BuzzerBeater Forums

We have enough resources for 100 billion people, if everyone consumes (alot) less. Regardless, resources aren't infinite, so if you hand out free stuff, things will eventually run out. That can't be disputed.

And to say it is good in theory is to completely ignore human nature. If I had the choice between going to work every day, or working a few days here and there and spending a bunch of time holidaying around the world, I know what I'd choose...

If everyone worked in fields they were passionate about, you'd have alot of female fashion designers/actresses and male budding AFL players/cricketers.

And making it a requirement that you must work to get free stuff doesn't exactly make it free stuff now, does it? ;)

I learned long ago not to waste time arguing with idiots. I'm not going to get into a long winded debate about your 'ideas'. They're not ideas, they're ridiculous statements made by someone that has absolutely no grasp of reality. I don't need to 'prove' anything, and there's nothing intellectual about what you're posting.

And so what if some times an innocent person dies?

People will be able to live to 300 years old, and longer.

But as we illustrated earlier, sometimes people have to die for the greater good. If you were the 7 year old girl you said you would kill, then you wouldn't be thrilled about it, but at the end of the day killing the girl is the right thing to do.

Killing the 7 year old child is still the right thing to do

The right thing to do would be to kill the child.

In theory, yes we should execute billions.

A more practical solution might involve requiring a parenting license to have children, or some sort of forced sterilisation type situation.

IQ should be changed to 100 instead of 120, and height should be 4' instead of 6', and it shouldn't be based on race, only on ability. It might not happen in the next decade, or maybe not even in the next 50 years, but I'm almost certain it will happen within the next hundred.

But I realise that a human life isn't priceless.

If one innocent person has to die to ensure that thousands of murderers and rapists die as well, then it is an acceptable loss.

If you think that there is never a circumstance when an innocent person has to be sacrificed then it is you that is living in the fantasy world.

I don't need to 'discuss these issues with intellectual substance'. Any reasonable person can see how stupid these comments are.

For the sake of this thread, I'm not going to reply to you again. Not because I'm incapable of having a discussion, but because I'm choosing not to waste my time arguing with someone that has such a huge superiority complex.

If you truly believe that what you're posting are legitimate 'ideas', then good luck to you when you finally experience the real world. You'll need it.

haha I don't think people would be happy consuming a lot less. I realise resources aren't infinite, but giving out free health care and free education is essentially giving out a service, rather than a limited resource. We already have pretty cheap health care and education in this country anyway, and it seems to be working quite well.

haha yes I was ignoring human nature. :) Yes, a lot of people would probably go on holidays around the world instead of work everyday. But I'm sure a system could be devised where you have to work a certain amount per week or per year in order to receive the benefits of living in society. Sure, in a technical sense, it isn't free stuff anymore, but I think it takes a lot of pressure off people which results in a happier society, a more efficient society, and a society void of poverty. :)

I think this thread in general was a great read
lots of opinions from both sides - a great debate.

Just one thing I'd like to comment on - Matty1986 - your aggressiveness and lack of respect for Nakers opinions was pretty full on. Is that how you act in real life? Do you totally go off at someone when they say something you don't like?

Personally, I didn't really like Naker's ideas at all - they pretty much sum up what the worst type of society possible where the few are able to control the lives of the many. Ideally - this would be great if those few could be trusted with such great responsibility - but really, in human history - when has that ever happened? It's essentially why communism failed I believe.

But regardless Naker presented his thoughts and ideas as a topic for discussion - your comments i felt were meant to inflame, insult and attack. I really am an advocate of the saying - "if you don't have something constructive to say, just don't say anything at all."

+1, now hopefully this topic is done and we can move on.

Agree 100% with every word of your post.

Now that the debate is over lets talk about the PL!

No I want to talk about how Misr beat us in the U21.

What a fail! *tsk tsk tsk*

Yeah, we had to TIE otherwise we'd be in the same spot just 2 rounds later. Despite their low rank they have a good team, and with our bigs on bad gameshape it just kind of added up?

I had the tactics up for a while Mr. Koop, I believe you have access to the Off-site forums. Where was your opinion

LOL quick to criticize but slow to give advice
*slaps self on the wrist*

Bad luck Leeroy, as I said from the start I just liked last season's team a lot more than this season's. Last season I was excited, this season I feel indifferent.

Thank you for your post.

Just one comment:

Personally, I didn't really like Naker's ideas at all - they pretty much sum up what the worst type of society possible where the few are able to control the lives of the many.

If you don't mind me asking, why is that a society that you don't seem to like? For me, this is the perfect type of society. Currently we live in a society where we think the patient should tell the doctor what to do. But I think the doctor knows best. It was Plato originally, to the best of my memory, that posited this idea. Why are we allowing the patient to dictate to a doctor how the doctor should treat him? Is it not in the patient's best interest to allow the doctor, who, presumably, has greater medical training and experience than the patient, to treat the patient as he sees fit? In a similar way, most citizens don't know what is best for them. They simply aren't qualified enough to run a country.

This is how I'd like a country to be:

I would want a board of 21 people. These 21 people would represent a cross-section of society. So there would be lawyers, doctors, teachers, tradesmen, policeman, etc. The board must contain at least 7 men, and at least 7 women.

There is also a second board of 21 people. These 21 people are all the top psychologists from the Australian Psychological Society. They would screen every single candidate for the primary board and have the ultimate power to approve or disprove a candidate. In other words, they choose who goes on the primary board. They would make sure that no one can have a criminal record, and that there is minimal, if any, traits of psychopathy.

Back to the primary board for a moment. The doctors, lawyers, policemen, etc should be from the top of their fields. All people on the board must be a minimum of 30 years old, and a maximum of 50 years old. No one on the board can be related to anyone else on the board. A person can be voted off the board with 15 votes: Obviously the person that they are voting on removing cannot vote, so that leaves 20 people on the board to vote. So 75% of votes required to remove someone from the board.

As to how they run the country: There would be a website where anyone in Australia can email in the issue they want discussed. The email should state the issue, why it is an issue, and how to fix it. The board will hear the information presented to them, and can call experts etc to deliver evidence. The board will then vote on the issue. 11 votes is required for a law to be passed (i.e. the majority vote).

To prevent corruption: No one in the public knows the identity of these 21 people. Even the 21 people do not know the identity of the others in the group. They will all be kept segregated so that it minimises the chance of blackmail, and also minimises the chance that factions could form within the 21.

Payment for these 21 is negotiable. I haven't decided how much I want them to get yet. Perhaps 1 million a year.

This would result in 21 highly educated/talented people of both genders from a variety of fields that would decide what is best for the country. The principle in effect here is that they know what is best for the ordinary person, just like the doctor knows best for the patient.

Anyway, that's my idea, and my opinion of the ideal government :)

Thanks for the discussion everyone!