Politics: What will rule Chiron?

[Voltaire]

To the question of what will rule Chiron it seems likely that it would come under the rule of an autocracy or despotism for these systems are more amiable at adaptation and survival in hostile circumstances than the democratic system given that they are more efficient. But the more pertinent question perhaps remains what ought to rule Chiron? Here still I will maintain that it ought to be a police state, for the greatest good can be done under in it with a good leadership, whereas democracy, though moderating the evils of man also moderates the good. If we can find the right individual to rule then it is best to give them power to affect change for the better.

[Barinthus]

Originally posted by Voltaire
On what basis does the harsh judgment of Yang come from? A police state it in of itself is not evil, and nor is democracy in it of itself on some pedestal of goodness by which all other government systems are to be judged by.

His love for punishment spheres probably didn't help.

[Jamski]

But punishment spheres are most used by the so-called-free factions so they can warmonger under FM

-Jam

[Skanky Burns]

Self-defend.
Pre-emptively.

[livid imp]

Originally posted by Voltaire
On what basis does the harsh judgment of Yang come from? A police state it in of itself is not evil, and nor is democracy in it of itself on some pedestal of goodness by which all other government systems are to be judged by.

Umm, yes police states are evil, sorry. Denying the basic freedoms (speech, religion, etc.) of life is evil.

But you are right about the potential for a democracy to be evil. They just tend not to be so.


edited a spelling error

[Jamski]

Denying the basic freedoms (speech, religon, etc.) of life is evil.

Who defines evil? Westerners? Americans? God? Who defines basic freedoms? Westerners? Americans? God?

Evil and Freedom are just "nonsense words" that have no place in a logical debate, because everyone has a different idea of the values contained in the strings "Evil" or "Freedom"

-Jam

[Barinthus]

Good point.

[CEO Aaron]

Morgan will win, because nothing can defeat the Free Market! Shortly thereafter, Planet will win, and the surface of Chiron will be scoured clean by 10,000,000,000 Locusts of Chiron.

[livid imp]

Originally posted by Jamski


Who defines evil? Westerners? Americans? God? Who defines basic freedoms? Westerners? Americans? God?

Evil and Freedom are just "nonsense words" that have no place in a logical debate, because everyone has a different idea of the values contained in the strings "Evil" or "Freedom"

-Jam

Yes, "evil" is a comic book term. When I hear Pres. Bush use the term evil, I can't help but laugh, imagining him in a blue tights and a red cape. But can you not say that murder is not evil? Rape is not evil? Are we really supposed to believe that it is ok to rape someone because the rapist believes it to be so? Come on back down to Earth. Words represent meaning. There is such thing as evil (read as pathologically, destructively selfish if you wish).
And yes, anything resembling thought control is evil too. Speech and religious belief, which itself is not destructive, is sacrosanct. I don't know how you could argue otherwise without resorting to transcendentalism BS.

[Jamski]

The specific case that [Evil = pathologically disturbed and/or selfish] is proven to exist only from your vision of the atomic facts that constitute the individual perceptions your brain claims to receive. That is is equally possible that in another specific case that [Evil = cold fish and chips] only goes as yet another example that one should not, and cannot attempt to construct absolute cases from specific cases.

Basically you argue that [A=B because C] where A is subjective, B is a complex object, and C is an string of atomic facts. I don't see how you intend to balance this equasion.

-Jam

[Commy]

People will fight for freedom. People will fight for Democracy. People aren't going to fight for a police state. People aren't going to fight for suppression. So, what's Yang going to do if his people don't fight for him? Shoot them? That would be a better life than living under command of Yang underground in some gloomy prison. Or maybe he'll put them in the Punishment Sphere a couple of times. Then, when they do fight, they'll just kill themselves. A police state cannot win over a free society, because the entire point of having a government, the people, won't agree.

Oh, and Jamski, some little information:

Planned economies are based on communism. You can do a police state too, or a democracy, but planned is communism. Hitler did do a planned economy and a police state, that is correct. His government, however, was a fascism. He promised his people of a perfect society, modernized away from religion, to return to the fomer "glory" of Germany. Fascism is a socialist state that uses hopes of a bright future and strict police to enforce its will. Yang is not a communist, he is a fascist. He has a planned economy (like communism, OR part of fascism) and uses police forces to uphold his will of bringing Utopia. And, alas, we therefore can conclude that undoubtly that arguement here is:

Will people more likely fight for:
--Their freedom
--A bright future of Utopia
--Their God and religion

[Jamski]

People will fight for freedom. People will fight for Democracy. People aren't going to fight for a police state.

Historical (anecdotal) evidence points at Stalin's UdSSR, quite probably the best example of a Police State we have seen, winning the largest war we have seen to date, against more highly trained and technologically superior opponents.

It seems people will fight for whatever state they happen to have.

Yang is not a communist, he is a fascist.

Yang is neither. He only has an abversion to Democracy, which doesn't imply a tendency to any other SE choice. It is quite possible to play a Fundy/FM/Wealth Yang, and what does that make him?

People forget that Napoleon was both a liberal, a republican and a democrat, but still became an absolute dictator to protect against the return of the European monarchy, considered by him to be worse dictatorships.

-Jam

[Nubclear]

Democracy is the evil, the tyranny of the stupid majority.
An enlightened ruler wlil always provide a for a better state than the masses will because the masses are inheritly uneducated.

Plato

[Jamski]

But then Plato goes on to describe how a perfect educational system could be devised in order that his Republic should function

-Jam

[Nubclear]

An education system cannot survive in cultures where education is looked down upon
Come now Jamjam....I think we both know the future of education in America