Political Crossfire Forums

[Green]

LostSoul3412 wrote: The perfect county would be no country at all. Anarchy would be the state of the nation, with no laws, or money, deterring the people from their freedoms. Any government that attempts to run itself autonomously will eventually distance itself form the people and fall prey to its own corruption. Liberty is something that we are all born with, but laws, government, and money only work to take that liberty away from us.

For all of you out there saying that that would never exist, you can find my explanations on how it can work here: www.politicalcrossfire.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=37429&start=40

I just feel too lazy to type it all up again. 8-)

But I still stand by it. The perfect country would not be a country at all. There would be no government, and no laws to restrict the people form living their lives. True liberty is the ultimate destiny of mankind, and any government will only impede that destiny.

Complete anarchy is what happened in the Superdome after Hurricane Katrina hit. People were raped, killed, robed, etc. in a shelter.

Here are a few basic personal beliefs to lay out what I think. Balance is needed beteen a few things is needed for a perfect government.

There must be enough anarchy so that the people are more powerful than the government, everybody is free to do whatever they want under reasonable limits, everybody with a good idea is heard, and that the Founding principles of the US are followed
There must be enough government control to be able to protect its peoples' lives liberties and happiness and to uphold just laws.
There must be enough communism so that people are not excessively impovershed, and that the normal people do not become slaves to the wealthies' benifit.
There must be enough capitalism so that hard work is rewarded, for the standard of living to increace for the people as a whole, and inovation, science and science flourishes.

[Matt C.]

I don't think there is such a thing as a 'perfect' country because there is so much difference in opinion around the world or even small neighborhoods.

Everyone will never agree one on country.

[Magorion]

Robin Hood wrote: Magorion wrote: Sure, a perfect country is possible. Just look at Norway... :lol:

Just ask the Danes from whom you effectively stole half your oil/natural gas - the vast reserves of oil that has allowed you to avoid bankruptcy :lol:

We havn't stolen from anybody. You are wrong. The Danes have no rights in the North Sea oil deposits, as their coast doesn't run along the North Sea deposits.

[Robin Hood]

Magorion wrote: Robin Hood wrote: Magorion wrote: Sure, a perfect country is possible. Just look at Norway... :lol:

Just ask the Danes from whom you effectively stole half your oil/natural gas - the vast reserves of oil that has allowed you to avoid bankruptcy :lol:

We havn't stolen from anybody. You are wrong. The Danes have no rights in the North Sea oil deposits, as their coast doesn't run along the North Sea deposits.

You say that but the Danish vehemently disagree. Honestly I can't be sure who to believe.

[Drake Danielson]

Out of all the reasons why a perfect country – government – seemingly cannot exist, there is one that trumps them all.

No matter what kind of government you have, it is an indisputable fact that everyone in the country – any country – will always have a difference of opinion, a different agenda, and/or a different ideology.

Because of this, it seems there will never be a perfect country, no matter what type of government. This is due to the fact that it is absolutely impossible to expect every person in the country to agree on the same thing or on the same way of doing things at any one, given time.

However, I think a perfect country could still be possible, or near possible, even with all that difference in place. The power is in that difference.

The trick is to no longer make the attempt to force or expect the difference of opinion and ideology among everyone to settle for one side or the other. It will never happen. We must allow the difference to continue but do our best to accommodate as much of that difference as possible, all at the same time.

With the differences acknowledged, understood, and utilized in conjunction with each other at the same time, we would create a well-balanced, hybrid solution for each problem, every time, with all the differences still intact.

Welcome to Centrism.

And, welcome to what could be the closest thing to a perfect country.

[Green]

Green wrote: Complete anarchy is what happened in the Superdome after Hurricane Katrina hit. People were raped, killed, robed, etc. in a shelter.

Here are a few basic personal beliefs to lay out what I think. Balance is needed beteen a few things is needed for a perfect government.

There must be enough anarchy so that the people are more powerful than the government, everybody is free to do whatever they want under reasonable limits, everybody with a good idea is heard, and that the Founding principles of the US are followed
There must be enough government control to be able to protect its peoples' lives liberties and happiness and to uphold just laws.
There must be enough communism so that people are not excessively impovershed, and that the normal people do not become slaves to the wealthies' benifit.
There must be enough capitalism so that hard work is rewarded, for the standard of living to increace for the people as a whole, and inovation, science and science flourishes.

I've been thinking and I noticed that it is imposibble for this to come true. Things can slide from one to another invisibly. Then if there is too much of somthing in government, there will be more and more of this untill it is a hell of a job to reverse.

There is no such thing as a perfect form of government.

[greeneye]

I personally don't believe the idea of a "perfect country" begins with a 'perfect government.'

I think it begins with people. The single human being. And it starts with taking responsibility for what we value the most-- Freedom. When we, (and in this case I am referring to the United States) as a society, decide and choose to take complete (not selective) responsibility for our individual actions with compassion and love in a responsible way that does not intrude upon the freedom and liberties and values of others that this country protects through the Rule of Law, and we choose to deal with any consequences (in a responsible way) from our actions -- good or bad --- this is the beginning of a perfect country.

For this will filter out into our communities and then out into the cities and then out into our states and then across the entire country.

It's not really about every one having different opinions and views. Of course, everyone is going to have different opinions and views. The challenge in a "near perfect society" is our ability to live together and "deal" with our different opinions and views. And to me this starts with exercising responsibility for one's actions with compassion and love --- and that starts with the single human being.

A perfect country can only be as perfect and noble and responsible as it's inhabitants.

[Green]

greeneye wrote: A perfect country can only be as perfect and noble and responsible as it's inhabitants.

Perfect people are impossible. Perfect governments are impossible.

[Robin Hood]

Thanks Greeneye, if my internet connection were working properly I'd quote what you wrote so that more people would read it.

[WorldCitizenMovement]

LostSoul3412 wrote: The perfect county would be no country at all. Anarchy would be the state of the nation, with no laws, or money, deterring the people from their freedoms. Any government that attempts to run itself autonomously will eventually distance itself form the people and fall prey to its own corruption. Liberty is something that we are all born with, but laws, government, and money only work to take that liberty away from us.

For all of you out there saying that that would never exist, you can find my explanations on how it can work here: www.politicalcrossfire.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=37429&start=40

I just feel too lazy to type it all up again. 8-)

But I still stand by it. The perfect country would not be a country at all. There would be no government, and no laws to restrict the people form living their lives. True liberty is the ultimate destiny of mankind, and any government will only impede that destiny.

I dont think humans are psychologically evolved enough to be ready yet for a state of existence without control or without laws.

[adleberg]

A more recent book like Plato's the republic is 'Utopia' by Saint Thomas More (1516). It is his decription of an island nation that covers almost every aspect of the ideal nation. Once you've read it you discover that it is an allegory of communism, (yes, a catholic saint dreamt of communism in the 1500's) It certainly is an interesting read.

[Magorion]

Robin Hood wrote: Magorion wrote: Robin Hood wrote: Magorion wrote: Sure, a perfect country is possible. Just look at Norway... :lol:

Just ask the Danes from whom you effectively stole half your oil/natural gas - the vast reserves of oil that has allowed you to avoid bankruptcy :lol:

We havn't stolen from anybody. You are wrong. The Danes have no rights in the North Sea oil deposits, as their coast doesn't run along the North Sea deposits.

You say that but the Danish vehemently disagree. Honestly I can't be sure who to believe.

The Danes don't have any land along the North Sea baseline where there was found oil deposits, check a map. No court, group or politician has given the Danes any sort of validation that these lies are true. It is complete fabrication. It's like Norwegians would say that Nokia is Norwegian because we share borders with Finland, or that Volvo is Norwegian because Norway was in a union with Sweden (as we were with Denmark). Perhaps these claims are due to the ridiculous notion that Denmark "owns" Norway after 400+ years of oppression against us? It's the Danes who have stolen from us, all through their forceful "Danification" of our country. They burnt countless books and forced people to speak Danish, stole silver from us, rare documents, and they are not willing to give it back.

Please tell me where you heard that Norway had "stolen" oil from the petrol midget Denmark. Also, tell me how this alleged theft was orchestrated. How much was "stolen"? When was it "stolen"? I have never heard about this before. Norway never even worked with Denmark when the exloration of the oil fields off the Norwegian coast started in the late 60s. We worked tofether with the US and Britain.

BTW, in your first post you claimed we were near bankruptcy before we got our oil reserves. This is untrue. Norway was well on its way back into becoming a nation with a stable economy after the brutal and economically devastating Nazi occupation from 1940 to 1945.

GDP per capita in 1950:

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/eco_gdp_per_cap_in_195-economy-gdp-per-capita-1950


Norway's economy and oil exploration:

http://www.answers.com/topic/economy-of-norway
'

[Robin Hood]

Quote: BTW, in your first post you claimed we were near bankruptcy before we got our oil reserves

No, I didn't.

Quote: Please tell me where you heard that Norway had "stolen" oil from the petrol midget Denmark. Also, tell me how this alleged theft was orchestrated. How much was "stolen"? When was it "stolen"? I have never heard about this before. Norway never even worked with Denmark when the exloration of the oil fields off the Norwegian coast started in the late 60s. We worked tofether with the US and Britain.

Something a Dane told me was that when it came to drawing the boundary in the sea the Danish guy was dunk and drew it in the wrong place. Pretty funny, huh?

Quote: Perhaps these claims are due to the ridiculous notion that Denmark "owns" Norway after 400+ years of oppression against us?

Look, I don't care about local animosity between you and the Danes....I'm just pointing out that the ownership fo the oil is disputed and furthermore that he dispute is not based on some kind of Greater Denmark claims - OBVIOUSLY.

[Magorion]

[quote="Robin Hood"] Quote: BTW, in your first post you claimed we were near bankruptcy before we got our oil reserves
Quote:
No, I didn't.


You wrote this: "Just ask the Danes from whom you effectively stole half your oil/natural gas - the vast reserves of oil that has allowed you to avoid bankruptcy"

Quote: Please tell me where you heard that Norway had "stolen" oil from the petrol midget Denmark. Also, tell me how this alleged theft was orchestrated. How much was "stolen"? When was it "stolen"? I have never heard about this before. Norway never even worked with Denmark when the exloration of the oil fields off the Norwegian coast started in the late 60s. We worked tofether with the US and Britain.

Quote: Something a Dane told me was that when it came to drawing the boundary in the sea the Danish guy was dunk and drew it in the wrong place. Pretty funny, huh?

No, it's stupid. That's no evidence. Why are you using this ridiculous lie to discredit my country?

Quote: Perhaps these claims are due to the ridiculous notion that Denmark "owns" Norway after 400+ years of oppression against us?

Quote: Look, I don't care about local animosity between you and the Danes....I'm just pointing out that the ownership fo the oil is disputed and furthermore that he dispute is not based on some kind of Greater Denmark claims - OBVIOUSLY.

No, the ownership isn't disputed. No court or organisation in the world have given the Danes ANY rights whatsoever to our North Sea oil fields. Case closed. Basta!

[Robin Hood]

Quote: You wrote this: "Just ask the Danes from whom you effectively stole half your oil/natural gas - the vast reserves of oil that has allowed you to avoid bankruptcy"

Yes, subtract oil revenues from the state finances and Norway would currently be completely bankrupt.

Quote: No, it's stupid. That's no evidence. Why are you using this ridiculous lie to discredit my country?

He's my friend, has no angst against Norway and no reason to lie to me; and I certainly didn't say it to discredit your country...

Quote: No, the ownership isn't disputed. No court or organisation in the world have given the Danes ANY rights whatsoever to our North Sea oil fields. Case closed. Basta!

Well it is disputed, by the Danes.

[Magorion]

[quote="Robin Hood"] Quote: You wrote this: "Just ask the Danes from whom you effectively stole half your oil/natural gas - the vast reserves of oil that has allowed you to avoid bankruptcy"

Quote: Yes, subtract oil revenues from the state finances and Norway would currently be completely bankrupt.

No it wouldn't. Where did you get this absurd notion from??? Your Danish friend? Oil revenues make up only 24% of our economy. You're lying. We wreen't bankrupt before 1969, and we wouldn't have been bankrupt today without oil. BTW, a lot of industry that could've gone to other fields are going tol the petroleum industry, so likely we'd be pretty much just as rich without oil as we are with it. We'd be be having more industry.

[Robin Hood]

Quote: Oil revenues make up only 24% of our economy.

Only? What the hell do you mean only? Anyway unless your government has consistently been in absolutely vast surplus since oil was discovered this 24% subtracted would have meant bankruptcy. That's your entire welfare system, I guess, gone straight away.....

Quote: We wreen't bankrupt before 1969, and we wouldn't have been bankrupt today without oil.

I don't know, most other states in Europe are especially the more socialist ones. This is only speculation, bu my point was that IF (and this is a big if) the state had spent the same amount and not had the oil revenues it would be bankrupt many times over.

Quote: so likely we'd be pretty much just as rich without oil as we are with it.

Are you serious?

[Magorion]

[quote="Robin Hood"] Quote: Oil revenues make up only 24% of our economy.

Quote: Only? What the hell do you mean only? Anyway unless your government has consistently been in absolutely vast surplus since oil was discovered this 24% subtracted would have meant bankruptcy. That's your entire welfare system, I guess, gone straight away.....

Please calm down...

No, we wouldn't have been bankrupt.

Quote: We wreen't bankrupt before 1969, and we wouldn't have been bankrupt today without oil.

Quote: I don't know, most other states in Europe are especially the more socialist ones. This is only speculation, bu my point was that IF (and this is a big if) the state had spent the same amount and not had the oil revenues it would be bankrupt many times over.

You must think we are idiots. If we didn't have the same income as we have now, we wouldn't be spending as much as we did now. That just makes sense. However, we'd be able to spend pretty much the same as we'd have pretty much the same revenue.

Quote: so likely we'd be pretty much just as rich without oil as we are with it.

Quote: Are you serious?

Yes, and economists are serious when they've said this too. We had a decent economy before 1969, and if we'd used our resources on non-petroleum related industries we would most likely still have a high income, like we do today. If our "start" (meaning 1969) was relatively high, then with good and strong growth in non-oil industries we'd maintain a strong economy, like Denmark and Finland have done. Both have managed very well without major (Denmark has a tiny oil industry) oil revenues, and both had to recover after WW2.

[Robin Hood]

Quote: If we didn't have the same income as we have now, we wouldn't be spending as much as we did now. That just makes sense. However, we'd be able to spend pretty much the same as we'd have pretty much the same revenue.

Yes, subtract 24% of your GDP(?), probably a lot higher in the past, most of it going to the government as revenue (therefore being a much higher percentage of revenue even than GDP) and you'd have the same revenue....sure.....and so, I guess, would Saudi Arabia :lol:

Quote: and if we'd used our resources on non-petroleum related industries we would most likely still have a high income, like we do today.

But you wouldn't have a lot of those resources...

Quote: Yes, and economists are serious when they've said this too.

Who? Care to provide a link?

Quote: If our "start" (meaning 1969) was relatively high, then with good and strong growth in non-oil industries we'd maintain a strong economy, like Denmark and Finland have done

So the vast amounts of oil have done nothing to increase Norway's wealth? You're insane.

[Magorion]

Robin Hood wrote: Quote: If we didn't have the same income as we have now, we wouldn't be spending as much as we did now. That just makes sense. However, we'd be able to spend pretty much the same as we'd have pretty much the same revenue.

Yes, subtract 24% of your GDP(?), probably a lot higher in the past, most of it going to the government as revenue (therefore being a much higher percentage of revenue even than GDP) and you'd have the same revenue....sure.....and so, I guess, would Saudi Arabia :lol:

Quote: and if we'd used our resources on non-petroleum related industries we would most likely still have a high income, like we do today.

But you wouldn't have a lot of those resources...

Quote: Yes, and economists are serious when they've said this too.

Who? Care to provide a link?

Quote: If our "start" (meaning 1969) was relatively high, then with good and strong growth in non-oil industries we'd maintain a strong economy, like Denmark and Finland have done

So the vast amounts of oil have done nothing to increase Norway's wealth? You're insane.

YOU are the insane one. You've claimed that we owe Denmark half our oil resources (which is a lie), and you claim that without the oil industry we wouldn't have other industries.