Choice or Controll

Would you rather have a choice, and the power to make every decision to every event or problem you come across, or would you rather have some one else have controll over you and your choices.

With choice, you make mistakes, which can lead to more choices, and more mistakes. But you have freedom, also the freedom to fail.

With controll, (lets pretend this isnt Stalin with the controll) you never have to make a bad decision, and everything runs as it should. You dont have freedom, but you dont have failure either.

So, which one?

Choice. If we ddint make mistakes how would we learn what to do and what not do? Hoow to act in a certain situation or how not to atc in a situation? If we neer made mistakes we would never learn and we would all perfect little kids that have no freedom. I have the choice to make good and bad descisions and im dman proud of it!

"Everybody learns from their mistakes." If I made a bad choice, oh well, I wouldn't do it again. =D

Choice is democracy, while control is either dictatorship or possibly socialism (though in theory socialism isn't realy a dictatorship, just ends up that way).

Well, you stated that everything should go allright with someone else in control. But pretty much all the instances of monarchy or communism hasnt worked out - and ended in revolution. I chose freedom, I think people should control the fate of their own lives and not let other people control it for them.

*moved*

is this a political ploy to see if we would want to be communist?

I would like CHOICE because it's your decision and now else to blame if it ends up something bad and you can congradulate yourself if it ends up something good.

id rather live i dont really care...but choice was shorter then control

Control, you have the freedom to succeed in everything that you do. At least in the way you worded it.
Failure is counter productive, in this scenario one already knows what the right path is. Its not realistic but apparently with control one never makes mistakes nor bad decisions, so in that logic it could be said that with control you are essentially perfect.

Or did i interpret that wrong?

you cannot be perfect under a controled environment unless the controler has 100% absolute control and the controler is perfect. as we are humans this is never the case, as humans are never 100% perfect and we never realy give 100% control to someone else (can be interp. as never follow orders 100%).

Fair enough, however Im just answering based on the information Ive been given. I am in control, ergo:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by undertone@May 16 2005, 09:14 PM
... you never have to make a bad decision, and everything runs as it should. ... but you dont have failure either.

[snapback]51702[/snapback]

---

I never make bad decisions and everything runs the way it should. I never fail... based on this particualr situation.

Now, REALISITICALLY, obviously choice is the way to go. But you have to look at the circumstances presented in the example. Chosing control, essentially makes me perfect lol.

Its all theoretical though right.

ahh well I see why you typed what you did.

I interpriated it differently, I thought the comments about perfect dicision was more an opinion than the question.

hypotheticaly even if the dicisions made were perfect, I would still desire control. i think that control of oneself's destiny is an underlying yearning in humanity.

[edit]

some exceptions to the above, people dont yearn for control of self if they are happy with what is happening. then its the minority who find discontent with the status quo and seek to break free of the control. I supose that the yearning for control of self's destiny requires a level of effort on the individual, which includes thought and observation.

I would much rather have a choice on life instead of having some control me. I really do not like the idea of someone else owning you =/

alright, just to clear some of this up.

the first one is democracry, as most of you have already figured out. the only problem with democracy, is that people never get along as they should, and things can go horribly wrong. the democracy im talking about is an imperfect one, one that is crumbling due to decisions, bad ones at that.

controll, is communism, in its perfect form. every one works for the greater good, but they have no choice. Every one benifits from eachother, and they never have to make a bad decision, they never fail, and nothing will ever go wrong.

The second one, the communist community, is a representation of a utopia, because with choice, it is theoreticly impossible to become a utopian nation. with controll, nothing can possibly go wrong.

seems most of you would rather live in a distopia then a utopia.

i know i would :P

hmmm if your going to compare a perfect communistic state to a imperfect democratic state, then I dont think your comparing on a fair playing field.

communism has been proven to fail, in theory it sounds nice but with imperfect humans it just doesn't work. at some point in time someone in power will use it for their own ends.

A perfect democratic state when compared to a perfect communistic state is a different question. Most would go for the democratic state, because it gives a form of free choice. but even then its not as simple as that because there are a tonne of different types of democratic states, with all forms of legistlative and judicuary bodies incorperated. I imagine the same goes for communism.

Then there is the question of a free market or capatalistic society, which in all honesty isn't dependant on democracy, though it tends to go hand in hand.

One question, how do you define a crumbling democracy? by definiition the ones making disisions are the ones elected thus even if imperfect the choices made are based on a majority of opinion in the society. so in a democracy if the system is failing it isn't realy a reflection of democracy but the society that is running the democracy.

choice, but wow, some indepth stuff going on here.

:D

just something that we did in civics class. teacher took the vote, and explained it.

i dont know the whole thing ya know :P

you should print this out and show it to your Teacher... would be interesting what your Teacher thinks of the comments in this thread :D

haha yea, dunno how he'd react.

every where ive done this poll, the results have been almost the exact same.

Control. I often make the wrong chioces in life, so maybe someone that would know all the right decisions controlling me wouldn't be a bad idea.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by undertone@May 25 2005, 05:28 PM
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.

[snapback]55668[/snapback]

---

Communism isn&#39;t the epitomy of control... in a true Communism people work together of their free will, and there is no government. Places like China and the former Soviet Union required a government to enforce the policies because their people would not form a communistic society of their own free will.