[Hypothetical]Power and Morality

Serious Paul · Post by **Serious Paul** » Fri May 11, 2007 3:01 pm

How far would you go to enforce your moral system?

Let's say, for the sake of fun, you're placed in charge of your nation. And you've been given a sweeping majority-not a unanimous majority, but a clear majority-of the peoples vote. Your mandate is to reform the nation as you see fit: morally, legally, and whatever else you see fit to change.

So how far would you go to implement your goals? Would you use force? Or just legal mandate? Or something else entirely?

Daki · Post by **Daki** » Fri May 11, 2007 6:42 pm

I think it might be a little hard to mandate a portion of my moral code because it varies so much depending on the circumstances. When given a situation such as abortion, I'd ensure that it was a Pro-Choice environment for the first and second trimester.

But my own moral code would make it a hindrance to enforce. I'd want to pass legislation that causes the FCC to be less strict and remove the monopoly the MPAA has. However, to enforce that, I would need to create more governing bodies to oversee it. That runs into my belief that I do not want more and more government agencies clogging up the system.

lordhellion · Post by **lordhellion** » Fri May 11, 2007 11:04 pm

Lead by education and example. I found a long time ago that trying to force people into seeing things my way was slightly less effective than scraping my head against the pavement. Now, when I want someone to adapt to my view of the universe, I focus on explaining to people why I feel that way, and then live it myself to proove to them it's possible with no ill effects.

Crazy Elf · Post by **Crazy Elf** » Sat May 12, 2007 12:23 am

Increase education tenfold, and enforce harsh penalties on the media for presenting one sided news stories when there are indeed two sides.

Serious Paul · Post by **Serious Paul** » Sat May 12, 2007 1:52 am

lordhellion wrote:Lead by education and example.

What kind of examples? What kind of education? I'm just curious what is important to you. (I think I can guess some of it, but I always get a cool surprise answer here and there.)

Serious Paul · Post by **Serious Paul** » Sat May 12, 2007 1:53 am

Crazy Elf wrote:Increase education tenfold

So free college? Or more high school? Or something else entirely?

...enforce harsh penalties on the media for presenting one sided news stories when there are indeed two sides.

Like what?

TLM · Post by **TLM** » Sat May 12, 2007 2:22 am

Assuming that this applies to my nation as well;

Option the first: Through legal mandate.

Domestic Policy:

Legalise gay marriage as one of the first things I do. Next, seperate church and state completely. No more money for those fuckers, and I really don't want my country to have an 'official' religion in this day and age. Not outlawing religion per se, but keeping it way the hell out of politics. Have a referendum regarding the future of the monarchy. It's over a hundred years since the last one, and we should be able to let them know what we think of their efforts the last century. If the majority is still cool with having a king and a queen, then I wouldn't mind. I just want the issue cleared up.

Invest heavily in alternative energy-sources with a slice of the petro-money. Nothing excessive, say a billion dollars a year. Institute a three-tired tax-system; Three brackets, each bracket paying a flat tax. No more complicated bureaucracy for getting money out of citizens with a list of exemptions as long as your arm. This would also probably result in an effective tax-cut across the board. All health-care and education to be completely free. Institue public-works programmes as necessary to raise employment. Open the borders to qualified personnell from abroad that could fill openings in the job-market where we don't have enough people.

I wouldn't dare to try and legislate the peoples morality.

Foreign Policy:

Re-affirm our commitment to NATO, the UN, and send troops to Afghanistan. Give Bush the finger in Iraq. Keep up the current policy of rewarding the Palistinian Authority by normalizing relations still further if democratic reforms are undertaken, otherwise fuck them. Do my level best to keep Israel at least talking to me, as they will not be happy bunnies. Completely overhaul our foreign-aid programme. We're giving lots of cash right now, and it does no good whatsoever with the way we're doing things at the moment. Instead of the current system, I'd put in place something like Grameen Bank, or similar, so that all the money currently thrown at the problem would now actually get to where it is supposed to. I'd also use the oil-fund like an economic sledgehammer, turning the finance department into an even bigger mob of corporate raiders.

Option the second: Force.

Pretty much like the first, only I'd gather most of the power with me and become a benevolent dictator. I'd still do all of the above, there just wouldn't be any nod towards democracy.

TLM · Post by **TLM** » Sat May 12, 2007 2:24 am

Oh! Option Three: Buy Africa.

Jeff Hauze · Post by **Jeff Hauze** » Sat May 12, 2007 3:02 am

The six highest population cities and all surrounding suburbs get nuked. (Okay, well maybe not. But I'd sure like to.)

No tax-exempt status for any type of religions organization or body in any way, shape, or form. Same for charitable organizations.

Farming subsidies get overhauled badly, along with most other industries that have artifical price controls and/or market support. (I'm sure there's about a hundred ways to poke holes in this from the smarter crew around here. I'm just going by gut, never claimed to be an economy expert. I just despise the concept of supporting markets that cannot compete.)

Government gets reduced to smallest levels necessary across the board. Any governmental funds will not go to support any forms of arts endowments, charities, or related areas. If a private citizen doesn't want to develop the funds for something (or a group of private citizens), then tough cookies. Figure it out yourself. I'm not footing your ability to get a shitty student film produced.

Income tax is gone. Flat national sales tax. (Again, no econ expert here. I hate the idea of people with low incomes that buy far over what they can afford, live on credit, and default their loans back upon society in indirect methods. Hopefully, it would discourage folks from buying so much unessential shit. Not likely, but one can hope.)

No tax exempt status for any corporations in any form.

Major monies get devoted to alternative energies. Car companies will work with such technologies as well, or get nuked. (I'm pretty much big on the nuking thing as a penalty. I envision I'll have a pile of ashes as a nation before too long.) Foreign oil addiction has to go.

We're not the world police anymore. Figure it out your damn selves.

UN gets nuked. An actual agency that works, instead of that fucked up, corrupt piece of shit gets put in place.

Diplomatic immunity gets revamped. Break felony laws on our soil, pay the price. I expect other countries to follow suit against us.

There are publicly acknowledge ways of dealing with organized crime and particular drug enforcement. Then there's the ways that don't get talked about ever. The utterly craptastic "War on Drugs" ends.

Marriage is an utterly legal contract, with no religious connotations or connections. It becomes a legal contract that can occur between any two people who choose to follow such a contract. Friends, lovers, fuck buddies, or complete strangers.

You need a license to raise a child. (You need one to drive, you need one to spawn.)

No one can drive until the age of 18. You must clear a nationally certified course to do so. This also means that you can lose the ability to drive nationwide. If you're a fuckwit on the road, then suffer fuckwit.

I might think of some more later. Legalization of drugs is a rough issue. I'm personally of the mindset to legalize it all, and let the government sell the shit if it wants, but that's just an off the cuff response.

Crazy Elf · Post by **Crazy Elf** » Mon May 14, 2007 3:52 am

Serious Paul wrote:So free college? Or more high school? Or something else entirely?

Free education across the board, to begin with. Working out educational reform is another long process, and one far too complex for me to even delve into metaphorically. The issue is just far too large.

It would take time. A lot of time.

Like what?

War coverage is a good, and obvious, place to start. Political coverage another. If a news report is actually just propaganda, then penalties should be implemented for its inclusion. Sometimes actual news is generated in order to spread ideology, though, so it's a very hard issue to get to the bottom of also.

Both of my suggestions would require and awful lot of work. I'd just like to see the media actually investigate issues again.

Serious Paul · Post by **Serious Paul** » Mon May 14, 2007 4:51 am

Crazy Elf wrote:It would take time. A lot of time.

I agree, but I think it's cool that you'd consider trying. It speaks well of your character.

I'd just like to see the media actually investigate issues again.

I agree. I think it's a shame we've allowed the news media to turn into a (very nearly) purely sales driven market.

Crazy Elf · Post by **Crazy Elf** » Mon May 14, 2007 5:50 am

Serious Paul wrote:I agree. I think it's a shame we've allowed the news media to turn into a (very nearly) purely sales driven market.

This is one of the reasons that I hold Al Jazeera so highly. Their don't have to worry about commercial interests nearly as much as any other media organisation out there, due to being funded by the Qatari emirate. Critics state that they're too loyal to Qatar as a result, but even if this is so it leaves a great many targets out there that they're more than happy to hit. Their motto is, "One side, and then the other", and they really seem to be doing that from all I've seen.

At the very least, if you get a story about the Middle East in the US press, it's well worth looking at what they're saying about it on Al Jazeera.

Serious Paul · Post by **Serious Paul** » Mon May 14, 2007 6:22 am

Crazy Elf wrote:
Serious Paul wrote:I agree. I think it's a shame we've allowed the news media to turn into a (very nearly) purely sales driven market.
This is one of the reasons that I hold Al Jazeera so highly. Their don't have to worry about commercial interests nearly as much as any other media organisation out there, due to being funded by the Qatari emirate. Critics state that they're too loyal to Qatar as a result, but even if this is so it leaves a great many targets out there that they're more than happy to hit. Their motto is, "One side, and then the other", and they really seem to be doing that from all I've seen.

At the very least, if you get a story about the Middle East in the US press, it's well worth looking at what they're saying about it on Al Jazeera.

I was with you until this post. Al Jazeera is every bit about selling a certain type of news, just like any of the major media outlets. I find your faith in them strangely misplaced.

While I'm not looking to say Al Jazeera is any worse than say CNN or Fox News, or even MSNBC-I am also not saying they're better. On par seems like the best answer to me.

Angel · Post by **Angel** » Mon May 14, 2007 7:29 am

I vote for Jeff as our new global Emperor.

Jeff Hauze · Post by **Jeff Hauze** » Mon May 14, 2007 8:00 am

Angel wrote:I vote for Jeff as our new global Emperor.

That's all good, except for the part where I run a world most likely overrun by crime, corruption, utterly fucked global economies, and a growing separation between economic classes. Okay, so it isn't hugely different than today. Except for the part where I've unleashed a shitload of nukes. And allowed for far more nuclear power plants to be built.

Most of what I posted is idealistic bullshit. It sounds great, and I appreciate the support of it. But it only works on an individual level as my own thoughts on morality and leadership. Those ideals would break down quickly in the reality of attempting to govern a world wide (or even nation wide) group of people. I have no true sense of economic theory, nor do I hold a true concept of the long-range impact of most of the policies mentioned above. I have no problem admitting that. But I didn't really read the question as functioning in reality, but more of a theoretical question. Everything works amazingly well when you're dealing with a theoretical environment.

It was the nuking part that swung your vote though, right? The nukes always get the votes.

3278 · Post by **3278** » Mon May 14, 2007 12:33 pm

Serious Paul wrote:How far would you go to enforce your moral system?

As far as I could. If they made me President with a mandate, I'd make slow social progress in decreasing the size and services of our government and generally trying to set the stage for the creation of the sort of government you're all acquainted with my views on. But if they made me God-Emperor, I'd use neutron bombs on the 50 largest cities in the nation, and reform the nation by force if necessary. I don't have moralistic limitations on my behavior, only practical ones.

Crazy Elf · Post by **Crazy Elf** » Mon May 14, 2007 3:46 pm

Serious Paul wrote:I was with you until this post. Al Jazeera is every bit about selling a certain type of news, just like any of the major media outlets. I find your faith in them strangely misplaced.

I find your lack of faith to be heavily influenced by the US presentation of the organisation. These guys get the other side of the story, and have been criticised by the US government for telling people details about the Iraq invasion that they didn't want to be public knowledge. That shows sand, the stuff that journalism was originally made of.

Angel · Post by **Angel** » Mon May 14, 2007 3:51 pm

Jeff Hauze wrote:
Angel wrote:I vote for Jeff as our new global Emperor.
It was the nuking part that swung your vote though, right? The nukes always get the votes.

Nope, this stuff got my vote:

Jeff Hauze wrote: No tax-exempt status for any type of religions organization or body in any way, shape, or form.

Farming subsidies get overhauled badly, along with most other industries that have artifical price controls and/or market support. (I'm sure there's about a hundred ways to poke holes in this from the smarter crew around here. I'm just going by gut, never claimed to be an economy expert. I just despise the concept of supporting markets that cannot compete.)

Government gets reduced to smallest levels necessary across the board. Any governmental funds will not go to support any forms of arts endowments, charities, or related areas. If a private citizen doesn't want to develop the funds for something (or a group of private citizens), then tough cookies. Figure it out yourself. I'm not footing your ability to get a shitty student film produced.

No tax exempt status for any corporations in any form.

Major monies get devoted to alternative energies. Car companies will work with such technologies as well, or get nuked. (I'm pretty much big on the nuking thing as a penalty. I envision I'll have a pile of ashes as a nation before too long.) Foreign oil addiction has to go.

We're not the world police anymore. Figure it out your damn selves.

UN gets nuked. An actual agency that works, instead of that fucked up, corrupt piece of shit gets put in place.

Diplomatic immunity gets revamped. Break felony laws on our soil, pay the price. I expect other countries to follow suit against us.

There are publicly acknowledge ways of dealing with organized crime and particular drug enforcement. Then there's the ways that don't get talked about ever. The utterly craptastic "War on Drugs" ends.

Marriage is an utterly legal contract, with no religious connotations or connections. It becomes a legal contract that can occur between any two people who choose to follow such a contract. Friends, lovers, fuck buddies, or complete strangers.

You need a license to raise a child. (You need one to drive, you need one to spawn.)

No one can drive until the age of 18. You must clear a nationally certified course to do so. This also means that you can lose the ability to drive nationwide. If you're a fuckwit on the road, then suffer fuckwit.

Serious Paul · Post by **Serious Paul** » Mon May 14, 2007 4:05 pm

Crazy Elf wrote:I find your lack of faith to be heavily influenced by the US presentation of the organisation.

They sell news, just like anyone else. They are no better, no worse. My opinion has nothing to do with the government. I don't have a news media outlet that I trust, or place faith in. I find it strange that you could.

Crazy Elf · Post by **Crazy Elf** » Tue May 15, 2007 1:19 am

Serious Paul wrote:They sell news, just like anyone else. They are no better, no worse. My opinion has nothing to do with the government. I don't have a news media outlet that I trust, or place faith in. I find it strange that you could.

They don't receive their funding in a manner that is similar to a traditional news media outlet. As such, they behave differently. If they ever separate themselves from Qatar, then the issues you're talking about may come to the forefront. If not, then I think they're going to be more independent than most other media organisations out there.

The same funding principle is true of the BBC, which is funded by the government, and the ABC in Australia, which is also funded by the government. Often the governments of these countries attempt to force the hand of the organisations, but they tend to be able to keep from being pushed too far by citing that they're the fourth estate of a democracy. Al Jazeera doesn't really have that problem in Qatar, as most of their reporting is done from outside of it. They have nothing to gain or lose when reporting on subjects that would piss off powerful people. If their news sales go down, so what? They have the reserves of Qatar to fall back on.

I trust that situation more than the situation of many other news organisations.

Serious Paul · Post by **Serious Paul** » Tue May 15, 2007 11:47 am

Crazy Elf wrote:They don't receive their funding in a manner that is similar to a traditional news media outlet.

You're right, They're funded by a government who I should completely and totally trust, since they have my best interests at heart.

As such, they behave differently.

How? When? I think this is a case of strong wishful thinking on your part.

They have nothing to gain or lose when reporting on subjects that would piss off powerful people.

Oh please. Lets pretend you didn't just type that load of tripe.

If their news sales go down, so what? They have the reserves of Qatar to fall back on.

Who asks for nothing in return of course. And doesn't expect a profit to be made.

I trust that situation more than the situation of many other news organizations.

Then you're a bigger fool than I ever thought you were.

3278 · Post by **3278** » Tue May 15, 2007 12:43 pm

Crazy Elf wrote:
Serious Paul wrote:I agree. I think it's a shame we've allowed the news media to turn into a (very nearly) purely sales driven market.
This is one of the reasons that I hold Al Jazeera so highly. Their don't have to worry about commercial interests nearly as much as any other media organisation out there, due to being funded by the Qatari emirate.

They only get a small portion of their funding - US$30 million, last I knew - from the Emir, though. The rest is advertising, cable fees, selling their footage, and so on, just like everyone else. And there have been complaints, even from people who support them, that they avoid hitting Qatar very hard, although that doesn't matter much to me.

I'm not saying they're devils. I don't know much about them. But your claim that they're somehow free of everyone else's burdens because they're funded by a government isn't entirely true.

Jestyr · Post by **Jestyr** » Tue May 15, 2007 12:51 pm

Serious Paul wrote:
If their news sales go down, so what? They have the reserves of Qatar to fall back on.
Who asks for nothing in return of course. And doesn't expect a profit to be made.

Many nations regard having a free national broadcaster as an exercise with merit in its own right, not as a money-making scheme. Australia's national broadcaster is certainly not profitable; I'm not sure about the UK's. They're not done to make money, they're a public service.

(And, as a result, the ABC here has been generally less biased [although the current government is changing that

], and shown much more intelligent programmes than the commercial shite. So, of course, hardly anyone watches it.)

3278 · Post by **3278** » Tue May 15, 2007 2:15 pm

Jestyr wrote:(And, as a result, the ABC here has been generally less biased [although the current government is changing that ], and shown much more intelligent programmes than the commercial shite. So, of course, hardly anyone watches it.)

And, of course, they're all biased somehow, because they're all made up of people with biases. Al Jezeera's aim is not to be unbiased - they openly admit to bias - but to a kind of journalism I can't remember the name of, wherein you show both sides of the story, with just a little more emphasis on the one you think is true. I don't think you can ask for much more out of any human endeavor.

Like I say, I don't know a lot about Al Jezeera, certainly not enough to make a judgement on their bias; I'm only repeating what I've heard.

Crazy Elf · Post by **Crazy Elf** » Tue May 15, 2007 3:20 pm

3278 wrote:Al Jezeera's aim is not to be unbiased - they openly admit to bias - but to a kind of journalism I can't remember the name of, wherein you show both sides of the story, with just a little more emphasis on the one you think is true. I don't think you can ask for much more out of any human endeavor.

This is the primary reason I hold them so highly. They've been doing this very consistently.

3278 · Post by **3278** » Tue May 15, 2007 4:01 pm

Well, I can tell you certainly think so, but there are certainly others - beyond this board - who disagree, some of whom probably aren't brainwashed by the American media, I rush to say before you blame their dissent on that.

TLM · Post by **TLM** » Tue May 15, 2007 7:31 pm

As an aside, since this has turned to media (and television in particualr), it's my impression that the more tv-channels you get broadcasting "The news", you don't get any less bias, but rather a more focused bias. The only thing you get to pick and choose is which version of the world you agree with most, since "the truth" so rarely plays any part in news anymore (if it ever did).

Johnny the Bull · Post by **Johnny the Bull** » Tue May 15, 2007 7:45 pm

Serious Paul wrote:
Crazy Elf wrote:
Serious Paul wrote:I agree. I think it's a shame we've allowed the news media to turn into a (very nearly) purely sales driven market.
This is one of the reasons that I hold Al Jazeera so highly. Their don't have to worry about commercial interests nearly as much as any other media organisation out there, due to being funded by the Qatari emirate. Critics state that they're too loyal to Qatar as a result, but even if this is so it leaves a great many targets out there that they're more than happy to hit. Their motto is, "One side, and then the other", and they really seem to be doing that from all I've seen.

At the very least, if you get a story about the Middle East in the US press, it's well worth looking at what they're saying about it on Al Jazeera.
I was with you until this post. Al Jazeera is every bit about selling a certain type of news, just like any of the major media outlets. I find your faith in them strangely misplaced.

While I'm not looking to say Al Jazeera is any worse than say CNN or Fox News, or even MSNBC-I am also not saying they're better. On par seems like the best answer to me.

I disagree Paul. Having watched a /lot/ of Al Jazeera since I've moved over here. Al Jazeera are often scathing in their criticism of pretty much every government in the middle east. The gap in their reporting is in the UAE in Qatar (who fund them) where 'everything is fucking A okay". Which is true, compared to the rest of the region, but there's still a lack of government criticism.

The only thing that shits me is the current affairs / human interest story reporting / punditry, which is just daily stories of Palestinians, Lebanese and Iraqis living shitty lives. It's almost as bad as Bill O'Rielly and co sometimes. Almost. Thankfully there's far less of that than in the western media.

TLM · Post by **TLM** » Tue May 15, 2007 7:52 pm

Johnny the Bull wrote: The only thing that shits me is the current affairs / human interest story reporting / punditry, which is just daily stories of Palestinians, Lebanese and Iraqis living shitty lives. It's almost as bad as Bill O'Rielly and co sometimes. Almost. Thankfully there's far less of that than in the western media.

Though, given that quite a lot of Palestinians, Lebanese and Iraquis do live shitty lives, you can't really fault them, can you? Nor, for that matter, do I think you should fault Bill O'Rielly, even though he is an asshat. He's found a niche, something that sells. Which is what it's all about.

Serious Paul · Post by **Serious Paul** » Tue May 15, 2007 8:06 pm

Johnny the Bull wrote:I disagree Paul. Having watched a /lot/ of Al Jazeera since I've moved over here. Al Jazeera are often scathing in their criticism of pretty much every government in the middle east. The gap in their reporting is in the UAE in Qatar (who fund them) where 'everything is fucking A okay". Which is true, compared to the rest of the region, but there's still a lack of government criticism.

Which in my book places them pretty squarely on even with everyone else. Most of the time they do okay reporting, but there's room for improvement. I'm not discounting Al Jazeera, rather I am I saying that I feel they are equal to the rest of their peers.

Crazy Elf · Post by **Crazy Elf** » Wed May 16, 2007 1:18 am

3278 wrote:Well, I can tell you certainly think so, but there are certainly others - beyond this board - who disagree, some of whom probably aren't brainwashed by the American media, I rush to say before you blame their dissent on that.

Naturally there will be people that disagree, and they're certainly welcome to do so. I just haven't seen the open bias that they're talking about, personally.

Remember, Al Jazeera isn't just about news. They also have programs purely for entertainment, mostly aimed at the Arabic market. As such, there <i>are</i> aspects of Al Jazeera that are out to make a buck, just I haven't seen them compromise the news side of things for them to do so.

Could they do so? Certainly, they're capable of such a thing. Have they done so? I'm yet to see it.

Serious Paul · Post by **Serious Paul** » Wed May 16, 2007 1:30 am

Crazy Elf wrote:I just haven't seen the open bias that they're talking about, personally.

No one has accused them of being off the charts, or even that far from the norm. No one is attacking Al Jazeera.

Crazy Elf · Post by **Crazy Elf** » Wed May 16, 2007 1:33 am

Serious Paul wrote:No one has accused them of being off the charts, or even that far from the norm. No one is attacking Al Jazeera.

Yet you don't seem to think much of them at all in the way you've discussed them so far. Why is that?

Serious Paul · Post by **Serious Paul** » Wed May 16, 2007 1:34 am

Crazy Elf wrote:
Serious Paul wrote:No one has accused them of being off the charts, or even that far from the norm. No one is attacking Al Jazeera.
Yet you don't seem to think much of them at all in the way you've discussed them so far. Why is that?

I don't think much of any one or anything.

[Hypothetical]Power and Morality

[Hypothetical]Power and Morality

Re: [Hypothetical]Power and Morality