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.

>>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?