First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  Next  Last
Choose your Government!
31952 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / Iowa
Offline
Posted 4/8/14
Which would I choose? Depends what I'm head of. If I am emperor, then Head of Empire.

But which is right? None are right. Anarchy is right. Guess you could say Propria Persona is comparable. Any can be right if all citizens and heads of government are just and kind and smart, and flawless.
26434 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
19 / M / Future Gadget Lab...
Offline
Posted 4/8/14
Explain to me exactly how a Propria Persona strays from the ideologies of idealistic communism, and I ask this honestly because I want to know. Whenever in history someone tried to place everyone on an even plain-field and attempted to rid a people of hierarchy, a dictatorship or a group of power-hungry individuals always attempt to rise to power and simply replace the once idealistic communism with a dictatorship feigning communism (the best example being Russia, naturally, because idealistic communism turned into a counsel that attempted to establish order which turned into a dictatorship under Joseph Stalin). It's very difficult to not see such a system as naive, just as Karl Marx's own idealistic system greatly backfired to those who attempted it.

And with this opening statement, I wish to then address a few statements:


And if they resist. Your military will come and remove all the offenders by any means necessary.


To me, to even enforce laws (i.e. have a military or any form of task force) requires for a standing body of government to have to exist in order for someone to properly fund this military system and for notably a military to be deployed in the first place to remove threats. Furthermore, to have a hierarchy within this military system will naturally occur if not prompted so that they can be an organized body that can execute commands (because militias, an older idea of local military that failed to live up to its standard, as it failed to do so in the United States, are a good example of why unorganized military fails to accomplish anything, not to mention if a war takes them outside of their community, they no longer need to fight, which creates an issue of seasoning men and women to fight properly). As a result, without a government to constrain them, they will simply take power for themselves (because it is within human nature to seek power just as much as it is to establish order, which both will be fulfilled by this occurrence.


The government and it's servants exist to protect and secure your birth rights, and nothing else. They may not intimidate you, make demands or even pretend to have any kind of authority.


Bluntly, these statements contradict each other. In order for a standing "government and its servants" (that statement already suggests that a hierarchy must exist between government and its people) to protect ones natural rights, it must have the capacity to create laws that the standing body of government believes to be natural rights as well as the mode of enforcement and the penalties necessary to protect said rights and laws. Whether the government and the people agree upon these rights is a different story as well since ideologies differ between people and what they believe to be morally and ethically correct (depending on one's viewpoint, ethical code, and arguably, even means of self-benefit and greed).

This brings me to my next point: this government does not factor in the existence of religion and how it will ultimately affect what people's moral and ethical codes are. Because these codes differ between religions (religions, once again, often containing hierarchies, and one cannot write this off as a fact) and considering how much influence religion has on people (religion will not disappear anytime soon, as well as philosophies, etc), no such code can be reached unless if a proper government with the ability to decide on its own morals and beliefs is set up. This will likely cause disputes if such a government is not created and whichever religion has the most influence will then be the biggest influential body in that society, which, in many ways, would turn this government into a Theocracy.

Furthermore, the existence of businesses and commercial industry will always hold a sort of power so long as the money system exists, and if there is an alternative to money, I ask you speak now, but until even distribution of wealth and resources works (communism tried to do this and severely failed) the result will be that businesses will always hold power so long as an economy exists, which it must because it is essential to human's access to every resource (even the most basic such as food) and this will not be disappearing anytime soon either.

I wish to address another point:


She can do whatever she wants, and parents have no control at all in her personal relationships. Manipulating a free man's affairs is serious. You can be charged with genocide, practicing slavery, treason, etc. She could smoke, drink, have sexual relations with anyone she chooses.


First, as previously stated, this depends heavily on what one considers to be a natural right and who is deciding that certain things may be natural rights, but furthermore, one cannot interfere with the existence of an essential hierarchy in a family home and such a system is naive and almost terrifying in a way. Just as a disclaimer, I am a teenager myself, so I am not a condescending adult when I say this, but rather I am trying to state scientific facts: within basic biology and psychology, one may understand that a teenager, much less a child, is truly capable of making such heavy decisions and they may not want to make these decisions. The reason is simple: the frontal lobe of a teenager, unlike an adult, has not been fully developed and this frontal lobe in our brains is essential to decision making and rationalization. Instead, teenagers think more with the limbic system, the emotional center of the brain that oftentimes can make impulsive, irrational decisions. It is not smart to not allow a parent to guide their child, which is an instinctual and very healthy thing for a parent to do and it is wise to listen to those possessing more experience anyways, and the fact that a parent nags a child or prevents them from acting is a form of love and caring; a government has no right to disturb such a natural process.

Now I am not saying that there aren't bad parents, and to those who mistreat their children or are too authoritarian should be monitored and those who abuse them should be certainly penalized to the fullest extent of the law. However, it is not wise to allow a government to infringe upon a parent/child relationship because it is sacred and instinctual. If it be infringed upon, likely the people will then turn against their government for allowing such a legal system to stand and for that matter, by allowing a child to prosecute their parents over a trivial matter could break apart a family's bond because such radical steps were taken. It would also now allow a parent can't guide their child to making good decisions and preparing them for an adult world, and speaking as a teenager here about to enter such an adult world, it is an intimidating place and any guidance I can receive is highly appreciated.

And so with that, I conclude my case.
14212 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / M
Offline
Posted 4/8/14
F*ck Government

Wolololo
35284 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
34 / M
Offline
Posted 4/8/14
Propria Persona sounds great. I might not like another's choices, but if they don't prevent me from making mine, it's not really important to me. Generally I am willing to speak my mind, offer advice and let others make their choices, so long as they don't directly impact me in a way I don't like. The only things I would think should be outlawed are those that impede on the freedoms of others.

The problem is that many things can impact the freedom of others, and this creates a slippery slope of sorts. Just taking traffic into consideration:

I should be free to drive as fast as I like since I'm not impeding anyone's freedom by doing so.
However, if I get into an accident and seriously injure someone, I may have thus impeded their freedom.

On the opposite side, I should be free to drive as slow as I want, or to walk in the middle of a street.
However, that can keep others from going where they wish, when they wish.

So I think there's issues to work out because many actions do impact others; how should one judge such situations?
9522 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / M / Fort Myer
Offline
Posted 4/8/14
Democracy.

The ranking system stands out as the worst in my opinion. I'm fed up with rank.
24146 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / M / NY
Offline
Posted 4/8/14
propria persona... hands down...
28244 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / M / Texas
Offline
Posted 4/8/14
Propria Persona is what I'd choose probably. Though there are some "things" that I feel should just be illegal as the OP stated, I don't want anybody telling me I can't do "x". So it's difficult to say honestly.

I don't really think any of the choices are "more correct" than the others. As long as true justice is served, which among humans is no guarantee, I can be happy with any form of government. Although more controlling forms of government are more prone to corruption of justice, in my opinion.
23073 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / M
Offline
Posted 4/8/14
Honesty
2988 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / F / Fort Worth, Texas
Offline
Posted 4/8/14

Nightblade370 wrote:

Explain to me exactly how a Propria Persona strays from the ideologies of idealistic communism, and I ask this honestly because I want to know. Whenever in history someone tried to place everyone on an even plain-field and attempted to rid a people of hierarchy, a dictatorship or a group of power-hungry individuals always attempt to rise to power and simply replace the once idealistic communism with a dictatorship feigning communism (the best example being Russia, naturally, because idealistic communism turned into a counsel that attempted to establish order which turned into a dictatorship under Joseph Stalin). It's very difficult to not see such a system as naive, just as Karl Marx's own idealistic system greatly backfired to those who attempted it.

And with this opening statement, I wish to then address a few statements:


Communism is the polar opposite of a republic. That's bureaucracy.



To me, to even enforce laws (i.e. have a military or any form of task force) requires for a standing body of government to have to exist in order for someone to properly fund this military system and for notably a military to be deployed in the first place to remove threats. Furthermore, to have a hierarchy within this military system will naturally occur if not prompted so that they can be an organized body that can execute commands (because militias, an older idea of local military that failed to live up to its standard, as it failed to do so in the United States, are a good example of why unorganized military fails to accomplish anything, not to mention if a war takes them outside of their community, they no longer need to fight, which creates an issue of seasoning men and women to fight properly). As a result, without a government to constrain them, they will simply take power for themselves (because it is within human nature to seek power just as much as it is to establish order, which both will be fulfilled by this occurrence.


A hierarchy implies "top and bottom", public officials are elected, as in delegated authority by nation(nation's citizens). A Peace Officer isn't "below" a judge. They just have different duties. Neither manipulates the other, neither is "superior". Governments get funds through income tax. These only apply to corporations, like NINTENDO, SONY. Etc. They collect tax from corporate income and they can only collect natural people's tax in a time of war. Which should never happen with governments like these.


Bluntly, these statements contradict each other. In order for a standing "government and its servants" (that statement already suggests that a hierarchy must exist between government and its people) to protect ones natural rights, it must have the capacity to create laws that the standing body of government believes to be natural rights as well as the mode of enforcement and the penalties necessary to protect said rights and laws. Whether the government and the people agree upon these rights is a different story as well since ideologies differ between people and what they believe to be morally and ethically correct (depending on one's viewpoint, ethical code, and arguably, even means of self-benefit and greed).

This brings me to my next point: this government does not factor in the existence of religion and how it will ultimately affect what people's moral and ethical codes are. Because these codes differ between religions (religions, once again, often containing hierarchies, and one cannot write this off as a fact) and considering how much influence religion has on people (religion will not disappear anytime soon, as well as philosophies, etc), no such code can be reached unless if a proper government with the ability to decide on its own morals and beliefs is set up. This will likely cause disputes if such a government is not created and whichever religion has the most influence will then be the biggest influential body in that society, which, in many ways, would turn this government into a Theocracy.

Furthermore, the existence of businesses and commercial industry will always hold a sort of power so long as the money system exists, and if there is an alternative to money, I ask you speak now, but until even distribution of wealth and resources works (communism tried to do this and severely failed) the result will be that businesses will always hold power so long as an economy exists, which it must because it is essential to human's access to every resource (even the most basic such as food) and this will not be disappearing anytime soon either.

I wish to address another point:


The "government" isn't a person, so yes, the people are above the government as the government was created by man to protect their inalienable birthrights. Being a public official is the same as being an employee at APPLE INC. You're only acting as official while you're on the job. You're not "Public Smith", you're "John Smith" first, it's important to make a distinction between living natural people and the government.

The Republic is common law, equal to common sense. As long as you don't harm anyone or their property. You're free to do as you wish. Those are the only "ethics and morals" to operate off of.

Govern-the-mental is "Government".

They also regulate corporate fictions, also known as "companies", the government is an institution so it may not create laws that apply to natural flesh and blood people. It may only issue policies, statutes, resolutions, etc. To corporations, or incorporated people if you will.

The law that all governments derive power from is the "The Constitution for the United States of America Republic" I use that treaty because it is an evolved version of the "Treaty of Peace and Friendship" and "Rights of the indigenous people", these are international treaties that apply all over the planet. Any legislature that issues law can only issue to corporations or those that simply agree with it. An institution may manipulate living people. These are birthrights, it's not something others "agree" to give you. You're born with them and no amount of petitioning, agreeing or conspiring can take them away. It's not up for discussion what your rights are.

Religion is beyond the scope of law on a surface level. If I talk about religion here, it'll be like I'm speaking gibberish, lol. This is where the reader's due diligence comes into play.

Law is black and white. It's either you're a slave with no rights at all or you're a sovereign with a nationality and constitution that applies to you.

It's common for colorable people to view the government as the head of a nation, as the master, owner and leader of a nation. But that is not the case. Governments are not here to orchestrate society or control it. They're here to maintain it.


First, as previously stated, this depends heavily on what one considers to be a natural right and who is deciding that certain things may be natural rights, but furthermore, one cannot interfere with the existence of an essential hierarchy in a family home and such a system is naive and almost terrifying in a way. Just as a disclaimer, I am a teenager myself, so I am not a condescending adult when I say this, but rather I am trying to state scientific facts: within basic biology and psychology, one may understand that a teenager, much less a child, is truly capable of making such heavy decisions and they may not want to make these decisions. The reason is simple: the frontal lobe of a teenager, unlike an adult, has not been fully developed and this frontal lobe in our brains is essential to decision making and rationalization. Instead, teenagers think more with the limbic system, the emotional center of the brain that oftentimes can make impulsive, irrational decisions. It is not smart to not allow a parent to guide their child, which is an instinctual and very healthy thing for a parent to do and it is wise to listen to those possessing more experience anyways, and the fact that a parent nags a child or prevents them from acting is a form of love and caring; a government has no right to disturb such a natural process.

Now I am not saying that there aren't bad parents, and to those who mistreat their children or are too authoritarian should be monitored and those who abuse them should be certainly penalized to the fullest extent of the law. However, it is not wise to allow a government to infringe upon a parent/child relationship because it is sacred and instinctual. If it be infringed upon, likely the people will then turn against their government for allowing such a legal system to stand and for that matter, by allowing a child to prosecute their parents over a trivial matter could break apart a family's bond because such radical steps were taken. It would also now allow a parent can't guide their child to making good decisions and preparing them for an adult world, and speaking as a teenager here about to enter such an adult world, it is an intimidating place and any guidance I can receive is highly appreciated.

And so with that, I conclude my case.


The government doesn't outlaw or inlaw, as stated above. They don't control or own anything.

The national constitution is supreme everywhere unless two parties agree on something to the contrary, but that contract only applies to those who agree to it.

Personal relationships won't stand in a lawful court.

Much like in relationship to the nation at large, parents, older relatives, etc. Aren't above you in anything except time spent on earth. It doesn't matter what they feel like which "right" you should have because they don't get to decide which rights you do and do not have. Families can have hierarchies... For long as the parties agree.

Nobody is trying to corrupt the love in a family. It's as simple as law elsewhere.

Mother doesn't like 14 year old daughter smoking, drinking and laying with a new dude every week? Tough, there's nothing to be done other than ask her to stop.

As long as that person is "at full conscious" they can contract how they wish. What's "full" conscious? Comprehending, overstanding and understanding law and being in propria persona. You must be able to recognize what is lawful and unlawful by comparing the contract to the principles of your nation. That's full consciousness. It's not age, as "minor" is a lawful status that applies to black, colored, poor whites, Indian, Latino, Hispanic, etc. As they don't recognize their national flag or seal.

That is all. I may have spoiled the "correct" government ab initio by making "Propria Persona" the only blue option. It's the most correct form of government, nature's law.

P.S. Yikes! These replies are probably scary to people who don't wanna read that much. I'll try to limit my replies to once per user. If you wanna continue, just private message me.
Sogno- 
45742 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 4/8/14 , edited 4/8/14
-Sogno government ofc
60713 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / United States
Offline
Posted 4/8/14
it has not been thought up yet. Humanity probably needs another enlightenment era before we come up with an effective form of governence.
6607 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 4/8/14 , edited 4/8/14
I don't think I'd like any of those. None of them have any sort of constitution.
2988 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / F / Fort Worth, Texas
Offline
Posted 4/9/14

ahatestory wrote:

Propria Persona sounds great. I might not like another's choices, but if they don't prevent me from making mine, it's not really important to me. Generally I am willing to speak my mind, offer advice and let others make their choices, so long as they don't directly impact me in a way I don't like. The only things I would think should be outlawed are those that impede on the freedoms of others.

The problem is that many things can impact the freedom of others, and this creates a slippery slope of sorts. Just taking traffic into consideration:

I should be free to drive as fast as I like since I'm not impeding anyone's freedom by doing so.
However, if I get into an accident and seriously injure someone, I may have thus impeded their freedom.

On the opposite side, I should be free to drive as slow as I want, or to walk in the middle of a street.
However, that can keep others from going where they wish, when they wish.

So I think there's issues to work out because many actions do impact others; how should one judge such situations?


Propria Persona is: you can do what you want as long as you don't infringe on the rights of others.

Don't hurt others or their property and you can do whatever you want. Simple as that. It's based on nature's law/common law of: "You don't mess with me, I won't mess with you."

Common law is common sense. Regardless of what people are allowed to do, they all have functional brains that will tell them not to walk in the middle of a highway.

The moment you violate anyone rights, is when redress is due. You get sued and they are obligated to make things right. Whether that's being locked up or paying a fine. Most people want cash. Lol

Now you know, the next time someone violates your inalienable rights. Make it cost them, severely.
39015 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / Tralfamadore
Offline
Posted 4/12/14
Bureaucracy, governments mostly make laws to suit those who advise and implement; and thus shape the laws and how they are interpreted.
2988 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / F / Fort Worth, Texas
Offline
Posted 4/12/14

tenchi22 wrote:

Bureaucracy, governments mostly make laws to suit those who advise and implement; and thus shape the laws and how they are interpreted.


Democracy is Bureaucracy. That's the code word.

People who choose bureau should choose democracy.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.