Choice or Controll

I voted for "control"
then i read the thread, and i think i misinterpreted it :P

I voted control to be in control, not to have someone having control over me...
that would be the most annoying idea ever to me.
Control and the ability to excercise it, is a very important thing. Democracy doesn't work. It depends on the masses, and, well , with all due respect, the masses don't have brains...
That's why I am frustrated to no end that at the increasing socialism rising up in (my Belgian) governement. They fu** up the economy because of their mind-boggling malmanagement, to give the plebs what they want without having to work for it.
You want something, work for it! (lazy sons of..)
Meanwhile, leave the real management of the economy and state to those who deserve (by skills in management) to be in control and have a brain.
Benevolent dictatorship might not be a bad idea ...
Dont get me wrong, I'm not an ultra-right fundamentalist or something, but I dont get why people in the highest taxscales should cough up twice the amount of taxes as those that are in the lower scales... that's like 55% of your income...
what are we becoming? Communists?
We need strong leadership to step forward and set things straight. Liberalisme is the way welfare is generated, not by socialisme.
[end of rant :lol:]

Your tell me... I side with both the extreme right and extreme left. Some of my opinions endorse a strong totalarian leader, while some support absolute equality.

I'm leaning towards control however, as choice often interferes with absolute equality.

Choice.

you learn from mistakes. 'nuff said.

ahh but XRedBlazeX the problem with control is dependance on control by a totaly non-biased non-self-interested party. If there is any bias or self-interest then inequality will definatly rule the day in a control situation. And if your the side that is on the receiving end then you have no way to change the control.

This is the problem with a control based system.

As for the argument for choice being 'you learn from your mistakes', well that doesn't realy cut it, many people never learn from their mistakes. Just look at Paris Hilton! You'd think by now she would have learnt not to play with video cameras.

there are some mistakes that you can never learn from, hell there are some mistakes you might not live to learn from.

I learn from most of my mistakes...i believe.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by MetalSkin@May 22 2005, 04:12 PM
ahh but XRedBlazeX the problem with control is dependance on control by a totaly non-biased non-self-interested party.* If there is any bias or self-interest then inequality will definatly rule the day in a control situation. And if your the side that is on the receiving end then you have no way to change the control.

[snapback]54379[/snapback]

---

The whole point of control is so that you can't change it. And why would it have to be by a non-biased party? If they have total control would it matter?

There's no such thing as total control though, because if people don't like a government they can simply revolt. Power is always in the people; it always has been and always will be.

the argument that was originaly put forward for control was that the choices made for the masses by the few in control would be all good choices.

Then he further stated that the control is perfect and that the choice was impefect.

i'm just stressing that there is no such thing as perfect control which makes all the 'good' choices for everyone else. bias and self-interest will always be involved.

Only by a system where those in control are chosen by those under control (thus making the contolers accountable to the controlees) will a form of governance reduce the amount of bias and self-interest.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by MetalSkin+May 24 2005, 10:18 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(MetalSkin &#064; May 24 2005, 10:18 PM)</div>

Quote:

---

the argument that was originaly put forward for control was that the choices made for the masses by the few in control would be all good choices.

Then he further stated that the control is perfect and that the choice was impefect.*

i&#39;m just stressing that there is no such thing as perfect control which makes all the &#39;good&#39; choices for everyone else. bias and self-interest will always be involved.

Only by a system where those in control are chosen by those under control (thus making the contolers accountable to the controlees) will a form of governance reduce the amount of bias and self-interest.

[snapback]55392[/snapback]

[/b]

---

Well there cannot be a government completely free of bias, so I don&#39;t really see why you guys are arguing about it. The main difference between control and choice with bias as a factor, is that with choice the bias will always be towards the majority. And also with choice, people will be allowed to complain about it. In a control situation, people will have no say.



<!--QuoteBegin-LANfest_00@May 20 2005, 02:41 PM
You want something, work for it&#33; (lazy sons of..)
Meanwhile, leave the real management of the economy and state to those who deserve (by skills in management) to be in control and have a brain.

[snapback]53595[/snapback]

---

Unfortunately in the United States and other places, you don&#39;t have to have skills or anything else for that matter to become part of the upper class. Look at Paris Hilton: she hasn&#39;t done anything but inherit her money from her rich father, and she&#39;s been in the news how many times now? Also look at rappers, how much real talent do you think that actually takes?... next to none.

Society is fucked, deal with it.

the question is supposed to be of two theoretical societies. a perfect comunist country, and a democracy thats corrupt.

and, as far as i know, the two arent US vs. China/USSR.