Pick Your Society...

To all of those that have bitched about every single point I've made in any given thread, I pose this idea to you.

I'm not asking what type of society you would necessarily like to live in yourself, because that's a rather double-edged answer for a lot of you I'd imagine, being that this board is mainly leftist.

So... Build your ideal society, as honestly as possible. What type of people would you want in your society? What type of government? What style of economy? Would you want productive members in your society, or people that simply live off of the efforts of others? Would you want the government to control every aspect of peoples' lives, or do you actually value freedom? Free enterprise, the biggest eliminator of poverty in the history of mankind? Or fascism... I'm sure most of you liberals are already bitching that my questions are too black and white. So you pick your grays. Make your ideal society.

Have at it... I hope it's not too much to ask for some actual honest responses here.

Centrist capitalism economics with a fascist military force. (no 'real' police, saves money to have'em pull peacetime yanno.)
Hey you didn't say it had to be POSSIBLE.
basically lazy people get whacked in the ass by a ruler, stupid and/or religious people are forcibly integrated and kept a close eye on, but the average person can be more carefree than a drugged up transhumanist hippy. Oh and scientists will need to run objective experiments on illicit drugs to determine safe amounts, and then allow responsible usage.
About the religious people thing, I would eventually want my state to remove monotheism no matter the cost, and either swing towards a polythiest or totally secular community.
Economically, anything goes, so long as the benefits can be shown to outweigh the cost in ecological damage. (say animal testing and uranium mining goes, but unneeded plastic packaging on items is replaced with wooden boxes or reusable tins)
Oh yeah since there seem to be a bunch of them on here...If you're a Leninist, you're free and clear. Any other commies get drummed into infantry and sent on suicide missions. Of course, I don't imagine there'd be much of either, I assume they'd rather live somewhere less hostile to them.
The only socialized thing we'd have would be basic medical care, but it would be hella strict. Only contraceptives get handed out without question, everything else needs say two medical reviews, and maybe even a psychiatric evaluation, for those people that like only thinking they're sick. Everything else would be like an average commodity, hospitals trying to give better care for less to stay in business.
Media: Anything goes, but sensationalist tabloids will have to put up with getting raided and torched to the ground every now and then, as I don't believe in lawsuits resulting in monetary awards (unless yer a dioty thief). Nothing censored at all, population should be able to police itself.
I'm kinda drunk right now so this isn't as ironed out as I would want, but it represents a good idea of how I'd work it.
Unrelated, but I killed my nation on nationstates because that place got boring, though for 7 months it hovered back and forth between only two 'ideals,' Inoffensive Centrist and Capitalist Paradise. Don't really know what an amalgation of those two would be called.
last note, just thought of this. Suicide encouraged as option #3 for depression, because emo music sucks hardcore. Writing music is #5, under self-imposed seclusion. 1&2 being happy pills and sex of course, in no particular order.

>>2
lots of problems there but you're drink so w/e

A society where food is grown/produced by robots run on renewable fuel sources that do no/minimal damage to the environment. Maintainance is done by other robots. They're pretty much self-sufficient. The food is provided for free to everyone. Shelter is provided for free, although it won't be anything spectacular. Want something better? Do it yourself. People that grow fat, lazy, and diseased because of the freebies get no help. Likewise if you do things to harm yourself like smoking, drinking, drugs, etc, you are free to do it, but you don't get medical help. Otherwise medicare is free. Of course we won't have doctors studying their brains out (unless they want to...) for no pay. Robots will again do this work. People with the passion to discover, create, invent, live will do so for that passion, not for money. Because this human trait seems to be rare innovation will be slow... but than again, the world has never been in a situation where everything is provided for them. With all those people having nothing to do it might just spur innovation.

Are there laws? Yes. Very strict ones. One strike and you're either deported to someplace like the US or executed depending on the crime. Of course the justice system will not be swift in deliberating the accused. Immigration rules are extremly tight. Countries that wish to join this ideal country must surrender unconditionally. Manditory voting of the populace of the surrendering country is conducted to see how much they really want to be part of the ideal country. If it is less than 80% it is rejected. A trial period of 50 yrs is initiated to fully intergrate the surrendering country.

... é__è

'Kay...

my system of choice is Islamic, based on the laws and principles set forth in the Qur'aan. (not to be confused in any way with 'a government as demonstrated by any of the majority Muslim countries in existance today').

Major points of interest:

relatively few laws -- what laws there are are general enough to apply to any number of situations.  no need to read through books and books of legal text full of indecipherable lawyer-speak.  anything that is not forbidden is considered permissible.

accessibility of laws -- the Qur'aan would be readily available to everyone, and the government would promote it's teaching whenever feasible, often through establishment of regular prayer services.

freedom of belief -- non-muslims are allowed to live according to their own laws insofar as they don't interfere with the rights of muslims.  these non-muslims are taxed in exchange for being protected by the state.

low taxes -- muslims would pay a fixed flat rate tax on their wealth, which is to be used primarily for the needy or the military.  there would be no other socialized programs, unless funded by alternate means.  non-muslims would be taxed according to what the government deems fair.

... -__-'

I wipe my ass with the Qumran. It is an evil book and it's followers are deluded. Islam needs to go!

HI I ASK PEOPLE TO HONESTLY EXPLAIN THEIR IDEAL CONCEPTS OF SOCIETY SO I CAN MAKE FUNNY FACES AT THEM BECAUSE I AM RIGHT AND THEY ARE STUPID

>>9
What's your point?

I like Islam because in subordinates women:}

>>7
i forgot where i was and assumed there might be intelligent people willing to accept different political ideas with an open mind, and discuss accordingly in a mature manner.  then i realized i was in /newpol/.

my bad.

A classless society where everyone is actually equal.  Most essentials will be totally free; medical care, education right up to the doctorate level.  The economy would be among the most productive in the world, and there would be no poverty or discrimination.

Wait, I just described most of europe.  BANG AMERITARDS

>>13
Impossible, due to the pre-dispositions of bix noods.

-everyone voluntarily abandons organized religion.  The ethos of religion is supplanted by an ethos of secular humanism.

-everyone voluntarily consumes less and breeds less.

-an effective world government is established.  Its role is to preclude war along certain pretenses, based on the premise that enough people want peace to support a government which has this shape.  So, what I have in mind is a society of Earth, not of a particular nation.  In order for this to be tenable, however, certain prerequisites include a decline in organized religion, and the ability of member states to 'participate'-i.e. low internal corruption, cultural shifts, etc.

-enough people turn their attention to the new project that we can work on the big problems: controlling disease, preserving the very specific human 'freedom' that it pleases us to preserve, generating art and culture, and getting off this rock and going elsewhere.  The project is 'humanist'.  Humans are the best.  Why not?  We only have other animals to be concerned with, in a genuine ethical sense.  In order to make a judgement on an alien civilization, we would first have to encounter it and see what is like.  Until that happens, yay us.  If the encounter is happy, yay us, and yay them.  Even if humanity is done in by some unseen natural cause or chance, unanticipated in all the science, it is a NOBLER death than that met with jihad or Christians fucking up our environmental policy (which they are.  I have the documents) for something that they can never truthfully say (and can only emotially appeal to) as existing.  The nobility of the suspension of judgement is one component of my society.

-Homeless people, or lazy fucks unwilling to work, are shuffled into well-policed homeless shelters-basically motels, with spartan meals (which become possible and quite feasible without a great social strain with the preservation of technology and the decline in population).  They are surrounded by employment information and are periodically kicked from spot to spot.  Crime itself is greatly decreased (if not eliminated) by the mere fact that everyone is working or provided for/watched over, as per depopulation.

please don't reply 'that's impossible'.  It's my pipedream, in exactly the way that you have yours.  The method of an actual reconstitution of society is to see what everybody else wants (more or less), and to try to realize it.  (unless a despot shapes reality, something which is not wanted).  Idealism guides practice in various ways. 

>>2 sounds like nazism without any of the bad stuff.
Could he be related to this guy?
http://www.geniebusters.org/

>>13
Uh, there's no poverty or discrimination in Europe, and it's one of the most productive economies in the world? What planet are you from? And look up the definition of the word "free."

>>15
Brave New World, anyone?

Egalitarianism would be an important principle. All decision making would involve those who are affected by the decision. If the decision only affects yourself, you'd be the sole decision maker. If it affects your family or neighbourhood, the respective members of those groups would make the decision. If it affects everyone, it would be a global decision.

In the material realm, everyone would have basically the same amount of wealth. An arbitrary credit system would probably be necessary in order to measure things like supply and demand so that we can make economic decisions. Everyone would be granted the same basic income affording a decent living, but there might be exceptions (e.g., group living arrangements might require more credits, jobs requiring extraordinary risk or great effort might pay more, hermits and tribesmen might need and therefore voluntarily do with less, etc.).

Provided we can technologically get rid of what society agrees are undesirable jobs, I see an open society where people are free to pursue their own interests. Artists, scientists, intellectuals, athletes... every kind of imaginable pursuit would be supported and facilitated. Those who don't want or are unable to work won't be forced to. They'll still be provided for. There will be no jobs that accord power over others. If supervisory duties are needed, they could be on a rotating basis; in any case, supervisor does not imply a higher rank.

If we can't come up with the technology to get rid of undesirable jobs, we can either pay more or rotate the jobs. I think we'll be able to come up with technical solutions, especially when we are all equally responsible and can no longer rely on a pool of exploitable labour. Also, the definition of an undesirable job is not obvious. If everyone receives approximately the same income, some people would still be auto mechanics simply because they enjoy and are fulfilled by doing valuable work. Remember that this is an egalitarian society -- no one would look down on you based on what you do. Our auto mechanic has as much say as anyone else in society.

Housing, basic food, healthcare and education would be equally and freely provided for everyone. The storehouse of human knowledge would also be free: technological resources, books etc. The goal is to enable people to invest in themselves and to create conditions for desired outcomes; maybe we would decide to pay bonuses to those who study and improve themselves (medical students will eventually be providing a valuable service in our free healthcare system). The ideal is free contributions to society according to ones own inclinations and talents.

In a society where you aren't forced to sell your labour to survive, I'd imagine that people would still have motivations to work, whether selfish ones like getting recognition or altrustic ones like serving society (which are not mutually exclusive). People would do scientific research because they are curious and they want to help society. People would run restaurants because they enjoy cooking and serving people. People would produce art to exercise their creativity and to entertain. And so on.

Access to the media would be egalitarian. There would be real public discourse between ordinary citizens. There would be more diversity and more discussion. This echoes earlier conceptions of the internet (i.e. freenets etc.). There won't be media celebrities churning out propaganda and experts serving elite interests (there will be no more elites, so experts will be consultants to the general population who will collectively make decisions).

Freed from the contraints of making a profit and with open access to resources, there would be a greater diversity of content in culture, arts and entertainment. There would be a greater variety of local talent, instead of mostly mass-marketed products. Movies would probably be less escapist and more reflective. The shallow and violent entertainment we have now is, among other things, designed to take people away from the miseries of their lives; in a world without the anxious competition, people may not need such opiates -- in any case, it would be up to people to decide, like everything else.

There would be no government per se, but there will be social structures and institutions which facilitate individual pursuits. The social structures are tentative and subject to the will of all the people affected by them. Freed from exploitative capitalism, and aided by society, indivdual pursuits will naturally benefit society as a whole.

This sad, sad "egalitarian" view of the world scares me to no end. The very fact that anyone even thinks this way scares me. These people don't truly value freedom. They don't truly value any concept of the individual. I dare say they don't truly value their own lives... How exactly do you plan to make everyone "equal"? Why would you WANT everyone to be "equal"? It's a fact, not everyone values life the same. So why should everyone get the same out of life? Very few people manage to realize the importance of their own life to themselves, and those are the people that truly drive society... Not you sad sacks of crap and your "egalitarian" nonsense. And that's what it is. Total and complete nonsense. You have no concept of what it really means to be a human being if you buy into this crap... Mister >>18, I don't whether to pity you, or simply put you out of your misery, because you must really suffer to live in such an ignorant and sad view of existence.

20 GET.

'don't +know whether'
I must be getting senile, my grammar is slipping. :B

They don't truly value any concept of the individual.

No, it's just that you can't grasp that it's possible to be an individual and a member of a community. Either/or amirite?

Anyway, since this is obviously ad hominem season: John is a fuckwad who wouldn't know reason if it gang-raped him in a back alley. His world consists of ZOMG AYN RAND FAP FAP FAP blah blah blah blah blah, and pretending he's in a knot with some gay animal while camping world4ch.

Seriously, shut the fuck up with your annoying conceit. You started the thread, criticise all you want, but the moment you start calling names I'll be happy to fuck up another of your wank parades.

You're sorry? Eat me, faggot.

>>21
You haven't fucked up a single one of my wank parages. All I hear from you is how much of a moron you think I am. I haven't seen a single intelligent rebuke to any philosophical point I've made in any thread. So try me.

Sure you can be an individual in a fucking community. MY POINT IS ... that people want to whine about feeling like nothing more than a brick in the wall, and I hate hearing that type of attitude.

>>21
Wait a minute if I liked Ayn Rand's stuff does that mean my views should be similar to John's... ... I feel sick.

>>21
Hey, I liked her stuff too, but that doesn't mean I agree with John. Quite the contrary, as you can see.

>>22
You wanna bet I haven't? LAWL!

My ideal society is the one where everyone named John keeps their pretty little trap shut.

>>25
I bet it is.

>>24
Well? Have at it. I still don't see you explaining how objectivism is wrong. All I see is rhetoric, which, contrary to what some far-left professor 'taught' us in critical thinking, is not a good persuasive argument technique.

My favorite society is where I could masturbate in public- especially in front of young children.

>>27
Wh-- ...

>>17
Look at finland.

!O_O---8===D~ <--- i am cum in man sphincter
   || ||

ZWARAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARUDO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

>>30
Look at Finland.

>>31
This is why you are sad and alone.

>>30
... xD
Wait, what?

>>33
Look at Finland.

>>34
What about Finland? ¬_¬

>>35
Look at it, you fucking tool

>>36
Okay, what about it? No need to get hostile there, buddy... ¬_¬

>>37
Second, I'm not >>17...
... Or >>30, for that matter. -_-;

Finland is the top economic performer in the world, and they are completely socialist.  I SEE A CORRELATION!

>>39
Why are you trying to defend a system of government that allows no private property and no real opportunity to achieve more than any other sad sack on the street? Set up a country of nothing but robots and what would you expect it to do but perform better? Who gives a flying fuck about Finland... Individuality means nothing to a people that would let themselves be governed in such a manner...

>>39
Wrong, North Korea is completely socialist, Finland is democratically socialist, they can choose not to be socialist if they don't want to if they want and they are not taxed into the ground. Also Norway is wealthier, with similiar if less resources and is less socialist than Finland. There are many other factors at play than just how socialist a country is.

Why are you trying to defend a system of government that allows no private property and no real opportunity to achieve more than any other sad sack on the street?

Holy shit, have you ever left whatever location in is you live? No private property in Finnland? Anybody who has two brain cells knowns this isn't true. No real opportunity? Where is this you're talking about? Some Finnland fron an alternate universe?

Fuck you're an idiot. The only thing you're good at is jumping at your ignorant imagination.

>>41
Still, socialism is a proven system that works to form a truly egalatarian society.

>>43
Like democracies and every other liberty loving system of government.

>>41, Norway has oil

>>42
I wasn't really talking about Finland in particular, asshole, just socialism as a system.

>>41
North Korea is actually communist. There is a bit of a difference.

>>43
Why exactly do you WANT everyone to be equal, regardless of what an individual may want to achieve in life? If somebody wants to own their own land, tough. If someone wants more than somebody else, tough...
From each according to his ability, to each according to his need: This is a fucked up philosophy and system of government, end of story.

>>46

Nobody was ever realllllly communist, least of all North Korea.  China came closest in their heyday.  (1949 until the GLF)

>>46
I wasn't really talking about Finland in particular, asshole, just socialism as a system.

Oh, nice excuse. Really convincing. Why did you reply to a comment that was specifically about Finland?

You don't know shit beyond your borders, and it shows.

>>48
Because he was talking about Finland to try and illustrate a successful socialist system, jackass.. -_-
Why should I give a shit about anyone beyond my borders? What sort of moral obligation do I have to worry about 'em unless they want to attack me? All I'm saying is that socialism and communism are horrible forms of government...

>>49

as technology amplifies, we will have a greater impact on the face of the earth and thus on our own welfare.  whether a unified culture/government is the BEST thing for the human condition itself is overridden by two points: humans will move forward intellectually if they are able.  A primitave utopia cannot be made permanent; gaps will always widen, and we will always crawl right back up to our previous state if capable.  That said, your clinging to citizenship as the moral end-all be-all is both silly and untenable.  You can DEFINITELY make a current, practical argument for it, but not a very inspiring ultimate moral or personal argument.  The abstract moral obligation is that-um-they're all human, and caught arbitrarily under various governments.

>>50
What in the bloody hell are you talking about? ê_e

>>51

I'm telling you that you should care about people beyond your country's borders simply because they're human.  In the same way that we cannot choose our parents, we also cannot choose our countries.  We are victims of fate in that sense.  Don't you feel bad for people who were born into the DPRK? 

I'm also saying that the more that Europe and North America develop, the more attentive sincere persons should be to the power structure between affluent nations and poor nations.  YES, much of African culture is fucked up, but we kind of had a ROLE in some of that.  European racial ideas, among other things, fueled the Rwandan genocide.  Am I saying that we need to throw money at the problem/hyperintervene?  No, that's probably part of how the problem was exacerbated.  But you should be AWARE of the problems, and think seriously about what the future will do to these problems.  AIDS and the drying of the Sahara are two factors which play a role in the schism in African culture, and it should at least bother you that people are dying.  If not in and of itself, then definitely because these things fuel a resentful world underclass comparable to Islam.

And, however unfeasible it is to do something meaningful at present, IT SHOULD LINGER IN THE BACK OF YOUR HEAD that we do inhabit the same planet, and the more technology various states gain, the greater the necessity for cooperation-whatever that may mean.

>>52

(more)

in a word, you have a moral obligation to care about everyone (humanism), and a practical obligation (nipping resentment in the bud/we don't all have to have the same culture, but damn if we shouldn't at least dream of stamping out hunger, poverty, despotism and corruption).

Because he was talking about Finland to try and illustrate a successful socialist system, jackass.. -_-

And a successful system it is. Except that you're jumping at shadows again, because you can't stand a system that's completely counter to your fucked up black/white belief system.

Jump, boy, jump! Look! Another strawman! Gogogogo!

>>53
I am not a state. I am not a community, I am not a people, I am an individual. Nations, communities, groups, these things are subjective concepts only comprised only by the collective permission of objective individuals... If it is an individual's will to worry about the state of his fellow man, then let him make that choice if it makes him happy; and this, I believe, is man's only moral obligation: his own happiness. Whatever a man may wish for, whether he says it's for himself or for others, the result of his wishes are always for his own wishes, be they subjective or objective.
I can have no sympathy for anyone regardless of what situation they are born into. It's pointless. The best thing you can do for them is hope they have the will to get out of the situation themselves of their own efforts, by any means necessary.
If you're hungry, grow food, kill food, or walk until you're in a place with more food. If you're considered to be in "poverty", then obviously there are people in a better condition than you. Do what you have to to get there, if you have any value for your own life and your own happiness. If you live in a corrupt and absolutist government, then run for the border if you value freedom. If you get shot in the back, then consider yourself a person of better fate than the suckers who got left behind... There's no excuse. Those who make excuses rather than take action are the ones that go hungry, and let themselves stay in poverty, and let themselves be controlled by horrible governments.

I should care for them simply because they're human? If they don't take advantage of what MAKES THEM HUMAN, then I have no more sympathy for them than I would the bugs I might step on by accident walking down the street... Everything I've just said is an objective truth in our objective universe. Subjective excuses won't change the facts.

>>54
You were saying? Have fun in your ivory tower there, buddy.

>>55
It is my happiness to chop your dick off, millimeter by millimeter (or 0.0393700787 inches by 0.0393700787 inches for those of you still using backwards measurements). The best thing you can do is hope to somehow get away from my meticulously design restraint system. If you are suffering from my happiness-actions, do not ask an absolutist government to guarantee that you will not be restrained and dick-chopped. It's your own damned fault for not being human. This is the objective truth because I say so, your subjective excuses won't change the facts.

>>39
No it isn't. Take a look at the facts, I don't even have to provide them for you, this is the internet.
www.google.com

>>57
If it makes you happy to violate somebody else's rights, especially in such a manner, then you're rather evil. I'm curious as to why you get so hostile at the idea of self-responsibility that you'd come up with such an idea... What in the hell's your problem exactly?

>>55
What if everyone lives in poverty? Is it ok to stamp on other people's face so they give you some of their food so you don't have to live in poverty?

Justice and liberty, you fucking tyrant, Justice and Liberty. And if this means stopping people from having too many children or paying more tax, then so be it.

>>60
Think about the conditions that would lead everybody to live in poverty... Did the people that find themselves in poverty ever really care enough to do something to stop the process or make conditions better?

>>59
If a person's self-responsibility were to pursue his own interests only then violating another man's interests is not any kind of evil in so far as it fulfills self-responsiblity. >>57 showed the bullshit in your argument.

>>61 is an extreme Libertarian. People are individually responsible for their world even if they had no hand in its creation, amirite? Power and responsibility are separate; there is no spoon. All is fair in love and war, and all is either love or war. Black and white, no shadow, no grey. 

>>59

you don't get to make any sincere comments about good and evil after >>55 .  You reveal yourself as a nihilist/objectivist creature, and not even a reasonably consistent one at that.  You psychologically fetishize nature to a state that has no reson, beauty, or anything like the elusive funcitonal value you also fetishize.  The point >>57 makes is that your version of 'responsibility' is broken after a point.

Also, the attempt to get rid of ethics in some way or another leads your worldview to the same ruin that you yourself would anticipate in a Marxist worldview, which fails for 1. disappearing ethics as a bourgeois concern, and 2. pretending a single, necessary course for the remainder of history, which must be recognized (itself an ethical imperative), making any amount of killing and control permissable.

>>56
What's ivory tower in my comment? I called you a ignorant ass. Since when is that ivory tower?

But hey, ivory tower implies out of touch. You readily admit you're ignorant about what's beyond your borders. Notice a connection?

HELLO, I AM JOHN, FURRY FUCKWIT OBJECTIVIST EXTRAORDINAIRE! I DON'T KNOW SHIT, BUT DON'T MIND THAT!

A perfect society allows public masturbation and sex with children.

"Do, or do not. There is no 'try'."
 - Yoda

I suppose you said the same things about Yoda too, huh? >:B
>>54 You never explained exactly how that counter-system is superior, only that it's a counter-system. All you've basically done is call me an idiot. I'm still waiting for a decent explanation... How is my belief system a straw-man if you haven't knocked it down yet, so to speak?

>>59
Why should your human rights supercede my desire to exploit you? You believe in the opposite thing for the poor.

"Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control." (Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 25-1, http://www.unhchr.ch/udhr/index.htm)

"I should care for them simply because they're human? If they don't take advantage of what MAKES THEM HUMAN, then I have no more sympathy for them than I would the bugs I might step on by accident walking down the street." (John, >>55)

>>69
What Swedish hack wrote THAT pile of crap?
So basically what that's trying to tell me is that, ok let's use as an example: You're riding your motorcycle down the interstate at 125 mph with no helmet like a dumbass, you crash and have massive head traume. What you're trying to say by posting that nonsense is that, should you get into an accident like I described, then you have the RIGHT to be taken care of? You have the right to demand that some doctor be deprived of HIS professional time to treat you??
The things that this paragraph describes are not human RIGHTS. These are human PRIVELEGESSSS, you sorry piece of-- ... Alright, calm down John. -_-;
Tell me something, >>69, what do you DO for a living?

Sorry, Switzerland, not Sweden...

I mean, look... What RIGHT do you have as an individual human being to anything other than your life, your liberty, and your property? Everything else you want out of life has to be earned...

What right do you have to anything, >>71?

You keep talking about "rights", but where do they come from?

>>68
You never explained exactly how that counter-system is superior

Because my point isn't about socialism? I'm pointing out that you're a village idiot, that's all.

If someone tells me that a mouse is the most dangerous mammal because it can tap dance, I don't need to tell them that a tiger is more dangerous by some metrics. I'll just tell them that mice can't tap dance. Duh.

The fact you can't grasp this proves even further that you're a dimwit. So sorry.

.. Alright, calm down John. -_-;

Hello, I am a kid.

>>72

...

If you had walked up to me on the street and said that to me ... I might as well have just killed you on the spot with a clean conscience, since you clearly have no soul if you can honestly ask that question...

You have rights by the NATURE OF YOUR EXISTENCE AS A HUMAN FUCKING BEING, NUMB NUTS. If I dragged you to the ground by your testicles and held a fucking shotgun to your forehead and asked you the same question, why would you fight me? ... If there is a person on this board who thinks that the question that Mr. >>72 has asked is not more radical and idiotic than anything I've ever posted ... then by all means ... let him speak...

>>73
What in the ever-loving hell are you talking about? -_-

>>75
I think >>72 is talking about rights being a product of human society. For your rights to exist, someone has to acknowledge it. But i think it is going into the metaphysical and non practical.

This will be my lost post. All I encounter here is violent name-calling and bitching at each other. (Not to say that I haven't caused and engaged in it a good bit myself, which I can't say I wasn't happy to do at the moment.) It was fun at first, world4chan, but now it just makes me bitter to discuss my personal views with you people. Maybe at times, I was just being a little extreme with my posting for the sake of feeling like I was right and you were wrong; just to satisfy my own inferiority/superiority complexes, whichever was involved. So...
So long. Looking back on who I've read, I think now I realize that Bruce Lee was a hell of a lot better and more inspirational than Ayn Rand, so I think I'll leave you all with one of my favorite aphorisms that he wrote:
"You can never step in the same water twice, my friend. Like flowing water, life is perpetual movement. There is nothing fixed. Whatever your problems happen to be in the future, remember well that they cannot remain stationary but must move together with your living spirit. Otherwise, you will drift into artificiality or attempt to solidify the ever-flowing. To avoid that, you must change and be flexible. Remember, the usefulness of a cup is in its emptiness."
I know that this goes in flat contradiction of some of the things I've said... I read Bruce Lee long before I'd read any of Ayn Rand, and now I see who the better influence is/was. Perhaps I owe you people some thanks for calling me an idiot enough times to cause me to reflect back on those past influences... Thank you.

Er, last* post... Lost, whatever.

Sooo, in the interests of halting the procreation of Johns, Johnlike entities, and hookers working for Johns, I pick Nazism. Good idea? Yes/no/not nearly brutal enough?

Eh, john's just a kid who makes his points too forcefully.

My perfect society would be based on a communitarianistic system.

>>81
I'm sure that's the same thing they said about Eric Rudolph and Paul J. Hill.

This will be my lost post.

lawl

HAY GUYZ, I'M ALL PISSED OFF AT YOU FOR NOT AGREEING WITH ME. I'M TAKING MY BALL HOME NOW, SEE IF I CARE.

Like we give a shit. Bye~!

(Hm, yeah, that's about the reaction I expected...)

(Well, I appreciated it)

I'm so liberal I paid a black homeless guy with aids cum inside my unprotected asshole after inviting him into my home for a salad my jewish gay husband and 6 adopted ethiopians raised to be jews prepared and I felt guilty for not sucking my shit off his cock afterwards!

WE'RE AN 88GET ROCK N' ROLL BAND, 88GET ROCK N' ROLL BAND!!!

This is my final post.  After reading all your stupid posts, I've decided that I have to once again teach you something about politicals.

The sad thing is that you liberals were all taught with your stupid beliefs by liberal professors from the hippy era, while I chose to follow the teachings of a higher calling, and went to church while you were all wasting your time in college.

The fact is, that socialism is a terible form of government.  George Bush will make sure that we eliminate all aspects of socialism from our governmint, then we will live in a true era of happiness, similar to those wonderful years known as the Regan era.  Everyone knows that Clinton really got his economical success from Regan's economy superplus.  One day, if all goes well, America will not only get rid of all the socialist programs in the government, like public education and social security, but we'll get rid of the socialist values in society, and finally make America a Cristian nation, as well as an anglo-saxon one, once we finally suckseed in toppling all those anti discrinimation laws.

>>89 blah blah blah
STFU already jesus. That had better be your FINAL post ever.

I think >>89 is a parody. Real John spells better than that.

>>91 I think >>69 is a great number. Real John is a faggot.
fixed.

He's a faggot objectivist nutcase, but he's a faggot objectivist nutcase that can spell. He probably doesn't believe in church either. I think he's a simplistic fuckwad, but give the man his due.

>>89 is a parody.

Yeah, that's not me. ¬_¬
Don't try to portray me as the conservative I'm not, >>89, you suck at it.

>>93
No, I don't believe in going to church. Think what you want.

Think what you want.

I think people who make a big deal out of religion are tards. That includes vocal atheists and fundamentalist christians. What someone privately believes isn't my business.

>>95

Think what you want.  I don't go to church like  >>89 so eloquently stated, I mean, why the hell should I give them money to line their pockets?  But I do like the fact that they're using religin to manipulate all the sorry people that vote for Bush's agenda.  Where else are we going to get people dumb enough to vote for politics based on something that has nothing to do with politics, rednecks who will bomb abortion clinics to protect life and support going to war because their churches said so. 
And having said that, I support this war, not for religious reasons, but for the progress that we are making in Iraq in finding the weapons of mass destruction.  We are going to find the WMDs one day, because they are buried somewhere in the desert, we just need to find the right Al Qaida member.  All the liberals who are complaining about the soldiers deaths should remember that the Crusades to kick the Muslims collecteve asses took many more lives in any given battle.  I bet you guys don't have your support the troops magnets yet, but you should get some if you really want to show your support, or better yet, since you are so against the war, why don't you go and join the army and fight in Iraq for our freedom.

Fuck off, >>96. You aren't fooling anyone.

Why aren't YOU backing your trash talk up and fighting in this war.  Maybe we'd have a little more respect for people like you if you were actually putting your ass on the line, opposed to sitting back and playing armchair general while others die.  You're just a bunch of cheerleaders.

But I guess your typing is pretty effective at keeping our troops alive, right?  I'm sure that ribbon magnet on your car is as good as a plate of armor on some soldier's vest that may mean life or death from an AK-47 round or a piece of shrapnel from an IED.

>>100 get

>>98
it's not him shut up

>>98
Do you enjoy a good anal fisting? I know I do! What is your sign? give me your email. bye bye.

Hahaha, >>99,100 is a genius!

I WILL BE THE 99,100 poster!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!~``1k2lj1k`l;jfekw;afj493o845orefjgkldgjskfdsfkgjsfds


GENIUS

>>103
gtfo

Signed.

Ha ha, oh wow. :x

>>96, what in the hell are you talking about?

>>98
Ah, the Ad Hominem, standard liberal argumentation.

standard liberal argumentation.

Both sides sling ad hominem attacks all the time. You're a complete dolt if you can't see this.