War VS Peace

[HORUS]

Peace is overrated; drop more bombs.

 

 

Face it. Peace is boring.

 

 

 

Which is more important in a world of separated and politically different states?

 

War must be administered in order to create a single communist world state.

[Death Metal]

War makes Peace. Nuff Said.

[CrabHelmet]

And what will said state do once said state has taken over the world? Those in charge are not going to set up your precious utopia; they're going to set themselves up as emperors, kings, dictators, or another name for the same concept.

[HORUS]

I didn't say anything about any leaders or rulers.

[CrabHelmet]

If one side has leaders and rulers while the other needs to take a referendum on every action, the side that has leaders and rulers will be far more efficient and win the war.

 

Unless, of course, you're acting under the assumption that all leaders and rulers, and all with the ambition to become leaders and rulers, magically fell off the face of the earth before all of this happened.

[Lazer Yoshi]

Peace brings a happier world, but War smallens the population, helping the World.

I voted Peace, but War will always exist, even in Children's Card Games.

[Guest JoshIcy]

I have lived with the thought of Content since the 3rd Grade, and enjoy being bored.

 

I say Peace.

[Bloodrun]

I say Love.

 

To be more precise.

 

Sex.

[HORUS]

If one side has leaders and rulers while the other needs to take a referendum on every action' date=' the side that has leaders and rulers will be far more efficient and win the war.

 

Unless, of course, you're acting under the assumption that all leaders and rulers, and all with the ambition to become leaders and rulers, magically fell off the face of the earth before all of this happened.

[/quote']

 

A truly communist leader would step down once the world state has been achieved.

[CrabHelmet]

' pid='1134458' dateline='1221795978']

If one side has leaders and rulers while the other needs to take a referendum on every action' date=' the side that has leaders and rulers will be far more efficient and win the war.

 

Unless, of course, you're acting under the assumption that all leaders and rulers, and all with the ambition to become leaders and rulers, magically fell off the face of the earth before all of this happened.

[/quote']

 

A truly communist leader would step down once the world state has been achieved.

 

Assuming that we could find such an angel that would create a single global nation and then sacrifice his own power for the common good, that would still create a vacuum into which anyone of sufficient intellect and ambition could step and claim power. Ambition will always exist; if it did not exist, then we wouldn't need a world state, or any states at all, in the first place.

[Guest JoshIcy]

' pid='1134458' dateline='1221795978']

If one side has leaders and rulers while the other needs to take a referendum on every action' date=' the side that has leaders and rulers will be far more efficient and win the war.

 

Unless, of course, you're acting under the assumption that all leaders and rulers, and all with the ambition to become leaders and rulers, magically fell off the face of the earth before all of this happened.

[/quote']

 

A truly communist leader would step down once the world state has been achieved.

 

Assuming that we could find such an angel that would create a single global nation and then sacrifice his own power for the common good, that would still create a vacuum into which anyone of sufficient intellect and ambition could step and claim power. Ambition will always exist; if it did not exist, then we wouldn't need a world state, or any states at all, in the first place.

 

I <3 Crab Helmet :lol:

[HORUS]

Unfortunately, yes, the ideal society I speak of is nearly impossible to create.

[Bloodrun]

' pid='1134458' dateline='1221795978']

If one side has leaders and rulers while the other needs to take a referendum on every action' date=' the side that has leaders and rulers will be far more efficient and win the war.

 

Unless, of course, you're acting under the assumption that all leaders and rulers, and all with the ambition to become leaders and rulers, magically fell off the face of the earth before all of this happened.

[/quote']

 

A truly communist leader would step down once the world state has been achieved.

 

Assuming that we could find such an angel that would create a single global nation and then sacrifice his own power for the common good, that would still create a vacuum into which anyone of sufficient intellect and ambition could step and claim power. Ambition will always exist; if it did not exist, then we wouldn't need a world state, or any states at all, in the first place.

 

I <3 Crab Helmet :lol:

 

Wait!

 

I got it!

 

We can call him God! and then one day, he can have a child, and he can name him Jebediah! but then the mom would be itchy and name Jeremiah! then the nursing wife will say, we'll name him Jesus!

[QueenIsAGreatBand]

Peace and love! (^-^) But I think everlasting peace cannot be made since every part of the world has their own share of a-holes who spoils everything for everybody. :(

[Static]

If the people needed to have control of the government, then the government would not be needed in the first place.

 

Thus, Democracy is truly pointless. In comparison to modern Democracy, the world is better off with one ruler to tell them what is right rather than let them determine it for themselves, because there is more order to the system. Under REAL Communism, we would need a leader who would force equality and shared wealth, and we would need a lineage to be formed, people whose birth was only to rule the state and who were raised in such a way that they are devoid of ambition, for enough time that we can create a world devoid of ambition, and begin to reevolve.

 

On the relative thread topic: Non-Gene specific Biological Warfare is the answer. With 3-5 billion less people, the world would be manageable.

[CrabHelmet]

If the people needed to have control of the government' date=' then the government would not be needed in the first place.

 

Thus, Democracy is truly pointless.

[/quote']

 

Given a state of nature without any form of government, each individual person does precisely as he or she wishes. If one person chooses to go crops, that is acceptable; if another person chooses to steal those crops, then that is also acceptable. There is no law prohibiting theft; furthermore, even if there was a law prohibiting theft, no police force would exist to force said law. If the person whose crops were stolen wants the thief apprehended and the crops returned, he is forced to do this himself, which results in a victory for the strongest. Under a government, however, a system of law enforcement would exist to allow the thief to be captured.

 

Thus, some form of government that represents the will of the people is necessary, for it transforms the world from a state of nature, in which every person does what he or she wants, with a world of law, in which the majority possess the ability to protect themselves from the minorities who wish to take advantage of them.

 

Furthermore, given the absence of government, the strong will work to create a government under themselves. Reflect upon the history of the planet as a whole, in which governments of varying sizes sprung up in the absence of any form of government.

 

In comparison to modern Democracy' date=' the world is better off with one ruler to tell them what is right rather than let them determine it for themselves, because there is more order to the system.

[/quote']

 

There is indeed more order to the system. Regrettably, however, greed ensures that such a lone ruler is likely to be one dedicated more to reinforcing his own power rather than ensuring the common good, or, in the unlikely event that an idealist takes the throne, he is always the target of those whose greed and ambition are sufficient to want him out of the way.

 

However, order is not the only purpose of a government. More order is not necessarily better if the order of greater quantity is of an inferior nature.

 

Under REAL Communism' date=' we would need a leader who would force equality and shared wealth, and we would need a lineage to be formed, people whose birth was only to rule the state and who were raised in such a way that they are devoid of ambition, for enough time that we can create a world devoid of ambition, and begin to reevolve.

[/quote']

 

If the one ruler is decided by lineage rather than qualification, then you once again have a serious problem, for you overlook the fact that, though a case can be made that alll should be treated equally, all people are not equal.

 

Some people are taller than others. Some people are shorter than others. Some people have red hair. Some people have black hair. Some people can run faster. Some people cannot run as fast. Some people can jump higher. Some people cannot jump as high. Some people are more intelligent than others. Some people are not as intelligent as others.

 

And therein lies the problem. As long as the lone ruler is decided via lineage rather than qualification, the possibility of a stupid ruler rising to power exists, and as the length of this family rule increases, the probability of a stupid ruler rising to power approaches certainty. Even with his life dedicated to ruling the state under the most pure ideals, a stupid ruler would not be capable of running the world-state properly. This lends itself to two possibilities: the ruler's reign is weak enough to allow those with ambition to seize power, or the ruler's role is replaced by that of his more intelligent advisers. In the former case, the entire purpose of the world-state has been jeopardized; in the latter, the lineage has already been usurped by those with cunning. In both cases, the line of rulers is disrupted, and power falls into the hands of those willing to seize it.

 

Next, you assume that ambition can be removed through specific upbringing. However, ambition is inherent in all human beings by their very nature, for only those with the ambition to ensure the greatest chance of survival for themselves and their offspring have descendants alive today. Because of this, ambition is ingrained into the psyche of all people alive today; it does not simply result from being raised in a manner that promotes ambition.

 

But let's ignore all of that. Let's assume that we have a world controller who has been raised in some way that has magically thus far prevented ambition from growing in him. But as he is in charge of the world, he must by necessity understand how the population as a whole thinks in order to be able to govern effectively. If he has no concept of ambition, he will see no need to install any system of enforcement of his policies, and thus the government shall collapse. Such naivete will also lead him to be overly trusting of the motives of others, such as his advisers, and will thus undermine his power. But if he does learn of ambition, ambition shall grow within him. Thus, even the impossible scenario in which ambition has been removed from the ruler simply creates a new series of problems.

 

On the relative thread topic: Non-Gene specific Biological Warfare is the answer. With 3-5 billion less people' date=' the world would be manageable.

[/quote']

 

This is quite an unusual proposal from one dedicated to universal equality. To deem one half of a population worthy of life and the other half worthy of death seems to contradict your proposal that all people are equal and must be treated equally.

[Static]

If the people needed to have control of the government' date=' then the government would not be needed in the first place.

 

Thus, Democracy is truly pointless.

[/quote']

 

Given a state of nature without any form of government, each individual person does precisely as he or she wishes. If one person chooses to go crops, that is acceptable; if another person chooses to steal those crops, then that is also acceptable. There is no law prohibiting theft; furthermore, even if there was a law prohibiting theft, no police force would exist to force said law. If the person whose crops were stolen wants the thief apprehended and the crops returned, he is forced to do this himself, which results in a victory for the strongest. Under a government, however, a system of law enforcement would exist to allow the thief to be captured.

 

Thus, some form of government that represents the will of the people is necessary, for it transforms the world from a state of nature, in which every person does what he or she wants, with a world of law, in which the majority possess the ability to protect themselves from the minorities who wish to take advantage of them.

 

Furthermore, given the absence of government, the strong will work to create a government under themselves. Reflect upon the history of the planet as a whole, in which governments of varying sizes sprung up in the absence of any form of government.

 

If we look back into history, Democracy, the real kind, takes it to the point where the majority become corrupt and enslave the minorities. I'm no anarchist, so I will not deny that a lack of government would probably result in the inevitable formation of one, but I will say that ideologically, the idea of Anarchy makes a bit more sense than unifying people to deem others as less than equal.

 

With the world of law as a given, human beings, no matter what the situation, cannot tribu... will always act in the way that will benefit them the most while envoking the fewest of consequences, or risking those that the mind deems worthy to risk, instinctive greed will exist in any society that does not take precautions against them.

 

In comparison to modern Democracy' date=' the world is better off with one ruler to tell them what is right rather than let them determine it for themselves, because there is more order to the system.

[/quote']

 

There is indeed more order to the system. Regrettably, however, greed ensures that such a lone ruler is likely to be one dedicated more to reinforcing his own power rather than ensuring the common good, or, in the unlikely event that an idealist takes the throne, he is always the target of those whose greed and ambition are sufficient to want him out of the way.

 

However, order is not the only purpose of a government. More order is not necessarily better if the order of greater quantity is of an inferior nature.

 

Well, of course. The quality of law, its founder, and its enforcer, all play a role in how effective the law will truly be "of the land." A good leader is not more likely to be found in a Democratic society, its just that the Democratic system has more limits to the leaders capability of "enforcing himself" upon the public. Totalitarianism will thus get more order enforced with its law than democracy will.

 

Under REAL Communism' date=' we would need a leader who would force equality and shared wealth, and we would need a lineage to be formed, people whose birth was only to rule the state and who were raised in such a way that they are devoid of ambition, for enough time that we can create a world devoid of ambition, and begin to reevolve.

[/quote']

 

If the one ruler is decided by lineage rather than qualification, then you once again have a serious problem, for you overlook the fact that, though a case can be made that alll should be treated equally, all people are not equal.

 

Some people are taller than others. Some people are shorter than others. Some people have red hair. Some people have black hair. Some people can run faster. Some people cannot run as fast. Some people can jump higher. Some people cannot jump as high. Some people are more intelligent than others. Some people are not as intelligent as others.

 

And therein lies the problem. As long as the lone ruler is decided via lineage rather than qualification, the possibility of a stupid ruler rising to power exists, and as the length of this family rule increases, the probability of a stupid ruler rising to power approaches certainty. Even with his life dedicated to ruling the state under the most pure ideals, a stupid ruler would not be capable of running the world-state properly. This lends itself to two possibilities: the ruler's reign is weak enough to allow those with ambition to seize power, or the ruler's role is replaced by that of his more intelligent advisers. In the former case, the entire purpose of the world-state has been jeopardized; in the latter, the lineage has already been usurped by those with cunning. In both cases, the line of rulers is disrupted, and power falls into the hands of those willing to seize it.

 

Next, you assume that ambition can be removed through specific upbringing. However, ambition is inherent in all human beings by their very nature, for only those with the ambition to ensure the greatest chance of survival for themselves and their offspring have descendants alive today. Because of this, ambition is ingrained into the psyche of all people alive today; it does not simply result from being raised in a manner that promotes ambition.

 

But let's ignore all of that. Let's assume that we have a world controller who has been raised in some way that has magically thus far prevented ambition from growing in him. But as he is in charge of the world, he must by necessity understand how the population as a whole thinks in order to be able to govern effectively. If he has no concept of ambition, he will see no need to install any system of enforcement of his policies, and thus the government shall collapse. Such naivete will also lead him to be overly trusting of the motives of others, such as his advisers, and will thus undermine his power. But if he does learn of ambition, ambition shall grow within him. Thus, even the impossible scenario in which ambition has been removed from the ruler simply creates a new series of problems.

 

When I said "lineage" I did not mean one of blood.... I meant following the same way of being raised, raised to lead, and brainwashed out of desire for the self. I'm aware of why monarchy is such a failure of a form of government. All people may not be equal in action, in thought, intelligence, or anything that you mentioned, but all are conscious beings, and should be judged not for superficial, perspective based determinants, but should be judged as equals because they are all conscious beings.

 

Last time I checked, Nurture > Nature, and thus, with the right technique, we can change human nature entirely during a child's childhood if we train them well enough. (I know that sentence sounds retarded, but its 3 AM... :/) Within the entire system, there would have to be a lack of ambition so that power could not be seized. Perhaps ambition without greed is what I was really getting at.

 

On the relative thread topic: Non-Gene specific Biological Warfare is the answer. With 3-5 billion less people' date=' the world would be manageable.

[/quote']

 

This is quite an unusual proposal from one dedicated to universal equality. To deem one half of a population worthy of life and the other half worthy of death seems to contradict your proposal that all people are equal and must be treated equally.

 

I'd like to think that I actually cared about other people to try and put effort into making them all equal, but I will admit, I am quite the Anti-Theist, and view Conscious-God Theists as less worthy than persons who practice Buddhism, Hinduism, and the like, or are Agnostic/Atheist. I mean, I don't think less of them as conscious beings, but as human beings, people who think they can think for themselves, they should know better and question what they have been taught. Also, you have to understand that from my perspective, the difference between life and death is so insignificant, that pushing over that line is not a real bridge of equality.

 

p.s. Isn't this sort of intellectual discussion funner than the random internet junk we always end up posting?

 

p.p.s. If it doesn't appear well proofread, well, it wasn't. 3:20 AM proofs do little anyway.