Overlord Morgus wrote:

Everyone should be forced to leave their country for a month at the age of 15.

I would've been thrilled by this if it were law when I was 15. Me thinks I saw one too many re-runs of Kiki's Delivery Service.

I believe that the sale of marijuana should be legalized... and taxed.

I believe that the sale of marijuana should be legalized... and taxed.

This is the opposite of evil.

I think that a license should be required to have children.

Er. Do you really trust your government that much? O_o; I understand the sentiment -- I'm a big fan of zero population growth -- but I don't think there's any sane way you can trust the sort of authority who criminalized sodomy, beat, gas & shot protesters, burned witches, enslaved others, et cetera, with the human race's genetic destiny. This paves the way for something far darker than merely suppressing a minority group's voice -- you've created an instrument that will allow government to suppress thier lives.

Orikan wrote:

Er. Do you really trust your government that much? O_o; I understand the sentiment -- I'm a big fan of zero population growth -- but I don't think there's any sane way you can trust the sort of authority who criminalized sodomy, beat, gas & shot protesters, burned witches, enslaved others, et cetera, with the human race's genetic destiny. This paves the way for something far darker than merely suppressing a minority group's voice -- you've created an instrument that will allow government to suppress thier lives.

Nice logical fallacies there.

Also, I meant more along the lines of a parenting test, to see whether or not they'd be the sort who'd beat their children.

Both have points. On one hand, you have tests for those more likely to be violent, more likely to be empathetic and "good" caretakers.

On the other, what defines a "good" caretaker? Especially in light of our system's mistreatment of human beings?

Orikan wrote:

Can we have two? Because I thought of one that's more evil. Perpetrators of horrible crimes that are guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt should be used as shock troops and medical test subjects. I read about some crimes lately, and honestly, I can't even think of a good punishment. Though the other half of me is sympathetic because the people who commit them clearly have mental disorders.

Maybe those good men can be they key to finding a cure for their diseases.

Actually, socialist theory has some pretty glaring contradictions. It's not just "Oh we'll be nice to the workers," centralization of power and control was integral. You'd think that shopfloor democracy would be an important part of any worker's paradise, but the political system posited by socialism could never be compatible with it. It's not even good on paper if you actually read the books.

Last edited by Overlord Morgus (12-29-2011 06:29:53 PM)

So these are supposed to be evil political opinions?  All right.  There's stuff I know probably wouldn't work out if enforced, but wish we lived in a world where it could occur...

I think immigration of all kinds should be mostly legal.  Overflow immigrants should be directed to specific parts of the country that do not have high real estate demand.

I think the "having" of children should be heavily taxed after one (not provide a tax break).

All drugs should be legal and regulated and an information campaign should be sponsored.

We should test weird science stuff on criminals of a certain degree (that we're relatively sure are guilty).

Lobbying should be subsidized and regulated by the government until they're the information sources they should be.  The internet will help with this.

No more military recruiting until our military is half of what it is.  On the flip side: people who go bankrupt but to work as indentured servants for the government.  Also, no more B-2 bombers.

Higher taxes on the wealthy and much higher taxes on big business.  I guess that one's not evil, but I feel like not needing to substantiate it might be...?

Local, state and federal governments should work more closely together, and a higher percentage of taxes should go to local and state governments.

No more affirmative action.

Religious services no longer automatically tax-exempt.

The United States should break into three pieces; the North/East, the South plus Canada and the West plus Hawaii.  The South will be defeated when it inevitably attempts to rise again (after realizing how worthless it is except as a haven for old people).

Whoops, I sort of had a lot.

So yeah, the evilest one is that I think the U.S. should annex Canada.  Except for maybe Quebec.

Scoluron wrote:

I think the "having" of children should be heavily taxed after one (not provide a tax break).

Clearly, you do not understand how much children cost. Kids are expensive. Raising a kid in the US costs a couple thousand dollars per year on average, never mind if a parent wants to assist in sending the little punk off to college.
Now, if the idea is to stop, or at least discourage, so many people from having bunches of kids, well, I'm sure there are other ways to make that happen...

Scoluron wrote:

Why would we need other ways?  Well, I can think of a reason: people hate government even while they comprise government, so this particular way wouldn't last long.  But that applies to all of my silly, amoral ideas.
Anyway, I wouldn't have it apply ex post facto, to anyone who already had multiple children before the policy was enacted.  That would be unfair!

Then I am confused . What is the greater purpose of taxing children? What's the end goal?

I just went ahead and assumed you meant that a high tax on kids would be similar to the high tax on tobacco products- something meant to discourage. Did you just mean it as a tax to be put in place just for the financial benefits?



Edit for spelling

Last edited by Rotten Mooring (01-05-2012 12:02:18 PM)

Lightice wrote:

Overlord Morgus wrote:

Actually, socialist theory has some pretty glaring contradictions. It's not just "Oh we'll be nice to the workers," centralization of power and control was integral. You'd think that shopfloor democracy would be an important part of any worker's paradise, but the political system posited by socialism could never be compatible with it. It's not even good on paper if you actually read the books.

There's more than one socialist theory out there. The Soviet model has been rejected pretty much by everyone, but socialism itself lives on in many, many countries, including many succesful, modern democracies. I live in one, as a matter of fact. There's a bit more in the ideology than "worker's paradise".
Personally, I find it twisted that people make concepts like socialism or capitalism into ideologies, when they pretty clearly are simply means to an end, tools that have their uses in different points of the social spectrum, but inevitably break down into feudalistic oppression if left unchecked. In fact civilizations controlled by absolute capitalism and absolute socialism would be for all practical purposes identical.

THANK YOU. As a Democratic Socialist in the United States, you have no idea how many people have not actually read up on it and just think it has something to do with communism. I do agree on your last point, though I would think communism would be absolute socialism. That's how I've always understood the spectrum--Laissez faire capitalism on one end, communism on the other. Both end up with a concentration of money and power for a select group of people and very little hope of expanding or joining that group.

Frau Eva wrote:

I do agree on your last point, though I would think communism would be absolute socialism.

When you get down to it, the Soviet Union's political model didn't really resemble Marx's ideals one bit, so calling it communist is a bit misleading as well, but it seems that the word has pretty much mutated to mean anything that went on in that country. Modern communists almost invariably hate the Soviet Union for ruining the ideology for everybody. Personally though, I think that the communist ideology doesn't work in real world conditions, and always leads to the same conclusion as a giant corporate monopoly: all wealth in the hands of a tiny elite, and the whole system a corrupt, unmanageable wreck. Sometimes I wish I'd went to study social economics, but I doubt that my chances of employment would have been very good after a thesis which explains how criminal organizations, large corporations and communist dictatorships all work on the same principles of traditional feudalism.

I think I said it earlier in this thread, but I really wish we could figure out a social model that isn't capitalistic, communistic or a watered down compromise between the two. At the moment the last is our best bet, and it's not exactly a satisfactory or stable solution.

Scoluron wrote:

No more affirmative action.

Why not? This isn't necessarily a bad thing. I know that in the African-American community, we're taught that it's the one thing that allows us to go to some of the really big colleges that have a rather high percentage of Caucasian students and/or a high propensity towards accepting primarily Caucasian students, and also what helps us get some of those jobs we probably wouldn't get otherwise (college degree or not). On the other hand, we're also told that it's what helps people (Caucasian, Asian, Hispanic and all others) get into schools that are HBCUs. It works either way, right? I mean, I'm pretty sure my knowledge about it is limited, but, it doesn't seem like such a bad thing. Anyone who understands it better, I'm all ears.