Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Any other minor ideologies.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#13707605
I believe that political power should be centralized in the hands of biologists, geneticists, philosophers, and so on. The rationale for this is that they are far more qualified to make important decisions than elected representatives. Plato's "philosopher kings" come to mind. The state will have sovereignty over the entire planet, and the level of autonomy of individual nations will resemble that of states in America today.

Although the common man will have virtually no political power whatsoever, personal freedom, meaning the ability to do whatever you want as long as it doesn't harm or coerce anyone else, will be limitless. All drugs will be legalized, as will prostitution, online gambling, and so on. Likewise, interfering with another person's personal freedom will become illegal.

I am against cultural relativism. Both male and female genital mutilation is barbaric and should be banned. Beating children should be illegal as well. My morality is not arbitrary and not based on emotions; its arbiter is human happiness and fulfillment. Studies have shown that spanking causes trauma and other problems when children reach adulthood. Not only that, but it is painful and coercive. Same with genital mutilation.

Religion should be taxed. Why not? Religion will probably die out in a few decades anyway, so this is irrelevant.

Affirmative action, like all discrimination, should be banned in public institutions.

Education should exist to encourage curiosity and teach people how the world works, not to force kids to memorize worthless facts and stifle their intelligence.

Gender is real and not a social construct. There are clear biological differences between males and females; I'm not saying women should be in the kitchen or whatever. Women can be writers but you're never going to get a female equivalent of John Steinbeck or a male equivalent of Edith Wharton. These differences should be recognized and respected.

The state will control major industries (it would probably be best for this to be left up to the individual nation instead of the proposed World State), as well as healthcare, education, and the like. Factories will be reorganized in a syndicalist fashion. I'm not an economist so I don't know if making corporations less hierarchical will negatively influence productivity and innovation, and therefore society at large (not a good thing). I would describe myself as a moderate in an economic sense.

I have mixed views on abortion. I don't think it fits under the umbrella of individual rights; a woman has no more of a right to terminate an unwanted pregnancy than I have a right to kill my neighbor.

An unborn fetus after about six months of gestation is self-aware and capable of feeling emotion. I have no qualms about early term abortions, but it seems silly to pretend late term abortion is anything but murder. I suppose whether or not murder is really "wrong" in the first place is a valid question to ask, but if you think murder is immoral, logically, you must also think the same about abortion.

As a society our attitudes towards reproduction are backwards and nonsensical. A family's decision to have or not to have children affects not only themselves but society at large. If you have an IQ of 60, you should absolutely not be able to procreate. I see no difference between consciously allowing the birth of a deformed of retarded child and deforming or mentally stifling (to retardation) the child yourself. Although I am against the murder of a healthy unborn child, abortion when the fetus has a disability or has a 90% of getting something like Huntington's disease or AIDS should not only be an option but should be encouraged by the state. I don't understand how something so monumentally significant as literally creating other people, especially when genetics is so crucial in things like intelligence, behavior, and personality, is still left up to the individual.

I fully support eugenics and human genetic engineering. It should not be coercive except in extreme cases; like I said before, only people with very low IQs or serious inheritable diseases would be sterilized. I don't see any human rights being violated; it's not a right to create another human being. That is a gigantic responsibility; raising a child is one of the most demanding tasks a person can preform. Since people are the basic makeup of society, it is in society's best interests to make sure children are raised correctly and are born with healthy genes.

The death penalty will be used leniently to weed out degenerates and dangers to the species. Someone who murders or rapes someone else should not be alive. Why should society support someone whose very existence is a threat to that same society? The idea is ludicrous. Someone who raped a child is a broken person; there is no way to fix them. Put them down and be done with it. It's often not their fault; they may be a victim of mental illness or brain damage or whatever, but that doesn't matter. They are a danger and should be eliminated, period.

I would even extend the death penalty to things like robbery and assault. I don't buy into the "poor upbringing" excuse. There are plenty of people with terrible upbringings who still manage to act like decent human beings. If you've seen the video where two black women beat a transsexual in McDonalds, I'm sure you will agree with me. Those particular black women aren't fit to be alive. Their existence is a drain on society. They are dangerous and most likely will contribute nothing of worth to the human race. Again, kill them and be done with it.

A one child per family policy would be instituted for first, second, and third generation immigrants to historically monoethnic countries (Sweden, England, most of Europe) and a two child per family policy would be implemented for native peoples. This could stir up controversy, so I'm not completely sure that's the right way to go, but preserving national identity is important to instill a sense of meaning and purpose into people; human beings are and want to feel part of a continuum. Immigration to historically monoethnic countries destroys that continuum and makes nations weaker due to the inherent tribal nature of man. If immigration into Europe continues at its current rate, perhaps Enoch Powell would be right. I hope not. Different races and ethnicities should respect each other, but forcing multiculturalism down people's throats is never a good idea.

People should feel a connection with their immediate family, their countrymen, and most importantly, the human race as a whole. The whole purpose of this form of government is to optimize and protect the interest of the species.

I guess that's it. I don't know what else to add.
By pugsville
#13707742
Scientific-Dictatorship? Techno-Fascism?

Technocracy with some sort of strong armed rule seems to be your go.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technocracy

"Technocracy is a form of government in which engineers, scientists, health professionals and other technical experts are in control of decision making in their respective fields. "
User avatar
By Jordan9
#13708769
Naivetism? :P Your view on the nature of man is surprisingly optimistic. I can only assume that you hope to be one of the "philosopher kings" in your society, in which case, you're not very different from any man who has ever waked this Earth.
User avatar
By Orestes
#13710041
You are a Spartan Heinleinist ;)


What do you think about military service ? Mandatory ? I suppose this is crucial for the difference between fascism/not - fascism.


I fully support eugenics and human genetic engineering. It should not be coercive except in extreme cases


Someone who murders or rapes someone else should not be alive. Why should society support someone whose very existence is a threat to that same society? The idea is ludicrous. Someone who raped a child is a broken person; there is no way to fix them. Put them down and be done with it. It's often not their fault; they may be a victim of mental illness or brain damage or whatever, but that doesn't matter. They are a danger and should be eliminated, period.


How do you reconcile those ? With post-natal bio-engineering you could just make a paedophile into a healthy person. Why kill them ?
User avatar
By Andropov
#13710085
I suppose when post-natal bio-engineering becomes a possibility, that wouldn't even be an issue.

Military service should be mandatory for 1 or 2 years after high school to teach survival skills, weapon handling, and so on. They'd travel all over the world, meet new people, etc etc. I don't see any negatives. War wouldn't exist so the only function of national military forces would be historical and to channel "male" strength. Humans are a warlike species; you can get rid of war, but its impetus will still be there. You shouldn't suppress it or be embarrassed of it; embrace it, and the world will be better for it.
By Khalq
#13710330
Orestes wrote:With post-natal bio-engineering you could just make a paedophile into a healthy person.

Pedophilia is biologic and can be fixed?
User avatar
By Andropov
#13710336
I'm not an expert but I assume so. Certainly you're not saying people "choose" to be sexually attracted to children.
User avatar
By Andropov
#13710359
I'm trying to find a catchier name for this than "Spartan Heinleinism". "Cosmic Futurism" maybe? "Totalitarian Humanism"?
By Khalq
#13710541
There is still much research to be done, but pedophilia (and some also argue hebephilia) is recognized as a personality and behavioral mental disorder, often accompanied with other disorders and abnormalities. I don't see how bioengineering could possibly fix that.
User avatar
By Preston Cole
#13711184
That's a very interesting belief system. I agree with most of it, and, although I'm a nationalist, I'm still intrigued by theoretical efforts to create an authoritarian and conservative world state.

Although the common man will have virtually no political power whatsoever, personal freedom, meaning the ability to do whatever you want as long as it doesn't harm or coerce anyone else, will be limitless. All drugs will be legalized, as will prostitution, online gambling, and so on. Likewise, interfering with another person's personal freedom will become illegal.

This, I don't agree with. How can you legalize drugs, gambling and prostitution when you believe in preserving age-old morals and enforcing civilized values? Moreover, personal freedom should not be limitless and should be subservient to the state and nation, or world, as you put it. My opinion is that fascistic values of moral strength, duty and selflessness should be encouraged by your theoretical world state, though with obvious exceptions with respect to personal property and personal aspirations.

A one child per family policy would be instituted for first, second, and third generation immigrants to historically monoethnic countries (Sweden, England, most of Europe) and a two child per family policy would be implemented for native peoples. This could stir up controversy, so I'm not completely sure that's the right way to go, but preserving national identity is important to instill a sense of meaning and purpose into people; human beings are and want to feel part of a continuum. Immigration to historically monoethnic countries destroys that continuum and makes nations weaker due to the inherent tribal nature of man.

I definitely agree with this. But I must ask: is your aim the creation of an organic World State or simply a worldwide ideology/political organization that will enforce conservatism and moderate nationalism?

From what I've read, I guess you could be called an authoritarian futurist, but you need to be more clear on the internationalist-nationalist issue.
By starman2003
#13711346
Andropov, I like bold unconventional (by typical US standards) thinkers. I'd say that, while I can relate to much of what you write, I have a number of problems with it:

--While a Platonic meritocratic system is a good idea, it's not wise to have biologists and others wielding political power. Scientists tend to be highly specialized, bogged down in technical details, whereas a statesman must have a wholistic overview.

The state will have sovereingnty over the entire planet..


Good idea. :)

..and the level of autonomy of individual nations will resemble that of states in America today.


Unfortunately, unifying the world will inevitably incur some resistance, even best case, and it's frankly naive to think you can trust nations with such perogatives. The provincial system of the Roman empire may be a more realistic model, and longterm, the goal should be to erase national distinctions in favor of identification with a central, global State.

Now as regards personal freedom, the whole point of a state monopolizing political power is to ensure the primacy of its own agenda vis a vis that of the masses. In other words, power to control the masses should be put to good use, notably limiting consumption, and ensuring that production be devoted to furthering State goals, such as space expansion, instead of petty individual luxuries.

Religion will probably die out in a few decades anyway..


:lol: I sure hope you're right but this does strike me as optimistic; it wouldn't hurt if the State--how shall we put it...accelerated the process.


The state will control major industries.....as well as healthcare, education...


Again, in actual practice, it'll be very tough to reconcile an activist, controlling state with a high degree of personal liberty. Just think of all the rules and regulations...

I would even extend the death penalty to things like robbery and assault.


Society certainly needs much more discipline. But you've got to be practical. If a person can be executed just for theft, or striking someone, what's he got to lose by killing the person?

..most importantly, the human race as a whole. The whole point of this form of government is to optimize and protect the interest of the species.


Great idea. :)
User avatar
By Andropov
#13711666
This, I don't agree with. How can you legalize drugs, gambling and prostitution when you believe in preserving age-old morals and enforcing civilized values? Moreover, personal freedom should not be limitless and should be subservient to the state and nation, or world, as you put it. My opinion is that fascistic values of moral strength, duty and selflessness should be encouraged by your theoretical world state, though with obvious exceptions with respect to personal property and personal aspirations.


I don't believe in "conservative values" for their own sake. I believe that man is an imperfectly evolved species and policy should be made with that in mind. Women and men aren't the same, people are ultimately tribalistic, etc etc etc. All these things the modern "left wing" try to ignore, suppress, or even change forcibly. I think it's a far better idea to use these traits to our advantage as a species. For instance, women should be encouraged to stay at home, not in a "know your place" sort of way, but rather in a "you are the caretaker of this family unit; it is your duty to your family, to your country, and to the species that you stimulate your children's curiosity and care for your husband, etc etc." Men are by their nature more fit to be the head of the family than women. When this is undermined, divorce rates increase, and society, in the long run, begins to decay.

I don't see anything particularly wrong with drugs or casual sex. When not taken to an extreme, these things are good and make people happier and less stressed out. People are naturally "hedonistic"; it's not something to be ashamed of. Rather, embrace it, like with the family example I talked about before. Psychedelic drugs in particular are very useful when used in a therapeutic setting.

I agree that all those things; strength, duty, selflessness, should all be encouraged. I don't see why love, relaxation, pleasure, and so on are incompatible with them.
User avatar
By Andropov
#13711671
[img]I definitely agree with this. But I must ask: is your aim the creation of an organic World State or simply a worldwide ideology/political organization that will enforce conservatism and moderate nationalism?

From what I've read, I guess you could be called an authoritarian futurist, but you need to be more clear on the internationalist-nationalist issue.[/img]

Again, I don't see why both cannot coexist. Someone can both be loyal to their family as well as to their country. What I mean by "nationalism" is a cohesive force among people of the same heritage and nationality. People in the 21st century, or at least those in the first world, live totally meaningless and purposeless lives. They feel no connection to anything greater than themselves. They should; to their family, their country, the world, and to history.
User avatar
By Andropov
#13711674
My thoughts on national autonomy have somewhat changed since I posted the OP. The only authority the world state should have is certain basic rules; an expanded "bill of rights" type of deal. Certain things like the global eugenics program and environmental preservation should also be the domain of the World State. Everything else (taxation, etc) will be determined locally.
By starman2003
#13711881
People in the 21st century, or at least those in the first world, live totally meaningless and purposeless lives. They feel no connection to anything greater than themselves.


Right, and hedonism is symptomatic of this. Of course there must be sex, relaxation and pleasure in any society. But a society which emphasizes "something greater" than the individual--what I call a wholistic system--must de-emphasize such forms of purely individual fulfillment. To an extent, they can coexist, but they're not really compatible, and the Statist, "greater" orientation must trump the petty one.

My thoughts on national autonomy have somewhat changed since I posted the OP.


But not for the better... Again, you seem to think you can have your cake and eat it too. In order to have environmental preservation alone, the World State would have to be able to dictate to each region how many kids couples can have, how much they can consume, what energy sources they can use, how many trees they can cut down, how many they should plant, what they can and can't take from the sea...And that's just the environmental issue. Pursuing the whole global agenda requires that no vestige remain of national sovereingty.
User avatar
By Preston Cole
#13713248
Starman wrote:But not for the better... Again, you seem to think you can have your cake and eat it too. In order to have environmental preservation alone, the World State would have to be able to dictate to each region how many kids couples can have, how much they can consume, what energy sources they can use, how many trees they can cut down, how many they should plant, what they can and can't take from the sea...And that's just the environmental issue. Pursuing the whole global agenda requires that no vestige remain of national sovereingty.

:lol:

What are you going to do, send the Global troops down to every single nation state and force it to comply? Nations are organic beings that cannot just be wiped off the Earth. Your scenario belongs in a science fiction novel.
By starman2003
#13713622
What are you going to do, send the Global troops down to every single state and force it to comply?


May not be necessary. :) Even under current democracy, the US, as the sole superpower, has been effective in getting other nations to go along, even when the policy was downright foolish, such as the 2003 Iraq invasion. There's just no other comparable, countervailing power. Many past hegemons (from Persia and Rome to the USSR) forced compliance over very wide geographical areas without 1% of current technological know-how.

Your scenario belongs in a science fiction novel.


It has adequate basis in history, and in any event, a great deal of science fiction has come true. :lol: Better to belong in the realm of "science fiction" than the dustbin of history; already the nation state is on the wane.
User avatar
By Preston Cole
#13713630
It has adequate basis in history, and in any event, a great deal of science fiction has come true.

Maybe, but then again, one of the pillars upon which the World Government theory is built is the Translight travel idea to colonize distant stars. It's quite obvious that FTL travel is humanly impossible to achieve. We're stuck in this solar system, unless technological breakthroughs allow us to arrive at Alpha Centauri in a few thousand years at least.

However, I'm asking this just out of genuine curiosity: how do you plan to build a Terran Identity and de-emphasize national ones? Wherever the human race will go, tribalism is in our blood and we're by nature anti-centralist. You need solid, irrefutable facts and theories that will propagate Terran identity as singularly viable and desirable. I honestly don't see how that would be possible.
User avatar
By Andropov
#13714145
National identities will be maintained parallel to the Terran identity, just like Bavarians regard themselves as culturally and historically "Bavarian" as well as German.

The Global identity will stress values universal to all of its constituency; heroism, self sacrifice, compassion, inquisitiveness, rationality, and so on.
US Elections, 2016 Ed.

Redditors ravaging the DNC/HFA: https://out&#[…]

It was a serious speech from a serious person. Th[…]

All morality has some natural basis. Broadly yes[…]