Quote Originally Posted by Traitorfish
Personal best, eh? What is that meant to mean, exactly? To me, it means 'Beat everyone else, or you're a failure!' It's that weird American mentality. That twisted inversion of the American Dream. As it's beleived that anyone can become successful and rich, anyone who isn't is a failure. Don't say 'Well ignore those who call you a failure' because the entire capitalist system is geared towards beleiving what your 'superiors' tell you.
Uh, no. You lack self-esteem.
I've nothing against rewarding innovation, but western society goes too far. For example, Bill Gates did a good job creating Microsoft, but does he deserve the huge amount of money he has? (As a Windows user, I can tell you the answer is most certainly no). Eventhough Gates is one of the better entrepeneurs (he shall be allowed to live after the revolution), he does lots of charity stuff, he's still hugely over-payed.
Uh... you plan on killing these people? I think I'd prefer "Overlord Bush" to your murderous mob, thanks.
And innovation doesn't account for all these fat, lazy idiots who make it rich. Take Overlord Bush. His family has been rich for generations. how does the inginuity of his grandfather account for his wealth? (Incidentally, the family made it rich in the late 30s/early 40s when Grandpappy Bush directed a bank which was used by Nazi industrialists to invest money in the US, because some companies did not want to deal directly with the Third Reich (that was when the US still thought that fascism was bad)).
OK. What's your point? I'm for liberty and justice, not America's neo-fascist welfare-warfare state. One that reminds me too much of a socialist regime, actually.
As long as multiple nations exist, there will be conflicts. As long as their is conflict, there will be war. Nuff said. But, you're right, without certain qualities, any government will fail. But not all will suceed. After all, feudalism carries ideas of loyalty from the ruler to his people, and last time I checked, we dumped that idea four hundred years ago (Go Cromwell Go!).
It sounds like a critique, but I don't know what you're critiquing, here.
The problem is that, considering the earth has a population of over 5 billion, the individual is pretty insignificant compared to the population as a whole. That is not to say that individual rights should be surpressed, but that the good of the majority comes before that of any one individual.
What is the good of the majority? What is the "masses" - but a collection of individuals? On what basis does your mob decide what the people down the street have to base their decisions on?