Thread: Which one is yours!

Democracy, socialism, dictator etc, those are secondary political systems.

There is only two possible basic political systems.

Lets overpopulate the world to death creating wars starvation poverty crime etc worldwide, killing millions and millions of people and enslaving billions of people in total despair.

Or have enough people but not too many where you don't create wars starvation poverty crime etc worldwide.

Which one is yours!

Politics is just bs. Nothing but desperate men leading desperate governments trying deperately to gain more "power".

Are you referencing to Plato's republic? Aquinas' mythical city on the hill? Utopia? They are dreams. The government does not have the power to involve themselves with something as base as how many children a person can have without infringing the rights of the individual in such a way that it abandons western ideology.

Even I, who am not pro-'christian/humanistic values,' reject the idea of population control. I am pro-full-laissez faire, in order to develop into a communistic society (as soon as research creates a society with a near limitless supply of food, the economy will plunge, and not money but social status and personal development will be the main drive to develop).

I find the statement that there can only be two systems somewhat simplistic if I may be so crude.

Mr U

Originally Posted by zazzzoom

Or have enough people but not too many where you don't create wars starvation poverty crime etc worldwide.

So you are saying that if there were fewer people in the world things like wars, starvation, poverty, and crime would simply dissapear? Earlier in the worlds short 'civization' history, there were much fewer people, and yet all those things still existed.

Originally Posted by Locke

Originally Posted by zazzzoom

Or have enough people but not too many where you don't create wars starvation poverty crime etc worldwide.

So you are saying that if there were fewer people in the world things like wars, starvation, poverty, and crime would simply dissapear? Earlier in the worlds short 'civization' history, there were much fewer people, and yet all those things still existed.

yes the population was less in the past and there were conflicts but the main cause of conflicts is having too many people in the world!

Originally Posted by HomoUniversalis

Are you referencing to Plato's republic? Aquinas' mythical city on the hill? Utopia? They are dreams. The government does not have the power to involve themselves with something as base as how many children a person can have without infringing the rights of the individual in such a way that it abandons western ideology.

Even I, who am not pro-'christian/humanistic values,' reject the idea of population control. I am pro-full-laissez faire, in order to develop into a communistic society (as soon as research creates a society with a near limitless supply of food, the economy will plunge, and not money but social status and personal development will be the main drive to develop).

I find the statement that there can only be two systems somewhat simplistic if I may be so crude.

Mr U

two basic possible political systems overpopulate the world to death or have a proper amount of people in the world, there are secondary systems like democracy socialism dictator etc, but only two basic possible political systems.

. that is what a nuclear warhead looks like just before it blows up and thats where we're headed the problems aren't going to be solved, they are going to blow up the world, the multi-warhead law, one of them goes off anywhere in the world and the rest of them start to fly.

why do you think bush could attacked iraq! it's simple they didn't have any multi-warheads why don't you try china or india or pakastan, pakastan america won't even go there to look for bin-ladan

Population will either be controlled by the government or by a limit of resources. One involves starvation and suffering for many, the other doesn't.

Seems like a no brainer to me.

There is only two possible basic political systems.

Lets overpopulate the world to death creating wars starvation poverty crime etc worldwide, killing millions and millions of people and enslaving billions of people in total despair.

Or have enough people but not too many where you don't create wars starvation poverty crime etc worldwide.

Try Robert Silverberg's 'The World Inside' for a third basic political system.
Although I'd agree that starvation etc. stem from overpopulation, or at least local overpopulation, I'd say it is unproved that it can cause wars. Imperialism and religion are both repeated causes for conflict, but I am unable to think of any instance where overpopulation has caused a war.

Originally Posted by zazzzoom

Democracy, socialism, dictator etc, those are secondary political systems.

There is only two possible basic political systems.

Lets overpopulate the world to death creating wars starvation poverty crime etc worldwide, killing millions and millions of people and enslaving billions of people in total despair.

Or have enough people but not too many where you don't create wars starvation poverty crime etc worldwide.

Which one is yours!

A Republic.

"In a broad definition a republic is a state or country that is led by people that don't base their political power on any principle beyond the control of the people living in that state or country.

This definition covers most of the specific definitions that are (or were) used to characterize republics, but leaves much of the striking differences between states/countries that can in some way be called republics unexplained: the first section of this article gives an overview of these distinctions that characterise different types of non-fictional republics."



"33 entries found for republic. The first 10 are listed below.
To select an entry, click on it. For more results, click here.
republicbanana republicAbkhaz RepublicAdjarian Autonomous RepublicBashkortostanBatavian RepublicBuryatiaCambodiaCentral African RepublicChecheno-Ingush Republic

Main Entry: re·pub·lic
Pronunciation: ri-'p&-blik
Function: noun
Etymology: French république, from Middle French republique, from Latin respublica, from res thing, wealth + publica, feminine of publicus public -- more at REAL, PUBLIC
1 a (1) : a government having a chief of state who is not a monarch and who in modern times is usually a president (2) : a political unit (as a nation) having such a form of government b (1) : a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law (2) : a political unit (as a nation) having such a form of government c : a usually specified republican government of a political unit <the French Fourth Republic>"

Screwing and having babies or not screwing and not having babies is not a political system.

Monarchy and doing what is right!!!

I find it interesting to consider the possibilities of a nationalistic, patriarchial Monarchy. It's like the whole country gets transformed into one gigantic family unit, with the father at the head of the home. The church becomes the state as nastolgic traditions unify the people.

Everything is arranged in a nice heirarchial order that everyone simply accepts as a matter of fact. Social status is determined by one's relation to the father, and of course physical attractiveness. Every male has at least one female partner with which to procreate, and infidelity by either party results in harsh, public punishment. Being apart of the "system" is seen as the "cool" thing to do. And of course the national Father decides what is "cool" and what is "lame."

The whole notion of class warefare disintegrates as the citizens began to see themselves as a single collective entity or family. "It doesn't matter how much money you have, as long as you're one of us, or at least with us." And that tribal, utterly primitive bond is literally the glue that holds everything together. Everyone becomes infected with the UsThem complex. Everyone sees a part of themselves in the larger nation. And it would have nothing to do with race per say, but rather one's cultural heritage. "You from de Souf my nigga? Represent dat shit!"

Can you imagine a modern-day sparta?

Sorry, I'll stop being a red state bastard now.

Population will either be controlled by the government or by a limit of resources. One involves starvation and suffering for many, the other doesn't.

A third option is for people to be allowed to have as many kids as they like, but for there to be personal reasons for most people not to have lots of children, for instance because children are a nuisance and people have better things to do with their life. Some will still want lots of children, but because they are a minority the problem of resource limitation (and starvation) does not become a problem.

Increased living standards and higher education seem to reduce the number of children people have. If we increase access to good living standards that will go some way to reducing the problem. On top of that, we could turn around the nauseating pro-family, puppy popping ideology we get bombarded with and instead produce more entertainment that demonstrates childlessness as a much more satisfying and enjoyable lifestyle than being tied down for the best portion of your life with a hideous little rug rat.

There are plenty of resources to support many more people on this earth. Scarcity is created by economy, economy is created by politics (not 100% on the causality of that stament, just sure that the terms are essentially synonomous). Most people can grow up to 20% of their own food on an average-sized back porch. The world's current population is being held back by the powers that be. It could be much more. The more the merrier I say!

Some rather strange posts so far! Why would anyone think that whether population is controlled or not defines a type of political system? It could be a decision of a monarcy, a republic, a democracy, any type of political system. The question is simply do we benefit from population continuing to grow without political control---or not.

Most of us seem to agree that it is not of benefit. Biologists know that all living things will naturally multiply to the limit of their territory if not restrained by preditors. We have no preditors and are driven by old religions to be fertile and not think about the problem. But it is a problem when our numbers keep increasing because the potential resources here on Earth cannot be increased.

Our technology enables us to continue to use the diminishing supply, but the cost keeps increasing as they grow scarcer. Food supply is only one of many issues. There could be plenty of food here IF . . . But there never will be the "if". The affluent will always over-eat and grow obese while the poor are near or in starvation.

The biggest problem is that religious reaction is occuring and people are beginning to turn back to their old religions at the expense of their secular beliefs. The ultimate cost of this trend is that science and hence technology will suffer in the decades to come. That means we will gradually lose the technological ability to deal with the decline of resoures and, at the same time, the old religions become a divisive force in which they struggle against each other for these shrinking resources. The best example is what we are doing with Islam in order to protect our oil supply. Also, societies are struggling over water supplies. All this is sure to increase.

At http://humanpurpose.simplenet.com
this subject is more fully delt with. An addition problem is involved in that the growing religousness is leading people back to the old Premillenial End Times doctrines. It means they welcome wars fought between the regions because in a world loaded with atomic bombs and pathogens, they see it as ending in "Salvation."

Democratic socialist.

Originally Posted by wretched

Democratic socialist.

How would that differ from a socialistic democrat? :wink:

Originally Posted by Ophiolite

Originally Posted by wretched

Democratic socialist.

How would that differ from a socialistic democrat? :wink:

one is more to the left, a socialist
the other is more to the right, democrat but trying to be a socialist, I´d call it... the middle way.. :wink: