![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Oct. 3rd, 2002
Opened and closed within your eyes
Oct. 3rd, 2002 01:50 pmYou open your eyes, and there you are. Staring back through lenses of steel in the twilight skies of your memories. Hanging from a raindrop of thought in a twisted sense of parody that laughs silently behind you at your confusion. No movement stirs your surroundings as you search for some sense or focus for recognition. It's all just a wisp of thought that flickers through your mind like the notes of a long lost song calling you through deja-vu to become a moments pause while you try and remember. But whatever it was, and whereever you are it's all just a dream, a hallucination that passes as quickly as you felt it. A memory to fade to grey in the back of your mind along with all the others until they all jumble themselves in a haphazard pile of preused slices of life. All piled up for a bargain basement price in the jumble-sale of old moments that you can sell on a street corner for a nickle apiece.
And the next scene opens.
And the next scene opens.
Governments have come and gone, systems have been tried and failed and there's never been one that's kept everyone happy because, generally speaking people are whiney little swines who are never happy and frankly trying to find a system of government or management that everyone will like is futile for any population of size greater than one, or in some cases you could argue zero, which just goes to prove my point anyway.
This isn't to suggest that governments and social systems are futile, just that we need to expand more, and here's just the revolutionary ideas to do it, all these systems are hereby trademarked so if anyone actually uses them I'll take a small cut (say 1% GNP) of the countries income as thanks.
Springerism
This is based on the fact that most people these days watch TV and in order to capture ratings you hold peoples attention, more attention = more population exposure and therefore a greater level of public viewing and therefore a greater public view. That said each party is dragged out in front of a studio audience to bare their views whilst their spouses/kids/donkeys are dragged on stage to humiliating dialog and jeers from the crowd, policy is determined by the few ministers to turn up and survive the whole show without being booed off.
Pledgacy
Similar to Springerism but this seeks to capture a wider audience, and instead of the audience booing or cheering (as appropriate) after every show a phone in system is used to determine policy, if the host should wear a dress, which party members should be dunked in raw sewage and suchlike.
Laddism
This ideology revolves around the fundamental principal that the pub is the mainstay of society and those that drink there are the therefore the principal and most important members of society. Being able to hold your drink, singing and chatting up barmaids are therefore principal keys to holding office. For policy decisions drinking contests are held, and those still standing/alive/not in hospital having their stomach pumped hold the decision, if indeed they can still remember what it was in the first place.
Brutacy
This policy is based on the simple principal from school days of "My dad can have your dad" also known more civilly as "Might makes right." Fundamentally any government or individual that can kick the cr@p out of you is therefore more correct that you are, hence this government promotes ex-commando/boxing and tank-driving ministers. Not to say this isn't in effect anywhere already.
Jockeyism
A refinement of Brutacy for a more civilised society, essentially the gentlemen's game of darts is used to determine who's policy holds sway for any decision or issue. Team games and around the clock matches can be used for special circumstances for radical offshoot extreme parties.
Volumacy
"It's not what you say, it's how loud you say it." is the essential idea of this principal. The two sides are locked in a room where they shout, scream, stamp their feet and yell at each other until the other side is too deaf, insane or exhausted to shout any more, at which point the point can be conceded. Decibel minimum's, rather than numbers, determine the limits for party sizes.
Gossipism
No policy argument is made (effectively) in public in this form of government, and trial by media takes a whole new meaning as the whole idea is not to disprove your opponents theory or argument, but to prove that they themselves are a two timing/disrespectful/insane/hobbit fancying/whatever bounder, and therefore are entirely unworthy of government, let alone representing opinion. Policy is made monthly by whichever representatives are still in office and haven't been sacked.
Randomism
Simple but effective, everyone puts their ideas in a hat and a single result is drawn from it, proportional representation at it's finest you might say.
Microsoftism
We're bigger and can buy you before you can do anything else, is the idea. Essentially they who have the cash, run the government and control everything. 1984 meets capitalism in a bizarre twist. The key ideal being the corporation rather than the individual, and those corporations that survive and squash their opponents can only be doing the right thing by surviving, since they supply services and/or products that the public need - and therefore justifiably can represent the country.
Super-consumerism
A refinement of Microsoftism, but with emphasis on the individual. Ministers are encouraged to buy whatever flash new car/widget/house/African state they can in order to impress the others, whoever can demonstrate the sheer buying power of their wallet (and presumably their inadequacy in bed) owns the show.
This isn't to suggest that governments and social systems are futile, just that we need to expand more, and here's just the revolutionary ideas to do it, all these systems are hereby trademarked so if anyone actually uses them I'll take a small cut (say 1% GNP) of the countries income as thanks.
Springerism
This is based on the fact that most people these days watch TV and in order to capture ratings you hold peoples attention, more attention = more population exposure and therefore a greater level of public viewing and therefore a greater public view. That said each party is dragged out in front of a studio audience to bare their views whilst their spouses/kids/donkeys are dragged on stage to humiliating dialog and jeers from the crowd, policy is determined by the few ministers to turn up and survive the whole show without being booed off.
Pledgacy
Similar to Springerism but this seeks to capture a wider audience, and instead of the audience booing or cheering (as appropriate) after every show a phone in system is used to determine policy, if the host should wear a dress, which party members should be dunked in raw sewage and suchlike.
Laddism
This ideology revolves around the fundamental principal that the pub is the mainstay of society and those that drink there are the therefore the principal and most important members of society. Being able to hold your drink, singing and chatting up barmaids are therefore principal keys to holding office. For policy decisions drinking contests are held, and those still standing/alive/not in hospital having their stomach pumped hold the decision, if indeed they can still remember what it was in the first place.
Brutacy
This policy is based on the simple principal from school days of "My dad can have your dad" also known more civilly as "Might makes right." Fundamentally any government or individual that can kick the cr@p out of you is therefore more correct that you are, hence this government promotes ex-commando/boxing and tank-driving ministers. Not to say this isn't in effect anywhere already.
Jockeyism
A refinement of Brutacy for a more civilised society, essentially the gentlemen's game of darts is used to determine who's policy holds sway for any decision or issue. Team games and around the clock matches can be used for special circumstances for radical offshoot extreme parties.
Volumacy
"It's not what you say, it's how loud you say it." is the essential idea of this principal. The two sides are locked in a room where they shout, scream, stamp their feet and yell at each other until the other side is too deaf, insane or exhausted to shout any more, at which point the point can be conceded. Decibel minimum's, rather than numbers, determine the limits for party sizes.
Gossipism
No policy argument is made (effectively) in public in this form of government, and trial by media takes a whole new meaning as the whole idea is not to disprove your opponents theory or argument, but to prove that they themselves are a two timing/disrespectful/insane/hobbit fancying/whatever bounder, and therefore are entirely unworthy of government, let alone representing opinion. Policy is made monthly by whichever representatives are still in office and haven't been sacked.
Randomism
Simple but effective, everyone puts their ideas in a hat and a single result is drawn from it, proportional representation at it's finest you might say.
Microsoftism
We're bigger and can buy you before you can do anything else, is the idea. Essentially they who have the cash, run the government and control everything. 1984 meets capitalism in a bizarre twist. The key ideal being the corporation rather than the individual, and those corporations that survive and squash their opponents can only be doing the right thing by surviving, since they supply services and/or products that the public need - and therefore justifiably can represent the country.
Super-consumerism
A refinement of Microsoftism, but with emphasis on the individual. Ministers are encouraged to buy whatever flash new car/widget/house/African state they can in order to impress the others, whoever can demonstrate the sheer buying power of their wallet (and presumably their inadequacy in bed) owns the show.
