Supporters? I have none! (7-week poll.)

[Beyond]

Free market ...

Without free market small bussiness burdened by taxes in this country of mine cannot compete against those giant subsidized corporations.

Right now, we can't.

[Celestial_Samurai]

I am sorry I can not support this. I know some things need to be dropped. But with no Free Market economy (i guess prices will be lowered) there would be less of a need to out do one another which would lead to stop spending on useless entertainment items which help fuel technological process by the need to improve them. Which would stop all technology and I would greatly resent the fact that we lose the chance to learn new things and go back to the way things were.

[Mitera Nikkou]

Christina:

Dark ages? How in the heck do you come up with that? O.o; That just sounds like an exaggerated opinion. I mean, physical labor? You make it sound like we would return to fiefdoms, for crying out loud. Besides, how else do you think we get much of our food? Because of plenty of labor, however much its difficulty! We don't have robots that go out and do that stuff for us yet, after all. Technology may help in acquiring and keeping food (as well as with stuff between their death and putting on the market to buy), but the technology would ultimately be worthless without the labor that already exists.

And I never said all political parties. I just said "political parties." (Though I can understand why you wouldn't catch what I meant without a more clear indication of what I meant, so that's okay. I had thought of putting a note with it, referring to plural and not total, but, eh...) Which brings it down to one party. Why? Because more than one just creates a conflict of interests that gets taken way too far, too easily. They just end up focusing on each other and forget whom they're really supposed to be representing: the people. If you've heard anything about American politics the past two decades (and even further back than that), you'd see that the majority of them are just a bunch of self-interested assholes who are worried about their careers and want to dump as much blame and garbage on their fellow politicians (sometimes even on people in the same party). So, what would be better about one party? We can single out individuals and root out the garbage, because, if they blame others... They'd be marring their own party! In order to look good, their party has to look good; that's often how it works. They wouldn't have another party to blame, or another party that they can claim to be better than. With one party, they'd have to take things seriously if any of them want the credibility and trust that they wish to inspire in people. Look at the supreme court, for example. It's easier to weed out the rubbish and place responsibility because it's not so divided as to make it difficult to clean up. If a justice does poorly, hey, we'll know. And who recommended them? The president. Who allowed them to be a justice? The senate. Bam, bam, bam; and that is that. Not much runaround, and not many options for tossing blame and complicating matters. Also, having only one party would be good inspiration for working toward having a good party. I mean, if you only have one party... It better be a good one, because you can't settle for another choice! You have to make sure that the choices that you do have count: the people put into that one party. And without another party around so you can hop back and forth between the lesser of the evils (thus not doing what should be done), you can focus on making what's evil... Good! Not satisfied with a party? Why turn your attention away from it and go for another party, allowing the former party of interest to continue on its merry way? With one party, people better pick up their sorry asses and put effort into ensuring that that one party is satisfactory. Plus, more than one party just makes things more complicated for people, and leaves it open for people to divide against each other and forget that they should be working toward the common good of all people instead of whatever they think is good. Sure, people can divide themselves among people in a party, but it would still come down to what the party (as a whole) focuses on and decides on. If you get together people in a party that can work as a team, backing certain people can be a much less abrasive matter.

Sullen Wraith:

Actually, people are fit to lead people. Why do you think so many can follow someone so blindly? Hitler managed that, didn't he? Doesn't matter what tactics were used to convince people to devote themselves to a cause: people can lead people. Plus, it's pretty much a natural facet of humans to have one above the others, that leads the rest. See, despite the government being divided in three, it's the executive that still gets more attention and following as a figurehead. Why? Because it's one person, whom people believe is a leader. Not all leaders are good leaders, and what is considered as "good" depends wholly on the common mindset of those involved. But, for tens of thousands of years (and probably longer), humans have been led by other people, whether if that was one person or many. It's just a fact that humans often depend on the decision of one person, because of its time-saving, simplistic method. Humans love convenience, particularly the latest batch in America. It's pathetic how easily led some people can be, with blind loyalty and ignorance decorating their chest.

Beyond:

I don't know how to answer you, mostly because I don't quite understand what you mean. Free market in your country? What collects the taxes?

Celestial Samurai:

Wrong. So totally, completely wrong. An exaggeration from hell, too. Sorry, I couldn't euphemize my feelings about that. That's just blind dependence on convention and not innovation. People are innovative, and we made a lot of progress to get to where we are before free markets, before currency, even. Where would we be without a wheel? Or a spear? Hard to imagine that we couldn't have done that without a free market, isn't it? The fact of the matter is: people are curious, adventurous and innovative. The most important tool that humans have, is not a free market, money, or even government: the greatest tool, are ideas. How could we possibly have progressed as far as we have, if not for certain physicists, and even other branches of science? What of philosophers? That doesn't take a free market, nor does it require currency. Not everyone will need an incentive to come up with new things, or figure out mysteries, beyond their own interests and indulgences. People will progress simply so they know what something is instead of being ignorant of it, and/or just for the challenge and/or prestige for doing something that no one else had done before them. The fact is, people get bored, and they will pursue new things and, when that happens (because it is inevitable), we'll progress. And then new things will be improved, combined with other features and mediums, and there will be someone out there (you can count on it) that will want to one-up them, to do better, or just amaze people with something totally new (rather than just different). The way that I see it, I'll have a super-free market, where a country's resources are well-managed and accounted for, including much recycling (tons of jobs that many people can learn and handle). Without currency and the current free market, there would be more available resources and more people that won't be held back because they can't fund their progress. They'll have what they'll need to pursue what they wish to create (or try to create). There will be free education, so monetary class doesn't reflect their lack of knowledge. What it all comes down to, is effort. And this would take away the obstacles that come with the current system. Will things progress as fast as they do now? That's relative to the circumstances. But I know for a fact that progress wouldn't halt nor regress. However, in my own personal opinion, I believe that we are progressing too fast. We aren't taking in enough considerations. If anything, having money around is the leading cause for such inconsiderations, because they're more interested in making money and ensuring that they can live well and have security than what the consequences may result from their actions. You can live well and have security without money. It's just a matter of putting in the effort to do so, and that's what I want to do. To me, having less dependencies is better, leaving less risk of whatever trouble would arise from a lack of a certain dependency. Look at all of the poor in America, and all of the homeless that money just can't seem to help. Money is a dependency, and that is what happens when there is a lack of it. Look over in Africa, where so many are poor. Being dependent on money, we can't help them because non-American entities horde and squander American money, leaving very little for the people (in America) that actually care about helping the homeless and the poor in Africa (among many other things). There are a lot of people with good hearts, but they're dependent on money to have the resources to do anything. I want to end that. I don't know how humanity can live with itself, but I guess that it's just as well so long as those that benefit (and continue to benefit) the most (from the current system) make sure that people are dependent on them. If anything is holding back human progress, I'd say its those (certain) rich mother[Censor!]s that use their power in the current system to make sure that the system doesn't change and (thus) continue to benefit from it. They only leave everyone else just enough to live with, but that's only because of the pathetic acceptance that people in general have for this system. I say it's time for change. Nothing can be perfect, but God knows there's better! In every garden of Eden, a little snake must deceive.

Kara:

It's still on its way. I just want to take a break after this post. X_X

[Christina Anikari]

So there was no conflict of interest in the Soviet Union or in modern day communist China? I am sorry to say that doesn't seem to fit very well with the actual history of those countries. Look at the examples of the cultural revolution or the purges that Krushchev performed after the death of Stalin. Really there are no examples of one party systems that didn't contain in-fighting. The closest to an example is probably the nazi party after 1934. Before that there was the rivalry between Hitler and Ernst Röhm that ended in the purge of the SA.

As for my comparison with the dark ages then that is pretty much what doing away with all higher organizatorical functions such as currency, political parties or democracy together with convenience would mean. Well theoretically speaking it might also lead to the kind of iron fist dictatorship found in cartoons, but that is much less likely. But lets look at it, every single political system since the early middle ages has featured currency and all of them has had political parties in one form or another, even if they aren't formal. And the lack of convenience is more or less the key of the primitivist creed which is all about returning to earlier simpler times with backbreaking labour. Think Amish only anarchist instead of christian. Though after your recent clarifications you sound more like a maoist, possibly even a cambodian maoist than a typical primitivist the way you did before.

[Mitera Nikkou]

I think the problem here, is that you're not understanding the definitions that I'm using. Did I say convenience? No. I said excessive convenience. Convenience as far as needs go, a perhaps a bit extra here and there, is fine. But excessive convenience has to go. It's called "excessive" for a reason.

Also, I never said that it'd stop conflict of interest completely. I only mean for it to arise less frequently, and be handled more quickly and efficiently. The single parties that you referred to were also in different forms of governments, not democracy.

And I said no representative democracy, not no government system whatsoever. Yeesh. I mean, seriously; I just don't know how you can perceive things so out of context. If you read what I've said previously, obviously I do leave representatives for a form of government. However, the form of government that I would like to see exist doesn't have a name. It's based on a bunch of ideas, having a bit of this, and having a bit of that. I'm all about balance. I want less dependencies, less corruption, less control of few people over many others, less deprivation, and more opportunities for citizens in general. Among many other things. It's just as much self-interest (for me) as it is being guided by the interests of others. Even if they don't realize what they need.

[Christina Anikari]

Because the context you are presenting pretty much consists of you saying that there is more to it that you can't express. I can only talk about what you say and not about the content of what you don't say, and what you say is mostly an indistinct wish for things to be different than how they are in the US today and with ideas that if put together are closer to maoism than anything else. Also how would a single party system curb conflicts of interest? It would just means there are fewer formal tools for handling it.

[AnimaVex]

Well, I'd say yes, but there's one thing (And you've already mentioned it.): the TRANSITION. Human behins are not creatures that enjoy large amounts of change; once they grow accustomed to one form of life, they take much coaxing before they shall agree upon changing again. Take racism, for example. Has every person in the world relinquished that irrational hatred of one type of people created due to their color just because there's a law against it? No. People still discriminate against them, despite all the time that has passed since it. Same as gender. And it will take a few more decades, if ever, in order to be decimated completely.

And I'm talking impersonally because I, for one, agree with all you say. It would still take a bit of coaxing in order to get me to give up "excessive convenience". (For obvious reasons, of course. )

I hope you understand. I'd say yes for the heck of it, but since you asked... *hugs Nikkou just for the heck of it*

[Mitera Nikkou]

Edit: this part toward Christina. I may get to you, NekoDaniel, after the post that I mention later in this post.

*Rests face in hands and shakes head, sighing*

You're still doing it.

Not at all. When I say, "do away with excessive convenience", what am I not expressing? When I say, "having conveniences that we need, plus some more here and there", what am I not expressing? The more I reply, the more I express in more explicit terms. But you fail to register them, perhaps (and this is an assumption, so you don't get your underwear in a bunch about me defining it as absolute) because you're against my ideas in the first place. The fact is, I've expressed a lot; but you fail to see that because you're looking at the picture in pieces, not with everything that I've painted thus far. How you could see what I have expressed so far as close to Maoism is beyond me. True, I haven't gotten to all of my ideas and elaborations yet, but I see enough already to completely differentiate from Maoism. I mean, if you haven't noticed... There'd be no dictator! No currency! No communism! There's just nothing with enough weight to point toward Maoism, or even Marxism and Leninism. In fact, you could even say that the still-lacking details thus far is a good indication, seeing as what I have just doesn't indicate Maoism in any way at all. It seems like you're still leaning on past perceptions when you were leaning on ideas that you had gathered in the wrong context (such as no government and conveniences, for example; and even China had a government when Mao Zedong was in power).

Also how would a single party system curb conflicts of interest? It would just means there are fewer formal tools for handling it.

Well, having one party won't curb conflicts itself, but other things will. For one, with currency gone, there's a lot of inspiration for conflict and corruption gone right there. For another, the planned system would be such that the small government is easily scrutinized by the people, and people will have a greater opportunity being active with political stuff (not as politicians) without the fear of not being able to support a family whilst taking some time for political interests, being fired or arrested for your opinions, and generally being able to be present for rallies, protests and voting. People not only need to feel that they make the country, but they need to know that it's really for the people, by the people. "It's not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country", as paraphrased (since I may not have directly quoted) from JFK, is what I mean. If you allow a bunch of representatives to run a country, as well as the three legislative branches, then how can it be by the people, for the people? The way that I see it, it's just a cop out government that failed to truly grasp the power of the people, or just never intended the people to have much say. Politicians are politicians, and parts of legislation are parts of legislation; where are the checks and balances for those? That's where the people should come in, to create a nice, proactive cycle. Instead, more and more liberties are taken from people all of the time. In fact, I believe that most of the first ten amendments of the constitution are being infringed upon. Why would the people want that? Why would they do it? It's because the government and other entities are taking advantage of them, because they don't have nearly as much power (and knowledge) as they should rightly have. I want to change that. The government's doing more jobs than it should be doing. Here's a revision of a construction worker sign: "Let the people work, let 'em live." The people would be the main tool for curbing the party, people that are informed, that have time to get involved, and don't have to fear actions (that they have a right to do) that (right now) will make their rough life even worse. And, another tool of curbing the party, would be impeachments. They're so uncommon, but we know how corrupt the people in the goverment are; it's like impeachment is something scary to do, or made hard to do. Well, if things were to change to how I'd like it, there'd be an impeachment parade right away. Whether if the indictments will be followed by being charged with a criminal charge will depend on whether or not there was a crime. The people should act as controllers of representatives, not picking them as if they'd pick their poison (either literally, or figuratively (as in: an alcoholic beverage)). If the people feel that the representative that they chose to represent them no longer represents their interests, or no don't take their interests to heart, then they should be able to can them and vote for another that they think will better act as their representative. A person wanting to represent people should be encouraged to really represent people if they wish to be a representative. It should be as simple as that, but the people've got it bad; they're unable to properly take on their role, and I want that to be reversed. That's why I want one party: more than one divide's the people's attention and they fail to realize that they have a better choice than dividing the forces of people's interests and the perceived lesser evil winning out over other interests. People should find someone interested in being their representative, someone that will work with other repesentatives for a common goal: the betterment and/or upkeep of the constitution, country, its citizens. And, let's not forget about getting along with other countries and their people. I think that, with a country that caters to all races and religions, an example of how non-messy and prosperous the country is (in general) would be a good inspiration for improvement elsewhere. Usually the activity of one country's government with another nation's reflects on the people, and right now our system is so messed up, full of scandal and imbeciles... It's not even funny. Heck, it's downright absurd. That's why the people need to have the power that they should, and influence the government of their country like they should. At the very least, if the government's bad, then it could be attributed to the people of this country. Right now, you can't really blame the people because they're just so... Misinformed by a government that's very unbalanced, both inside and also in consideration of the role that people should play in the country. Rather than a mutual aid system, the government's large and in charge. Well, so far as just between the government and people go. I'm sure there are other entities with more influence over the government than the government has over them.

To peoples in general:

Now, I'm going to take a break from this. If you reply, Christina, that's fine. But my next post will have more information concerning things in general, that would replace what I'd like to get rid of. Which I really don't have to do, because the poll wasn't meant for elaborating what I'd like to get rid of. It was merely asking if you wanted change or not. So long as you're content, or think/feel that something is impossible or won't do any better, do you know what? Self-prophesy. If you go into something while thinking that it's not going to turn out well... Who can you blame if it does? If you'd like to change how something is (because you don't like it), but you don't do anything because you don't think you can do anything... Then how can you expect anything other than nothing changing? If you're content with one thing and stick with it, how do you know there isn't something better out there? And what will you do when what-you're-content-with isn't sturdy enough to stand the test of time, and you're lost without it? Sure, all risks that we have to take... But tried and true does not always mean that's it good for you. Or even for most. Look at America and tell me that nothing needs to be changed. But I know that you won't, because it does need improvements and changes. Not willing to try my changes (and assuming what you think could likely replace it, or what you'd favor to replace them with) just creates the same problem that makes things fail: self-prophesy of failure or believing that something wouldn't work out. Maybe my changes wouldn't work... But you'll never know if you only speculate, and speculation holds no conclusive results whatsoever. We aren't where we are because we haven't tried; in fact, it's not uncommon for a man and a woman to couple multiple times before they see the results that they're interested in. ;p And even then it may not turn out as planned, if they desired a specific something out of it (like a father wanting a boy, perhaps as an heir or beneficiary of a patrimony). This poll is just my weird way of expressing my inability to do anything alone, because that's exactly what I am in almost every conceivable way: alone.

[Christina Anikari]

I'm sorry but the more you make it explicit the more it starts seeming like maoism. You want centralistic, non-representative democracy, you want to some extent to get people to return to an earlier purer lifestyle through fulfilling their needs through physical labour and you want to get rid of capitalism. While it might not exactly be maoism, it is very, very close to it. Possibly a variant or a closely related ideology. I know you say it is something different, but often you cannot see what your own pet theories sound like, many marxists had a hard time seeing how much their way of interpreting Karl Marx resembled fascism for example. Likewise many communists these days cannot see how much they resemble conservatives and so on. Your views here resemble maoism. What makes them resemble maoism is the belief that a removal of representative democracy and institution of a one-party system can lead to a break from capitalism and all the problems that bring. That is in a very short form the gist of leninism, what makes it seem like maoism and not leninism is the focus on fighting modern conveniences as they weaken people and ultimately hurt them, which is a very strong train of thought found in maoism and expressed in such works as the song "Oh mother. I so want to go into the mountains to harden myself with tough physical labour", though likely not as excessive. Very little of what you have said so far points in any direction other than maoism.

[Mitera Nikkou]

Actually, I've changed my mind. I think you're just ignoring me completely, or purposefully distorting what you read for some reason.

I'm going to make this clear, and to the point. Never, ever, did I say that it'd be non-representative. If you actually read my posts at all, you'd see that I've been saying many words about a single, representative party. And define centralistic, because that can mean a lot of things. If you mean "centralizing authority", I should point out that I haven't said anything about getting rid of legislation or representatives. In fact, there are a lot of democratic elements that I've clearly mentioned. And now you're going on about purer lifestyles... When did I ever mention that, or elude to it? Did you even note my first correction about conveniences still being around? Good grief! And you're still going on about physical labor like it's the only thing, and (seemingly) slavery-edged. Wrong. Also, I never said that I'd get rid of capitalism via the ideas that you've managed to conceive on your own. The method that I would use to get rid of capitalism, is by getting rid of currency and the free market first.

You know, I can almost not believe the degree that you're misunderstanding me. I have only one recommendation: wait until I make the post that sheds light on the other things. Perhaps that will clear things up for you because, obviously, without them your imagination can't grasp what I've shown so far. For one, I'm not a [Censor!]ing dictator, nor would I promote one. Keep that in mind, and think: "Oh, something else must be meant. They don't like dictators or restricting people's liberties and rights." I mean, I kind of thought that you knew me better. I guess I was wrong.

[Kohaku]

I think people might have understood better if you had outlined your strategy in it's entirety first, instead of small parts at a time which meant that the others had to fill in the holes themselves based on thier own experience and thus that created a distorted image of your system. I'm sure it makes perfect sense when it is fully explained.

[Xia]

nope, cant really say I would support you Nikkou.

I'm to much of a realist

[Christina Anikari]

EDIT: The original text came off why too stubborn, insistent and aggressive for what i wanted so i scrapped it.

I might have misunderstood you, you might have misunderstood me. Probably both really. I want to apologize for making it look like you wanted dictatorship, that was never so intention. I know you want the best for all, i am just not convinced that the way you propose to do it is the right one and that is what i wanted to point out in my very own, way too heavy-handed way. I didn't even uphold proper debating standards. I am sorry Nikkou i have treated you poorly in this.

[Mitera Nikkou]

Kohaku:

Well, that's because I didn't create the poll with the intention (and thus need) to have a discussion on the specifics of my ideas (just if anyone would want to support me, if they find interest in the same thing). In fact, it is very, very rare that I make short-timed polls, and I made it seven days as a way of discouraging deep discussion. Though it turns out that this is probably one of the deepest (if not the deepest) discussion that I've ever had at MSF.

Cheese Danish:

So says the doodled-on cheese danish. Realist? Surrrrrrre~. ;p

Christina:

Eh... What happens, happens. Apology accepted. I'd like to apologize for becoming a bit exasperated. Mostly I was just baffled by how you were coming up with unrelated things, but I was also a bit disappointed that (despite my ideas being good or bad changes) you didn't take into account the kind of person that I am and toss out ideas of Maoism and all that. I mean, I'm very pro freedom and pro people having choices and a say in a country's development and the direction it goes as far as this or that matter goes. But, to sate any person's curiosity, I do plan on putting together a long and detailed post about why I'd get rid of these things, and what would replace them. I'll even toss in some transitional stuff that I've thought of so far. The transitional stuff is the real obstacle, seeing as so many of them are major institutions and that all people in the U.S. are accustomed to them (and, in particular, currency is a big factor (seeing as the whole world operates with it)). But I do think that it is possible (though the unlikely kind of possibility) to get approval for transition, since the majority are the poor (and that's who would be helped the most with these changes, but that's not saying that no one else will benefit to any degree with the changes). Just give me a day or two, and I'll have a monster post with as much as I can think of in it, about this stuff.

[Xia]

hey, thats discrimination!

but there are other reasons why I couldn't support you, most of which I won't go into