In this general we will slowly build the most efficient system of governance that is scientifically beneficial and free of any emotional influences.
Thread guide: >propose one idea >describe the logic behind it >constructively criticize others' ideas
We will run through as many iterations of this thread as needed until we finally design the most rational and scientific ideology, using it to cleanse Veeky Forums, /pol/ and the rest of Veeky Forums of their retardation so they're unable to influence any more elections in a harmful way not only towards science, but also in general.
Christian Hill
Confucianist Autocracy
Nathan Hughes
Slavic Dictatorial Technocracy Before the world can concentrate on science and progress it must be united under one banner so that there are no external threats should the country focus on scientific progress. This can be done with making a nuclear/orbital exchange with the west without their ability to strike back
Kevin Hall
>Libertarian Democratic Technocracy
>Voters required to pass a mandatory evaluation test before their first vote >Vote weight is weighted against their score on the test, the test covers all topics related to politics and science >Welfare is cut-down, so are taxes and defense spending, the remainder surplus is fully dedicated towards science or state-run megaprojects (like NASA during the space race or the Manhattan Project) >Technocrat candidates are forced to write a short 20-page essay regarding their policies and the full reasoning behind them, posting it for free review by the voterbase during the election >Maximum freedom of speech and a ban for the government to employ internet surveillance on its citizens is a part of the constitution
Wyatt Baker
No fuck off, not sci related
Ryder James
Yes it is you sperg
Until the private sector develops its own means to dump a massive amount of capital into prolonged R&D, there is no one else but the government to do it. Not doing it equals to the entire humanity's scientific development being impaired from its potential. Discussion for how to achieve a government that does it (as opposed to the current one that doesn't), therefor, is probably the most scientific discussion one can have right now. It's the main issue of modern and future (especially future) science.
Connor Miller
>I can toss science into the name and suddenly that makes it true! Fuck off Reminder to report all /pol/ threads
Jose Taylor
Filling false reports is a bannable offense
Lucas Turner
>false report It is an off topic thread, this thread belongs in /pol/ It is in no way science and no one wants you mouth breathers on this board Which is grounds to have the thread removed Now fuck off back to /pol/
Ethan Edwards
Wow, I've never seen a thread I wanted to hide so fast.
Jacob Kelly
Who will make the test? I see a flaw there because who decides whats going to be in it is basically the ruler.
Colton Carter
autism and/or reddit
Grayson Taylor
>propose one idea Communism+
>describe the logic behind it You ask the government for something, they give it to you. The government asks you something, you give it to them.
What I mean by the government asking you something is that they ask you to do a job so that you can also help provide to other people.
If someone doesn't want to work they get jailed/executed. Simple as that.
Benjamin Edwards
No you contrived faggot, this is an off topic thread that doesn't belong in this board You have to go back to /pol/
Alexander Smith
Look out guys he just called you autistic and implied you come from Reddit. How on earth will you ever recover?
Brayden Evans
Wow. And you have to go back to /nofun/.
Ian Russell
This board isn't about fun, it is about science. This thread is about /pol/; go back there
Asher Hall
I'll go back to /pol/ when you go back to /nofun/.
Pinky promise.
Jacob Long
damn you guys sure are mad lmao
This thread is literally about science, "science" being mentioned 4 times in the OP alone.
Isaac Carter
A well-regulated commission of people with a significant background regarding the topics would be a good start
Juan Brooks
...
Owen Stewart
That just sounds horribly authoritarian Just like regular Communism, but with the illusion of more choices.
Brandon Thomas
>That just sounds horribly authoritarian It is not authoritarian.
Have you ever seen Rick and Morty? In an episode an intergalactic government takes hold of earth and when they see that one of the main characters is stressed they give him some pills. After that he says what he owes for the pills and instead of asking for money they say: Go to the department of labor to be assigned a function.
It would be something like that. And we are intelligent. We wouldn't ask some math PhD to go build a house. Everyone would be assigned the best function for them. It would basically be capitalism without money or special interests.
And if you think the part about jailing/execting is authoritarian then think again. If we are going to have a government based on free handouts then our productivity has to match our generosity. Having leeches that take but don't give will imbalance our production. A communistic society depends on the responsibility and talent of their people. We can be fine with people with responsibility but no talent. We may be even able to work with people with talent but no responsibility. But people without talent or responsibility? Fuck that. At the very least deport them because they would ruin our perfect economy.
Brody Sanchez
It's a good utopia, but you can't remove "money" when other nations around the world still use it. You're basically imposing an embargo on yourself and are forcing them to trade with each other but you.
Robert Watson
Well, wealth has to come from somewhere. We would export things to other nations, purely to get their money and them import things into our nation.
In this system. I also see nothing wrong with keeping a government bank with different foreign currencies in case of a depression.
Asher Torres
There is an additional problem with this, because if no one worldwide, not even your own citizens, use your currency, then how is it valued? It will be tremendously undervalued compared to other nations who don't undergo such a change, making it highly inefficient for you to trade.
I don't think that there's a way to escape the concept of money anymore so you'll have to base your ideology around maximizing the efficiency of capital accumulation within your lands, like being economically-liberal enough to have it come to you in the first place. A closed communist barter society is basically a self-embargo
Lucas Baker
So what you're saying is that capitalism is incompatible with any other form of government. You're absolutely right, and we know capitalism doesn't work so we need to work towards a some kind of colonialism like capitalists did. I don't understand why the entire world being forced into capitalist globalism is fine, but communist globalism? Heaven forbid it.
Brody Hernandez
No, don't get me wrong, I really want to see a global communist utopia where I don't have to spend my time in thinking what X specific demographic will think of Y and utilizing advanced psyops techniques (advertising) so people buy my product, and instead be able to fully express myself, but it can't happen, not until there are capitalist societies around you who will do it. The problem then becomes that the boost of efficiency those capitalist societies receive by doing it compounds, and keeps compounding to such levels that you adopting communism actually turned out hurtful for you over simply maintaining the status quo and being capitalist. Take Russia and the Bloc as an example, most of the people who experienced it and are currently experiencing the poverty would gladly trade the economic equality of communism for inequality and having the wages of the western nations
Jeremiah Thomas
>>Voters required to pass a mandatory evaluation test before their first vote mandating anything will never work. people will cheat. and the effect you wish to get will be absent.
intentions do not equal results.
Justin Lewis
>people will cheat Well, the same can be said about any other paper tests, yet everyone still does them. It's a small percentage of people who will cheat, not all of them, and something as important as voting can surely be more closely monitored than anything else.
It's not really intended to do anything else but to counter the propaganda effect of the MSM and some personality cults (Trump) by taxing people who fall for them with lower scores, while incentivizing people who vote rationally with a louder voice
Lincoln Roberts
I didn't say we would have our own currency.
We will have banks that keep foreign currency, which we will use in times of need to buy resources from them.
Kinda like how after WW2 everyone kept US dollars, even if they weren't used in their countries.
Robert Reyes
Might hypothetically work, but how does the government then determine the price of a citizen's production, especially when they all differ in it? Also, wouldn't letting the government determine the price of barter freely be equal to pretty much giving them a kind-of monopoly where they do whatever they want, since they control the price? Your milk production can be bartered for Y today, tomorrow the government decides that the nation is producing too much milk and it is now worth 50% Y, what happens then?
Juan Hall
AI goverment.
>All humans are seen as equal by the AI >AI cant lie >Every human has the right to vote for other people's ideals
Landon Martinez
My idea is that the government would employ a lot of statisticians and managers. Then, every transaction from every citizen must be recorded in a database. As a way to keep a record of what you give, and what you receive.
Anyone receiving or giving too much will be given a notice. Either to "hey, chill out. You are working too hard" or "Work harder you piece of shit".
>wouldn't letting the government determine the price of barter freely be equal to pretty much giving them a kind-of monopoly where they do whatever they want, since they control the price?
The idea is to also have a not corrupt government.
David Cook
Maybe something like this would fit your idea as an AI will never be corrupt due to the flaws of being a human not being present in it, but the problem then becomes the fact that you're giving an absolute control of your resources to an algorithm that is specifically designed to map and eliminate everything that challenges its efficiency, including humans since they're a potential future threat due to their unpredictability (and also a resource drain)
The solution then becomes to polarize the Earth and put an AI on each end, forcing them to compete with each other to attract each other's capital, which will force them to be as liberal and respectful to their populations as possible so as to not scare them away into the other AI, which means that we're sadly back at being capitalist again.
