Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

---

At 4/11/07 09:15 PM, SolInvictus wrote:

At 4/11/07 05:05 PM, reviewer-general wrote:

At 4/11/07 04:43 PM, SolInvictus wrote: accept me as your true god, pathetic mortals!

Which one? Your name applies to at least three.

i'm the new and improved version.

As long as I get my triumph, I'll be happy.....

---

Yalavecapertialism (Justice Freedom Empirioqkriticism)
Ideology: Empiroqkracy (Empiroqkritic-Democracy)

---

At 4/11/07 12:27 PM, JoS wrote: Facism. democracy is just too inefficiant for my liking sometimes.

Definitely. That's the main reason I am Conservative or die kind of person.

Bush for life!!

---

I would like the political system to be run by who ever kills the most people above him ,moves up the ladder, to stay there you kill anyone who attempts to take your place.
I would like all countries to follow this.
This governing system would also be, politicians only involved in wars.
Someone declares war All the politicians in the attacking country, line up against all the politicians in the defendig country.

They start killing each other & when there done, if anyone survives he's the winner.
None of the rest of us have to give a flying fuck.

I'm willing to bet not one politician today would attempt to stay in politics.

---

communism

---

At 4/11/07 12:18 PM, BMC-Audio wrote: i would think that a capitalistic, theocratic democracy would work the best. like our owngovernment here in the U.S. , but with a better executive branch so you wouldnt have one leader making many stupid mistakes. a majority rules- based council.

oops, my bad.i mean an oligarchy, not a theaocracy. i wouldnt like to end up like iran's governent :D

anyway go on

---

FYI, capitalism isn't a form of government.

I'd say a Meritcratical Republic.

---

Liberal Democrasy.

In the battle between Liberty vs Democracy, I concider the first more important. Democrasy can lead to Tyrrany by the majority, the only difference from tyranny by the miniority, to the people being oppressed being that the first is more people doing it.

But I believe that simply because many people support something, it doesn't make it automatically right. Hitler got elected as they say. Because the black & brown haired might be more, this doesn't give them the right to say "blonds cannot drive anymore". And even if 99.9999% of the world's population wanted to kill a man, just because they like to fap at the sight and without a good reason, then I say that it would be wrong, and even if they all suicided from sadness for not being allowed to do so, their lives of that entire planetary population is worth less than killing someone that doesn't deserve it.

And how you define that line which the mob can't overstep? Well, that's up to where everyone puts the pointer in the Liberty vs Tyrrany scale. I think that those two lines:

A) Life, Liberty & Pursuit of Happiness.
B) The freedom of a man ends, where the freedom of the other begins.
C) Those who don't believe in the rights of the others, automatically forfeit such rights of their own.
D) Positive proof > Negative proof

Are more than enough for a working system.

A is the result, and recognition, that a man's life is himself. A man, owns his life. Your skin and everything in it is YOURS. When this is violated, this is already the beginnings of an amoral system, eg, castes, slavery, sacrifice offerings etc. I believe that personal happiness is a very good objective. Conciousness life had the luck, of being matter of the universe, organized so complex, it even managed to look back at itself, or it, it should enjoy the fact, and should enjoy the feeling while it lasts. It should pursue this (something that gives rise to work ethic/capitalism etc) and it doesn't exclude altruistic behaviors. Some people Like to help others, therefore by helping others they still pursue their own happiness. Some people consciously or subconsciously realise that friends and social experiences can offer them a much higher degree of happiness, and enemies are a threat to it, so being "selfish" by no means does it actually mean behaving like a jerk. I believe that in letting everyone pursue his own happiness only then they will unleash their full creativity, their full or most of their brains potential. And those of us might even appreciate something we didn't think of ourselves and choose to trail behind their way.

B) All that is good. Except that I might be happy by cutting other people's arms, and sleeping on them. Pursuit of Happiness yes? Errr... no grasshoper.
B is there to provide the limit of freedom. Saying that a man does not have the right to harm the life of another, that when force is initiated (be it a knife of more complicated means) it is the fault of the one that initiates it.
It doesn't matter if you think that girls shouldn't wear red shirts. The moment the red-shirt hater attacks with the screwdrive, he is actively trying to destroy A. The girl that was wearing the red shirt, was pursuing her own happiness and was not obligated to concern herself with the happiness of the red-shirt hater. If the red shirt hater can't take it, that's a problem with his brain, and his fault. He was always free to pursuit happiness any other way, he was free to try to find a cure for his mania, but he wasn't free to actively destroy someone else's happiness.

Violation of B is generally in my opinion the main element in all major and "real" crimes. Like Murder, Rape, Kidnapping etc. In all cases, someone is trying to control not only his life, but the life of someone else as well. Something that is not his. Not his property. That's why I call "self-ownership" the most basic property of all. That you belong to yourself is the pillar of this morality in either A or B.

Even less obvious crimes can be derived from that. For example thievery. Property is/should be the product of a man's life. Aka, the product of his living time + energy + creativity (mind). To steal that, is again to actively interfere. Property should be given away willingly in mutual exchange. (and that is another significant condition for true capitalism)

C is there in case someone is thinking too much over it wonder if "he" has the right to kill the killer or else it would be a violation of A or B. Err, yes it is, but he started it. If he doesn't believe in not supressing the freedom of others, he needs to be shown exactly why the other people don't like it. Those who want to supress the rights of the others, have no rights of their own. Neo-Nazis etc for example, who say that they would like to have that or that one not vote, or not be able to drive, or turned into Soap, by holding and admitting to that opinion should have immidiatelly lost their right to vote, drive and should be turned immidiatelly into soap. Just to get a taste of their own poison. And maybe when they are in the oven, and the flames start to dig away at their tissues maybe they would *get it* what part was the bad part with their ideology. People are free to kill killers, people are free to steal from thieves.
An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind you might say, well, I believe that no, it leaves the eye pockers blind, and pretty fast in fact, after the second attempt to be specific. (Of course someone can always show mercy). (And of cource, it must be a person, aka a mind, doing it, not chance or coincidence. Someone attacking someone with a screwdriver is a crime. Someone stepping with his car over a toy in the road, from which a part gets ejected and hits someone in the eye, cannot be held responsible)

D) Is something else I thought good to include. Positive proof, is when you built on the known. Negative proof is when you ask someone to disprove the unknown. It is of course the favorite argument of the religious and their "prove that god doesn't exist". Now, obviously religion is protected by A, but as long as they try to interfere with B, they are my problem too.
The problem with negative proof, is that those that use it, know very well that nothing can actually be disproven completely, and I can make up anything, especially when they include such conditions like after death. (biggest scam ever in my opinion but everyones A, is his business...) Prove to me that god doesn't demant sacrifices on top a zigurat. Prove to me that heterosexual sex shouldn't be done with one hand behind the back (apparently a lot of gods try to regulate homosexual, why not heterosexual as well?). Prove to me that I must not burn you every hour with a gas lighter or else All the souls of men will burn in hell for eternity.

I believe that a society built on negative proof is, or bound to go, insane. Insteed we must built on positive proof. There is only the blank paper. When someone wants to bring something new to it, he must prove it. We start from "I think therefore I am", and slowly discover the universe around. Rocks appear to fall. Levers appear to work, and so on.

The positive negative proof has a huge impact on the crime code of cource. A man must be proven, positively proven guilty of a crime. A man is not guilty until proven innocent rather innocent until proven guilty. (because "guilty" is something a third persons wants to impose on him in order to justify a violation of A & B) You do not have the right to kill someone because "you thought that he was the killer" he has to be proven as the killer. Temporal linearity matters, and the order of events matters. An attacker cannot demant the othes to "disprove him" that the victim would not in the future attack him. He acted, the other actions "in the real world" never happened.

And that's all for now because I am too bored to write anything more. (I was never good at writing endings)