could take is step Y. that's what i'm saying might be possible. of course, it wouldn't be that simple. but you have to admit that there are trends in history that have been observed again and again, and that, over a long enough time, maybe these trends are so absolute that they can be considered laws. and when they're considered laws, a ruler who is well educated in those laws can figure out what history has shown to be the best step to take to avoid the least fallout, etc. etc.

but, again, it would mean that every possible opportunity in every event and using every type of government, ruler, etc would have to be tried. we'd have to wait perhaps hundreds of thousands of years. but this is just philosophy. could this, in theory, happen?[/quote]

In the course of history there have been people 'smart' enough to notice how government operates, trends in human behavior. These people, unfortunately, have not been the kind of intellectuals that help human kind. One of these people is Hitler. He knew how people think, how they work, but instead of using this 'gift' to help people he forced his way to a dictatorship. A government that figures out the laws of human kind is possible, but to establish the government would be a miracle. People naturally exploit gifts and talents... Just look at that American Idol for kids show they had on FOX ha ha... stage moms... Anyway I like the thought you put into this but a Utopia is impossible. Humans are greedy, selfish, and mean. That's why governments fail. A perfect country would be best created by beings other than human.

[Locke08]

Quote: Anyway I like the thought you put into this but a Utopia is impossible. Humans are greedy, selfish, and mean. That's why governments fail. A perfect country would be best created by beings other than human.

define the word perfection
perfection has been impossible forever, everyone makes mistakes, everyone can be bought, everyone is in it for themselves
if everybody was selfless and altruistic they would also be mindless
and a few selfish people would ride to the top (Anthem by Ayn Rand)

untill you make the perfect human how can you have a perfect society, much less a perfect country?

[DevilMan]

Perfect is a thing as a whole, an unchanging variable, a singularity. Perfection and humanity are two things that will never be compatible. The only perfect human was Jesus and look what happened to him! :lol: But my point is that There will never be a perfect society because humans are selfish creatures that only care for them selves. That's why dictatorship is possible and popular. One person always pulls the strings. One person has to be in it for them self. Unless every one has the same ideas, ideals, etc, through brain wash or cloning there can't ever be perfect humanity.

[Izzibeth]

:) i know i will be instantly attacked for this. but i believe that Communism (real Communism... not what we have seen implemented in the past) would be the best form of government. unfortunately, as we have seen... it does not work. Communism in it's purest form requires for all human beings to be selfless and altruistic. that is an impossibility.

i remember, while i was in art school years ago, this one American Politics class i took in which the teacher was trying to explain Communism and, while a good idea, how it does not ever work. so he said "you," pointing to one student "will wash clothes, you," pointing to another and so on "will plant squash.. and you will tend to the cows... you will fix windows. and we will all share our goods and provide services to one another essentially 'free of charge' because we are all working for the greater good of the community." well... we hadn't even started yet and this one girl raises her hand and says "i don't like squash." ^_^ and that was the end of Communism in my American Politics class at art school. and that is all it takes. one person. Communism is not what you saw in Russia or what you see in China. that is something else with the name "Communism" given to it. Communism would be great. but, like i said, it would NEVER, EVER work. because human beings are not wholly selfless and altruistic. some are lazy, some are mean, some are too nice, some are busy-bodies... and therefore.. a utopian society is impossible.

in terms of the United States... i think perhaps the original government we had set up was the closest we came towards a 'perfect form of a government in a country'. things are definitely changing now... and i think the United States is slowly slipping. perhaps in my lifetime i will see the rise of a new superpower. i would not be at all surprised. ^_^ i'm only in my twenties so i have plenty of time, i suppose.

[DevilMan]

Actualy I agree with you. True communism is a good idea, but its just too easy to take advantage of. Sadly we may never know the good it can reap.

[Robin Hood]

Quote: i think perhaps the original government we had set up was the closest we came towards a 'perfect form of a government in a country'.

Without a doubt.

[augustus kafka]

more ideas on this that may help with the whole perfection thing. i think that creating an absolute system where everyone is perfect is impossible, yes. buuuut, i think that creating a system that can negate people's imperfection through the use of technology and other things is possible. just an example: You are planning on accepting an illegal donation to run for president. The CIA overhears the plans for this, comes, and arrests you, because it is illegal, and because they caught you doing it. That's basically what we have now, right? But we're still corrupted, we're still immoral. Obviously (or so I think,) we don't have enough laws, or enough of the right kinds of laws, to deal with certain aspects of human imperfection.

Because that's basically what laws are. Besides telling people to support the government through military service, taxes, etc, laws try to find reprecussions and ways to deal with human imperfection. The very fact that we have laws is proof that daily, we try to be as perfect as possible.

[Robin Hood]

Quote: yes. buuuut, i think that creating a system that can negate people's imperfection through the use of technology and other things is possible.

Who'll run the system?

Quote: to deal with certain aspects of human imperfection.

Who defines imperfection?

[THEXRATED]

Perfect country is not possible in reality because it would involve people and be affected by outside forces.

[Locke08]

izzie wrote: Communism would be great. but, like i said, it would NEVER, EVER work.

communism would work in a perfect society, but then again, every government would work in a perfect society

[augustus kafka]

who'll run the government? i don't know. people who are trained in how to run the government, or robots. currently my main beef with america is that presidents do not necessarily need to know the best possible solution to a problem; just the most popular. they don't need to know how to be a ruler, just a leader. and there is a difference between those two things, in my opinion. leaders lead. they gain people's support, and that support allows them to do things which may not be in the best interest of the country. rulers take a country and preside over it in a manner that is beneficial to the people of the country. of course people like that exist; imperfection in presidents and heads of state is only intolerable when it is harmful or detrimental to the people they are ruling. we give mathematicians permanent jobs because of their mathematical ability; they have been tested again and again, in college and school, and their mathematical ability is perfect, or much more perfect than other peoples'. that is why they are mathematicians. currently, i don't believe that being a president is necessarily like that, and i think that's bad. experience comes in two types - experience in being wrong and in being right. you need to have both types, and some presidents only have one type; usually the wrong one. so if they happen to be great leaders (charismatic, nice, funny, etc.), they can get elected regardless of how good they really are.

as for who will define imperfection? well, in my opinion it would be historians. this is coming back to my main point. that it is possible to define imperfection in rulers, and to define wrong decisions in ruling, through constant study of historical patterns that have been tried and tested by time. this is not an immediate solution to the problems of the world, of course. it's just a little thought :lol:

[Robin Hood]

The following two quotes are from you:

Quote: i think that creating a system that can negate people's imperfection through the use of technology and other things is possible.

Quote: who'll run the government? i don't know. people

Do you see the contradiction? The point is that the more governing the state does, the less governing the people do over what they know best - their own lives.

[Locke08]

and to create a government run by robots would be stupid because soon enough they figure out the best way to keep corruption down and the help the economy is to suppress all speech against the government and then you have a totalitarianist state

[augustus kafka]

actually the best way to keep corruption down and help the economy isn't to suppress all speech against the state, because look where that got the USSR.


and Robin Hood, not quoting my in context sure does make it seem like i contradict myself, but its more my fault that i haven't explained enough...

"Who'll run the government? I don't know. People who are trained in how to run the government, or robots." That was the quote. It was actually said more to show that I don't know which solution is best yet. This would be one of the things that history would have to prove.

And the people who need their (relevant) imperfections negated are only the ones ruling the country. I don't see how relevant it is that the more governing the state does, the less people themselves govern their lives. I mean, yes, it's relevant, but not to this topic.

[Robin Hood]

Quote: and Robin Hood, not quoting my in context sure does make it seem like i contradict myself, but its more my fault that i haven't explained enough...

I didn't quote your full context because it didn't matter. You were still disparaging people as imperfect whilst wanting other people to forcibly fix their imperfections. The idea of robots running the state did not need to be addressed as it's not a serious proposition at the moment.

Sometimes it is said that man cannot be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then be trusted with the government of others? Or have we found angels in the form of kings to govern him? Let history answer this question.
Thomas Jefferson

Quote: I don't see how relevant it is that the more governing the state does, the less people themselves govern their lives. I mean, yes, it's relevant, but not to this topic.

You're advocating a centrally planned society in an ever more complex world. This seems like the opposite of what you should be doing. My point was to introduce you to the idea of liberty.

[Norgaske]

A perfect country is easy to create, not maintain. Start with one person from one family. Then another person from the same family. They have the same ideas. Add a person from the same region. All are happy. Until some immigrant comes in with all his pals saying the government is evil for not liking them (I have nothing against immigrants). Everything is fine until people come in and form new groups of friendship, ideas, and intelligence. This happens with kids, in school, at work, and in countries, and then in the world. Everyone must understand the common goal of a society. It is biologically impossible for everyone to have the same ideas, even from the same family. But when you have one person in a country, everyone (the one person) has the same exact idea.

And, perfect is a variable. Everyone here is inserting their idea of Perfect. I see peace. Some see money. Some see happiness (which comes with peace [most of the time :)]). Others raised in other families and nations see military power to kill everyone else.

[DevilMan]

That whole family thing wouldn't work either, my dad is a liberal, I used to be conservative, then I dropped my political party and my religion and became a human. People will NEVER agree on politics, ever one wants whats best for them. People are selfish, that's why government exists and fails its that simple. There will never be a perfect country or a world with out war until some one lets fly with the nukes and ends us all... Until then keep on dreaming.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

My turn to ramble:

1. Anarchism doesn't work because it inevitably degenerates into the strong over the weak. The only way to really have this work is to have everyone buy into the system--but then that would be true for any government or lack thereof. As long as everyone buys into the central ideal of a system, whether it is "by the people, of the people, for the people" or "to each according to his need, from each according to his ability," or "an it harm none, do as thou will," the system will work. The inherent problem is that each individual has their own needs, goals, and ambitions, and will resist the system if they feel that their objectives are not possible under it.

2. Science doesn't offer "perfect answers." There are a handful of scientific "laws," and none of them can be applied to good government because they have to do with basic physical forces. It would be inconcievable to come up with a system of government based on a mechanistic process, because people are not rational actors. If you could "plug in" a certain action and always achieve the desired result, then sure, such a government might theoretically be devised; however, people don't work that way. You can't introduce a particular stimulus and get a 100% reliable response because people just don't act logically all the time.

You might get close by building a system that assumes that people act in their own best interests all of the time, like a representative democracy, but you still won't get it 100% right because some people believe that Option A is in their best interests when Option B actually is. We're just not logical. Life is a game of incomplete information. If we have a populace who are absolutely informed, who act in a consistent manner, and can all buy into a system, then you have the recipie for the "perfect government."

But it's just not that easy, because to get all of these things would be to fundamentally change human nature. And because of how humans are, not everyone will ever agree on how humanity has to be changed in order to make a utopian society. The "revolution" would have to be all inclusive and be bottom-up, which is virtually impossible. So far all attempts to "change" man have been top-down and fail miserably. I don't see this as a flaw in human nature--it's just how we are.

So denying that a perfect government exists, I would say that the "best" government is much like American federalism, but with a different system of voting so that parties and special interest groups don't dominate the political landscape.