[flielagit]

suuri suomi, uraliin asti


mitä on minuun taskussa?

[poonnassunlix]

You need to manage your team or you'll make it easy for me.

[Arbinknit]

tldr

[Doctor-CTAC]

Originally posted by Pekka
Spiffor, that's all you had to say? Man, what is it? Are you too busy because of some twisted things you are doing at the moment? I'm busy being drunk

I was too busy touching my balls to read your entire post.

These days, I skim Apolyton too much to read such a long post when it's not adressed to me specifically

[lerobudrse]

Originally posted by Pekka
nye, well Afinogenov is out so there's no point making any other changes now. Oh. When I looked before posting here Salmelainen was still eligible.

[Gakeincidoniac]

I didn't read your post, but I assure you that Canada is the promised land you are looking for. Canada...

[Colorostikse]

Originally posted by Verto
wtf pekka? JM

[MaigicyuNinia]

Sounds like Ireland is what you're looking for.

[sesIgnose]

"What you are interested in, seems to be a state where government is seen as a necessary burden by those who run it."

YEs. Necessary burden. However, important group, very important. The pinnacle of ensuring that our rights are respected and further explored. So this is a key position, just like today. We just eliminate tons of jobs they now do.

For the sake of .. it running, I guess there needs to be some other functions, but it should be seen that those functions as as minimal as possible, so the very core is what I explained and others are stripped.


"They will never tend to keep a government small and restricted, because all of them agree in having an influential government - even if they disagree on every other subject."

Yes this is very much true. And there are just tons of people whose job is to keep this structure running. This is why I'm opposed to this, but not only economically.

You said it yourself, they have lots of powers. Those powers are deciding the current paradigm, what we debate on, values on the table etc. This is effectively using power to direct what the citizens should do or think. This is social control. I'm against social control.

This is where leadership and people in power position can decide what kind of country we want. And this includes what kind of citizens we want, as in what we want them to do. And you do that effectively by 'throwing out ideas'. I don't think it's the job of our leaders to throw out ideas that concern our lifestyles or what not. Giving you action and behaviour that is preferred now. I'm strongly against this. And often, this leads to restrictions and new rules. And soon they are our manangers, not our elected leaders looking out for our objective interest.

"I'd only advise to stay in a country where you can find friends and don't get executed for writing a post like this."

Of course, in democracy you can have different beliefs and that's a whole lot better than in many other places.... and there is no country that would think this way. So you can just go for the second best...

[pBiRXp8u]

Originally posted by Pekka
"You want to enjoy freedom and privacy AND to influence government decisions; this is not possible."

No, I want the government to stay out of my business. THat is, we strip much of their current ways.

You can very well do this in democracy. It just means that the ones in power accept that they don't intervene or 'throw out ideas', values, or whatever to direct the people.

The state must not put itself above everything and be this machine that is omnipotent. I should be able to do what I want, as long as I'm not hurting anyone or their business. To put it in more simple terms, stupid example would be, what I do in my own house can not be illegal. If I want to eat as much junk food as I can, read pornography, study religions, stab myself, smoke pot, swear, talk bad about anyone, there should be no ways to restrict this kind of behaviour as long as I'm not hurting anyone or limiting their freedom to do the same.

In short, I should take care of my own business and stay out of the business of other people, guaranteeing that everyone has the same right. I don't think race, sex etc should play any role in it, the individual is the most important unit of the country, period. If we can guarantee that the one individual is respected, then all individuals are respected.
You don't want a democracy, you want anarchy. I suggest you move to a Banana republic. There you can get and do anything you want with the right amount of $$$.

[Tam04xa]

Originally posted by Pekka
No, I don't want anarchy.. there's a pretty clear difference here. No you want:

"What I'm saying is, individual freedom, privacy and respect of its citizens. Extmreley low bureocracy, no set political paradigms. No system that starts feeding itself."


It sounds to me that you would be happy living in a 'hunter-gather' society. I suggest joining a Pygmy tribe in the congo.

Hunter-gather societies have alot of pluses:

- lots of spare time when not hunting or gathering (drink and be merry!)
- no bureocracy (no need! No one reads or writes anyway!)
- no social classes to worry about, everyone is equal
- no concept of ownership or money for that matter
- the system cannot fail as the tribe lives in equilibrium with nature.

Yup, you're a hunter-gatherer.

[Hinigyday]

Originally posted by Pekka
"No you want:"

How about I tell what I want, yes?

"It sounds to me that you would be happy living in a 'hunter-gather' society. I suggest joining a Pygmy tribe in the congo. "

No, this does not mean hunter-gather society.

I have never suggested abolishing governments.

Since when did freedom and privacy mean some kind of banana republic nations, or anarchism? Jeesh...
Hmmmm well, it seems to me you want to live in a democratic country run by a good government, yet without all the trappings of a government.

Another option would be to buy an island and declare yourself ruler for life You know, if you didn't want to go the hunter-gatherer route.

Other then that, I suggest moving to Canada. They like freedom and other stuff like that.

[Qynvtlur]

Well, who doesn't want good government without all the trappings?

Well, what many people who prefer gorvernment controlling lives and opinions feels is that it brings security. So we're never really going to get away from governments intervening into matters that I personally feel is none of their business, simply because many people would disagree with me. And thus they impose their own will on my life, whereas I'm proposing that we don't do that to each other.

Somehow people think they know how we all are supposed to live, so they think 'if it's a good idea, yeah why not'. As in, if we think it's a good idea, we will impose this on everyone. This to me is control and I don't like control that is of social nature. To me, that is just .. soft propaganda. We're kind of sheeps, and we are definitely at fault, because in democracy, we are ultimately responsible for things we impose on ourselves.

[johnsonjunior]

A government, or country for that matter only functions or exists as long as there are enough people that believe in it. It's an 'idea' just like anything else.

[aquadayAquaks]

Uphold and manage our rights. That's the most important thing, of course government has to deal with almost all issues they deal with now. I'm proposing we strip as much away from them as possible, with this I mean their fetish to promote values, direct people into preferred behaviour etc.

They should be protecting our rights and privacy, not invading it. Not in the name of anything.

And most of all, infrictions on privacy and freedom, even if it is agreed by the majority fo the people, well that's just tyranny by majority.

[Aztegjpl]

In Pekkaland, Pekka knows what are your rights and why you are allowed to enjoy them.

[Blahhhshsh]

You lost me at "LOOOOOOOOOOOONG".