;; I'm not looking for a battle of politics, or name slinging. My head isn't up my ass. I'm tired of the way things are and all the failures of the past, the way things will be because of the present.
I think both laissez fare and communism didn't work. I think there are evidence for both not working. I want to try and combine the ideals of both, in a lottery system. There are some good points. ... It might work in a city state.
As for who the community looks up to - there would be leaders. But it would be like, underdogs, the regular guy. And, of course, committees of educated people. And educated people would be the regular guy.
Right now, the leaders we have right now... I don't like them. And I don't like the ones fighting to replace them. It's like a big fight for who will get to sit on top of the pile - who will be King of the Hill. And they focus on what will get them more votes. And they make a big circus and production out of everything, and advertise everything, and try to be the loudest and get the most attention. I disapprove of so unequally dispersed power. And I don't like that people, the individual person, has more power and commitment and devotion and love to give to other people within themselves than they know they do, or then they think they do, or than they think anyone does. ._.
Well, I didn't say you had your head up your ass. xD;; I just think the Independent Party are just people who don't know where they stand and you can't really enforce rules if you're a pushover. y/n?
Well, it's been years since I've learned about Laissez-faire but I know why Communism doesn't work. Communism doesn't work because of greed. Greed is human nature.
This also counters your idea for leaders. If you have underdog leaders, they technically can't be underdogs because... they have power and power usual turns in to greed. Now see, if you have a honest, proud leader (a regular guy) and loyal, educated followers, then you got something going for ya. However, there is always SOMEONE who will have greed or other ideas and challenge the leader. Again, human nature.
Like that great quote says: "People shouldn't be scared of their government, the government should be scared of their people."
But yes, it would be nice if these stupid fights would stop... but it's not going to. Politics have been like this since the beginning of time.
Yeh. I had a "bribe-taking clause" up there.. xD;;
"SURPRISE HAPPY BIRTHDAY YOU'RE LEADER OF YOUR COUNTRY!!" xD You win teh lotteriez! I'm thinking, maybe, shy meek people will win?? xD Yeh, there will be someone, buuut -- we're all in it together. Cynics and hopeful, greedy and, uh... ... what's the opposite of greedy, self-less? Mm. There might be more of the former than latter. ... Shy and histrionic. But at least it would be a more even representation, instead of just the power-hungry (or, previously power-hungry).
They get to overcome their personal fears during the presidency. XD Maybe they can keep a blog. "Dear LJ: I had to give a speech today. That was my one weak point throughout school! How would I come to be leader of a country??? This must be fate, surely! Anyway, I had a hard time not wetting myself." And all the countrymen could read it and post supportive comments, like: "You were okay! I can imagine it would be hard! I remember being a kid and being shy and dreading if I ever would have to serve! Me and my family are pulling for you!" ... xD!!
DRAT! Then I will -- make my own clothes and shizz like Gandhi. xD
Weeeell, they might argue, but if all the politicians were friiieeeends with each other, then they would know that their friendship could stand up to any argument or debate. ... XD!! (I wish I had a "let's be friends" DOGS icon right about now)
I think both laissez fare and communism didn't work. I think there are evidence for both not working. I want to try and combine the ideals of both, in a lottery system. There are some good points. ... It might work in a city state.
As for who the community looks up to - there would be leaders. But it would be like, underdogs, the regular guy. And, of course, committees of educated people. And educated people would be the regular guy.
Right now, the leaders we have right now... I don't like them. And I don't like the ones fighting to replace them. It's like a big fight for who will get to sit on top of the pile - who will be King of the Hill. And they focus on what will get them more votes. And they make a big circus and production out of everything, and advertise everything, and try to be the loudest and get the most attention.
I disapprove of so unequally dispersed power.
And I don't like that people, the individual person, has more power and commitment and devotion and love to give to other people within themselves than they know they do, or then they think they do, or than they think anyone does. ._.
Reply
Well, it's been years since I've learned about Laissez-faire but I know why Communism doesn't work. Communism doesn't work because of greed. Greed is human nature.
This also counters your idea for leaders. If you have underdog leaders, they technically can't be underdogs because... they have power and power usual turns in to greed. Now see, if you have a honest, proud leader (a regular guy) and loyal, educated followers, then you got something going for ya. However, there is always SOMEONE who will have greed or other ideas and challenge the leader. Again, human nature.
Like that great quote says:
"People shouldn't be scared of their government, the government should be scared of their people."
But yes, it would be nice if these stupid fights would stop... but it's not going to. Politics have been like this since the beginning of time.
Reply
Yeh. I had a "bribe-taking clause" up there.. xD;;
"SURPRISE HAPPY BIRTHDAY YOU'RE LEADER OF YOUR COUNTRY!!" xD You win teh lotteriez!
I'm thinking, maybe, shy meek people will win?? xD
Yeh, there will be someone, buuut -- we're all in it together. Cynics and hopeful, greedy and, uh... ... what's the opposite of greedy, self-less? Mm. There might be more of the former than latter. ... Shy and histrionic.
But at least it would be a more even representation, instead of just the power-hungry (or, previously power-hungry).
The governments must fear me. ... RAR! >:|
True.
Reply
"WE WILL NOT TRADE WITH YOU! D:"
".......................ok. o~o"
Reply
Maybe they can keep a blog.
"Dear LJ: I had to give a speech today. That was my one weak point throughout school! How would I come to be leader of a country??? This must be fate, surely!
Anyway, I had a hard time not wetting myself."
And all the countrymen could read it and post supportive comments, like:
"You were okay! I can imagine it would be hard! I remember being a kid and being shy and dreading if I ever would have to serve! Me and my family are pulling for you!"
... xD!!
DRAT!
Then I will -- make my own clothes and shizz like Gandhi. xD
Weeeell, they might argue, but if all the politicians were friiieeeends with each other, then they would know that their friendship could stand up to any argument or debate. ... XD!!
(I wish I had a "let's be friends" DOGS icon right about now)
Reply
Leave a comment