Poll: Favourite Ideology

[Sneaklemming]

I' really interested to see what the Escapist community would become if it became a sovereign state!

For the record I'm liberal democracy all the way, I'm just a really big fan of democracy.

In fact I'm a Democracy Fanboy

 

[Xrysthos]

Democracy is probably the best option, but social-darwinism would be interesting. Very interesting, actually.

 

[Sneaklemming]

Democracy is probably the best option, but social-darwinism would be interesting. Very interesting, actually.

Go on tellus about it: is it like Eugenics? Because thats scary stuff

 

[A random person]

Liberal democracy with aspects of socialism. Overall just a good, non-oppressive government of and for the people.

 

[Susano]

I'm quite tempted to say Anarchy, but I went with Socialism instead.

 

[Sneaklemming]

I'm quite tempted to say Anarchy, but I went with Socialism instead.

To be honest theyre fairly close, depending on the type of Anarchism.

In saying that, American Neo-con capitalism is fairly close to Anarchism too...

 

[crudus]

I do think socialism is the best option but ultimately impossible. The next vote is for Democracy.

Democracy is probably the best option, but social-darwinism would be interesting. Very interesting, actually.

Go on tellus about it: is it like Eugenics? Because thats scary stuff

Eugenics has actually had a bad reputation. The people who claimed they were eugenicist really weren't; if they were then they weren't scientists. They just found a correlation without causation. For true eugenics to work, the debate of Nature Vs Nurture needs to be settled first.

 

[Susano]

I'm quite tempted to say Anarchy, but I went with Socialism instead.

To be honest they're fairly close, depending on the type of Anarchism.

In saying that, American Neo-con capitalism is fairly close to Anarchism too...

It's funny, I thought that they were almost opposites of each other, In Anarchy you pay no taxes, but in Socialism you pay most of your salary.
Correct me if I'm wrong.

Eugenics has actually had a bad reputation. The people who claimed they were eugenicist really weren't; if they were then they weren't scientists. They just found a correlation without causation. For true eugenics to work, the debate of Nature Vs Nurture needs to be settled first.

Isn't Eugenics where you select who can breed and who can't?

 

[Ken_J]

I like capitalism, beacuse condenced it reads like this: people who do stuff are rewarded and help run things, and those who don't don't have much say or any say. And if the escapist does become a capitalist sovereign state in a few years time the "Escapist" whould be decades ahead of the curve.

However I would like to see a Confederacy of games.

 

[Sneaklemming]

I do think socialism is the best option but ultimately impossible. The next vote is for Democracy.

Democracy is probably the best option, but social-darwinism would be interesting. Very interesting, actually.

Go on tellus about it: is it like Eugenics? Because thats scary stuff

Eugenics has actually had a bad reputation. The people who claimed they were eugenicist really weren't; if they were then they weren't scientists. They just found a correlation without causation. For true eugenics to work, the debate of Nature Vs Nurture needs to be settled first.

I saw a BBC program about Darwins cousin, or uncle or similar family relative, who went on to conduct research in what would become Eugenics, and the whole thing really seemed to be bouncing around (with people like HG Wells as an advocate) until the creation of the UN Human Rights Charter after WWII.

I generally denounce Eugenics (and Star Trek) on the basis that all Humans, whether or not they are equal, all have Equal Rights granted to them.

 

[Susano]

I like capitalism, beacuse condenced it reads like this: people who do stuff are rewarded and help run things, and those who don't don't have much say or any say. And if the escapist does become a capitalist sovereign state in a few years time the "Escapist" whould be decades ahead of the curve.

From what I have seen it runs like "Those who are born rich stay rich and those born poor generally stay poor".

 

[Jerious1154]

Democracy is probably the best option, but social-darwinism would be interesting. Very interesting, actually.

Go on tellus about it: is it like Eugenics? Because thats scary stuff

It's the idea that people who are rich are rich because they are inherently better than the poor, and that the government shouldn't help the poor because then future generations will inherit their flaws.

 

[Pyre00]

It's funny, I thought that they were almost opposites of each other, In Anarchy you pay no taxes, but in Socialism you pay most of your salary.
Correct me if I'm wrong.

"Ideal" anarchies are basically socialism without any government. You know, the everoyne shares type of thing. And therefore 300% more impossible.

A real anarchy is the most extreme form of capitalism.

 

[Sneaklemming]

I'm quite tempted to say Anarchy, but I went with Socialism instead.

To be honest they're fairly close, depending on the type of Anarchism.

In saying that, American Neo-con capitalism is fairly close to Anarchism too...

It's funny, I thought that they were almost opposites of each other, In Anarchy you pay no taxes, but in Socialism you pay most of your salary.
Correct me if I'm wrong.

Eugenics has actually had a bad reputation. The people who claimed they were eugenicist really weren't; if they were then they weren't scientists. They just found a correlation without causation. For true eugenics to work, the debate of Nature Vs Nurture needs to be settled first.

Isn't Eugenics where you select who can breed and who can't?

Well thats the problem, is that Anarchism is Socialism - Government (some kinds)

There are two main types of Anarchism, Liberal Anarchism, and Anarcho-socialism.

Neo-cons advocate that the government should only run the basics and all else goes to the people to run privately - thats essentially economic Anarchism, just that the Neo cons, hold Adam Smiths - Wealth of Nations - and his mighty invisible hands above all else.

and Yes that is Eugenics

 

[crudus]

Isn't Eugenics where you select who can breed and who can't?

Yes, but in the past people said that crime was passed genetically. They did not test it, they just found a correlation and assumed it was genetics. It's hard to determine what is genetic other than looks which is why I said the Nature Vs Nurture debate needs to be settled.

 

[Sneaklemming]

Democracy is probably the best option, but social-darwinism would be interesting. Very interesting, actually.

Go on tellus about it: is it like Eugenics? Because thats scary stuff

It's the idea that people who are rich are rich because they are inherently better than the poor, and that the government shouldn't help the poor because then future generations will inherit their flaws.

Ah jeez thats harsh, even the British Tory Party acknowledge the need for social responsibility.

Being in poverty is different to being unequal

 

[manaman]

Since we are just playing pretend and anything goes in that scenario I guess I would have to say the best form for me would be a dictatorship with me at the head.

I like that option the best, all the power, none of the worry.

 

[MrSnugglesworth]

It's funny, I thought that they were almost opposites of each other, In Anarchy you pay no taxes, but in Socialism you pay most of your salary.
Correct me if I'm wrong.

Ideal anarchies are basically socialism without any government. And therefore 300% more impossible.

A real anarchy is the most extreme form of capitalism.

Wouldn't it be an Extreme form of Marxism?

 

[Ken_J]

Yes but if those who are born rich f**k up they lose everything and if those who are born poor do something amazing they move up. And to be frank you kind of twisted my words, I didn't actually say rich and poor, I said people who do s**t and people who don't.

Lastly if you think I'm wrong look at the poll capitalism is number 2 lastime I checked.

 

[Sneaklemming]

Isn't Eugenics where you select who can breed and who can't?

Yes, but in the past people said that crime was passed genetically. They did not test it, they just found a correlation and assumed it was genetics. It's hard to determine what is genetic other than looks which is why I said the Nature Vs Nurture debate needs to be settled.

the Nature Vs Nurture debate has really kinda been resolved by the belief that genes influence socialisation and vice-versa, at least that's what we've learned at uni.

There is some work we looked at in the area of 'political genes'

It'd be a major breakthrough if they realised that certain political preference is inherited!!!