Pretty much what expect it to be - trough I want a democracy in which representatives are elected professionals, each voted independently from his political party, meant to create possible solutions for state problems and then present them to the nation, with information about each solution being presented by Non-Government Organizations, media and so on, and then voted on. For a solution to be accepted it would need 2/3 of the whole elective body to vote in favor of it. Voting might even be made obligatory and would probably needed to be handled by a secure and country-only electronic network - nothing impossible with the current tech in developed countries.

Why I want this? Because I am sick of hearing about someone wining the elections just because many voters did not show to vote or laws being made trough no one asked the people if they want such a law. I want a Democracy in which the people will be able to decide if they like a law (and its realistic effects on the state) or not and clearly say yes or no to it. Because I don't want a party to be elected which will have next to absolute power in the next x years of its mandate and sometimes make outrageously stupid laws. AKA I want a fairer Democracy, not this bulls**t in which one party just must make sure then more of its supporters show up to vote for it and then it has so much power in the next x years.

I just call myself a humanitarian *shrugs* Liberal, I suppose. Yes, I believe there is some need for intervention, but that's for more extreme cases. I think that it is important to preserve art, civil rights and more. I encourage individuality and other cultures and believe we ought celebrate our differences. However, I feel the economy is a lark and large scale corporations have too much sway, are undertaxed and so forth. Oh, and I do believe my government is insanely corrupt and garbage.

I think that it is important to preserve art, civil rights and more

Can you prove it, or is that your belief?

So Boerd said
Can you prove it, or is that your belief?

Hey. Learn to read and you answered yourself in the quote.

And yes, there is evidence. IE) Humanities. How do we know about some of the previous civilizations? Their art that was found. : /

Civil Rights? We went through a civil war in the States over it. And ages of civil reform. And its a major issue in many countries, has been a major issue throughout history. Who all has rights? What rights? I feel the answer is everyone. *shrugs* You can believe what you want, and be what you want, but don't tell someone they -can't- because of what you believe. Right? I mean, then you're just encroaching on someone else's rights as human being.

^ What if what you're telling someone they can't do or be is itself infringing upon the rights of others?

gamer5 said
Pretty much what expect it to be - trough I want a democracy in which representatives are elected professionals, each voted independently from his political party, meant to create possible solutions for state problems and then present them to the nation, with information about each solution being presented by Non-Government Organizations, media and so on, and then voted on. For a solution to be accepted it would need 2/3 of the whole elective body to vote in favor of it. Voting might even be made obligatory and would probably needed to be handled by a secure and country-only electronic network - nothing impossible with the current tech in developed countries.Why I want this? Because I am sick of hearing about someone wining the elections just because many voters did not show to vote or laws being made trough no one asked the people if they want such a law. I want a Democracy in which the people will be able to decide if they like a law (and its realistic effects on the state) or not and clearly say yes or no to it. Because I don't want a party to be elected which will have next to absolute power in the next x years of its mandate and sometimes make outrageously stupid laws. AKA I want a fairer Democracy, not this bulls**t in which one party just must make sure then more of its supporters show up to vote for it and then it has so much power in the next x years.

That would be a wildly inefficient process. Besides, do you expect the entire voting population to read every government bill start to finish, then make an informed, intelligent decision on it? Some of them are several hundred pages long and use vocabulary isolated to specific areas that government works in. Athenian democracy does not work in general, but is especially awful with an apathetic and uninformed populace.

The Nexerus said ^ What if what you're telling someone they can't do or be is itself infringing upon the rights of others?

Simple answer: A right is guaranteed for a sentient entity so long as it does not infringe upon another sentient entity's rights and freedoms, whereupon ultimately what is determined to be an infringement is settled in a court of law based on the most reasonable answers on what information is available on a case by case basis, where the defendant is innocent until proven guilty.

It is a complex system in which the largest amounts of rights and freedoms are handed out where it is possible and for all parties equally--white or black, man or woman, left or right wing, but otherwise, the premise is pretty simple: You're allowed to own a gun, you're not allowed to steal a gun from someone else (infringing on their right to private ownership) or to shoot someone else with that gun except in self-defense (infringing on the right to live).

Is it perfect? No. Is it admirable and the closest thing we have to a moral system that allows the largest variety of people--majorities and minorities alike--to coexist as equals? Yes.

EDIT

Though I actually disagree with Tempest about taxing corporations--corporate taxes do nothing to large corps and hurt small businesses. Large corporations just pass the tax along to the consumer. Lets say there's a bread tax that taxes every loaf of bread one dollar--major corporations who make and sell bread will simply increase the price of bread by one dollar and ten cents (because anytime they think they can cut the consumer to bleed them for profits, they will, not particularly evil, just coldly efficient.) Meanwhile the small business has a harder time competing with the larger one because now they have to increase prices to match the corporation taxation, which in turn drives more customers away from them and towards large corporations.

Corporate taxes don't work. We simply have them now because it's another way to tax the individual citizen through large corporations and take as much from small businesses as possible... Because for some reason, your country likes to run its tax system like a business... It makes no sense to me. I don't think your government has any idea what it wants to do with taxes or what it even can do with taxes. I agree that its highly corrupt and run by a bunch of Neanderthals in suits--half of which are probably senile or raging homophobes in the closet.

Can you prove the existence of human rights?

So Boerd said
Can you prove the existence of human rights?

It's objective morality. They exist because they must, because that is part of being a sentient race that must share the same world. There is no true written rule. It is based upon the consensus of humanity itself. Do people have the right to life? To be happy? To make their own choices? I am not saying hand things to everyone. Surely that does nothing but encourage those who simply would live their lives expecting everything to be handed to them out of some delusion of entitlement. But, simply, this is a matter that everyone ought be able to live their lives as they see fit and no other person has the right to infringe upon that unless it infringes upon another individual's first. *nods*

Perhaps I am an idealist in this. Surely, there are other cultures, both in history and now that go against it. But this should the end goal of all peoples. True, there are things that will get in the way. Religion, telling a people that those who live a particular way are sinful. A government, that tells people that they cannot. Yet, in the end what people do is ultimately their choice. If it presents a harm to others? Step in, sure. If it is a matter that brings grievance onto another? Step in. If it is simply one person's choice that in no way can harm another person? Then just let them be. Shit isn't as complicated as it sounds. Its when people's OWN feelings about what others are doing, or some stupid belief to entitlement that is fueling this call to action? Back off, go do something more productive in your life than telling someone else they are wrong because they didn't find validation and reason for their life the same way you did.

Morality isn't objective.

Negative behaviour that is initially negative only to the self can be contagious, and influence others to follow that same behaviour, ultimately to the detriment of society as a whole.

The Nexerus said
Morality isn't objective.Negative behaviour that is initially negative only to the self can be contagious, and influence others to follow that same behaviour, ultimately to the detriment of society as a whole.

You cannot predicate a decision to censor something based on what it might do. People owning guns might commit a murder. Then again, same goes for people who own knives, and forks, and ropes, and anything that could be remotely construable a weapon, which is nearly anything.

Plus, what is considered "negative to the self" changes rapidly over time. Like people used to think Heavy Metal would turn you to satanism, or D&D would cause you to become possessed with demons and go on school shootings. Following your line of thought, the very thing this forum was made for should be banned due to superstitious nonsense a couple decades back.

As for things like drugs or otherwise, case by case basis.

Morality as an overall whole is objectively derived from subjective viewpoints and cultures of the times. It's the reason why a woman showing her breasts out in public is considered a horrible thing but immense levels of grotesque violence shown to children in cartoons is perfectly fine here in North America.

The Nexerus said
Morality isn't objective.Negative behaviour that is initially negative only to the self can be contagious, and influence others to follow that same behaviour, ultimately to the detriment of society as a whole.

And I see this statement and shake my head. If people harm themselves doing things that are "negative", I really do not give a shit that they chose to do so. If someone chooses to follow their lead, I still do not care, and cannot comprehend why it matters to anyone else. Saying "negative behavior is a detriment to society" is extremely vague, and not really much of an argument.

Simply put, why should anyone else in this world, be allowed to imposed their will on me, when I have neither desire, nor will, to comply? Why should their will be forced upon me by violence, should I choose not to comply?

If I want to own an automatic rifle, for the sake of owning an automatic rifle: Why should anyone be allowed to tell me I am not allowed to own it? If I do not threaten anyone with it, if I do not endanger anyone with it, if I do not harm anyone with it, and if I have shown no predisposition towards violent acts against my fellow men and women: Why should I not be allowed to own it, and use it?

If I want to use a narcotic, for the sake of using a narcotic; Why should anyone be allowed to tell me I am not allowed to partake of it? If I do not endanger anyone, threaten anyone, or attempt to use force on anyone: Why should I not be allowed to use it?

If I want to drink 4 cans of pop in a day; Why should anyone be allowed to tell me I am not allowed to drink that much pop in one day?

If I want to have an intimate relationship, to the point of a binding union with another man; Why should anyone be allowed to tell me that I am not allowed that union?

If I work for 40 hours a day, 5 days a week, putting my time and effort into work to earn money for myself, why should anyone be allowed to hold me at threat of violence if I do not give them 20-50% of my money? If I do not want, nor care about a project, why should someone be allowed to forcibly take my money from me, and put it to a cause I do not support? Why am I not allowed to keep the fruit of my hard labour?

Society is wiser than the individual.

If you hate having police, firefighters, construction workers, doctors and so on around, go live in the woods. You'll never have to worry about the big bad government coming to force their evil taxes upon you ever again.

Society is wiser than the individual, yes. But no where in that saying does "Government" factor in.

Tell me how Police, Firefighters, Construction Workers, Doctors and so on need a Government to operate?

Hell, Companies in Detroit donated $8 million to buy the Police and Emergency Services new vehicles, which the bankrupt city could not afford. Regular people in neighborhoods have taken over demolishing abandoned houses when the city could no longer afford to pay contractors to do it. People are taking care of the parks since they city has no money to take care of them itself.

If we have no taxes, we have 20-50% more income to spend on what we want. If we want Police, people will pay to keep Police around. If we need Firefighters, people will pay to keep Firefighters around. If the roads are in need of fixing, people will pay to have them fixed. If we need Doctors, we pay them.

Goldmarble said Tell me how Police, Firefighters, Construction Workers, Doctors and so on need a Government to operate?

God, what a fucking colossal waste of time. It speaks wonders for western society that this even needs to be discussed.

Private donations are in a small volume, are not reliable, and are not efficiently used. The government allocates the resources it receives through taxes and other sources of government funding to areas where those resources are needed. Abandoning government gets rid of that allocation system and annihilates the foundation of all of those services.

Detroit is an example of why a lack of a functioning government DOESN'T work. It's the shittiest major city in North America.

I'm going to agree with Nexerus (Crazy I know) on this one. Private donations are grossly ineffective is the services are going to do anything effective and if we allow corporations to "control" the police for example, then there is potentially a lot of room for corruption.

Government should be as small as possible, but no government at all is even worse than big government.

Tempest said
It's objective morality. They exist because they must, because that is part of being a sentient race that must share the same world. There is no true written rule. It is based upon the consensus of humanity itself. Do people have the right to life? To be happy? To make their own choices? I am not saying hand things to everyone. Surely that does nothing but encourage those who simply would live their lives expecting everything to be handed to them out of some delusion of entitlement. But, simply, this is a matter that everyone ought be able to live their lives as they see fit and no other person has the right to infringe upon that unless it infringes upon another individual's first. *nods*Perhaps I am an idealist in this. Surely, there are other cultures, both in history and now that go against it. But this the end goal of all peoples. True, there are things that will get in the way. Religion, telling a people that those who live a particular way are sinful. A government, that tells people that they cannot. Yet, in the end what people do is ultimately their choice. If it presents a harm to others? Step in, sure. If it is a matter that brings grievance onto another? Step in. If it is simply one person's choice that in no way can harm another person? Then just let them be. Shit isn't as complicated as it sounds. Its when people's OWN feelings about what others are doing, or some stupid belief to entitlement that is fueling this call to action? Back off, go do something more productive in your life than telling someone else they are wrong because they didn't find validation and reason for their life the same way you did.

By all means, I believe they do. I am illustrating a point.

The Nexerus said
Government should be as small as possible

And that's were I disagree

Yea...wel at least yall arent branded donestic terrorists.

With the influx of new members I thought I should Bump this

I strongly encourage anyone new to this thread to not be intimidated by the lengthy posts and arguments as well as the occasional flaming. We may have varying opinions but we are nice people