the right government?

[inamerica55585]

capitalism, socialism, and communism eventually end up with all the money and power concentrated in one group or demographic. how can we create a perfect system of government to save the human race? I'd like to hear your opinions.

I'll start it off. I think the money system should be abolished and we resume direct trading of goods and services for goods and services. this eliminates fiascos of credit and theivery and it encourages people to learn a trade. your thoughts? [smiley1]

[Sophie]

It's called Totalitarianism.
You do what the fuck you're told, when you're told or you die. Best. Government. Ever.

[Henriksson]

It's called Totalitarianism.
You do what the fuck you're told, when you're told or you die. Best. Government. Ever.That would be great, as long as I'm the one in charge. <img src='/images/emoticons/smiley2.png'> I'll start it off. I think the money system should be abolished and we resume direct trading of goods and services for goods and services. this eliminates fiascos of credit and theivery and it encourages people to learn a trade. your thoughts?
Are you suggesting we'd go back to the barter system? If so, that would be highly ineffective.

[Tatterdemalion]

Oh dear, not this subject. Not this subject...

I hope you realize the can of worms you just opened up. In any case, here goes.

In deciding what the ideal form of government/society would be (and I assume you're not just talking about economics, because economics ties in directly with everything else), you can't just name something and expect it to work universally. The problem is that the world is not comprised of one universal society, with one universal way of life. You need to take into consideration all sorts of factors, including the size of a country, the area in which it is located, the resources it has available, the time period in which it lives, and the political climate of the time and area (and this is ignoring the ever important aspect of the particular culture of the area). Taking this into consideration, when we look at history and all that good stuff, what we end up learning is that there's so far nothing has quite worked out. I think the money system should be abolished and we resume direct trading of goods and services for goods and services. this eliminates fiascos of credit and theivery and it encourages people to learn a trade. your thoughts?
That sounds like Luddite talk to me. Now, if you're talking about this in a historical context, there may be some validity there, but if you're proposing that the contemporary Western world somehow switch to the barter system, then you're either out of your mind, or someone who's very, very optimistic. Keep in mind that to have a system without currency, in which people simply exchange goods, you'd literally need to undo all of industrial society, which even if people wanted to do (which I'm sure they don't) is not much of an option. For people to exchange goods directly for goods, you end up limiting trade to things that people can produce on their own, taking any sort of mass production out of the picture. So you'd have to say goodbye to the television, goodbye to the Internet and goodbye to the Model-T, and goodbye to almost everyone's job, forcing hundreds of millions of people who have never actually produced anything in their life to either "learn a trade" or, for the majority of people, take up farming...even if everyone was united on such a decision, the changeover would kill everyone. And then, even if America (assuming for a minute that we're talking about America) did successfully transform into a nation of three hundred million people, all of whom live in communities in which everything they consume is either made themselves, or made by people they have direct contact with, you'd still leave the country militarily vulnerable to the rest of the world, which would have the advantage of being able to use industrial military technology.

Also, keep in mind that since you still have trade, all of the problems associated with currency would still exist, just in a less direct form. You'd still have thievery, it's just that rather than someone breaking into your house and stealing your money, they break into your storehouse and steal some of your harvest. Which is probably worse, because while if someone steals your money, you will probably still have enough to get along, and you'll still have a steady source of income, if someone steals food that you grew yourself, you're screwed until the next growing season. And as far as credit goes, that would also still exist, only instead of the bank saying "We'll lend you X amount of money to buy a house so long as you pay us back over Y years at Z percent interest", it's the person with the big farm saying "I'll give you X amount of seed crop so you can start your farm, so long as you pay me back with Z percent of your harvest over a period of Y years". Same thing, only in the second case, if the borrower does not pay off his loan, then he probably does not even have enough food to support himself, meaning he comes to rely even more on the person with the big farm. Which again is not a good thing, and if memory serves correct, is actually how the Manor system came about.

Then there is of course the possibility that you're hoping to maintain all of the perks of mass production by simply having every factory exchange goods with its workers...which still wouldn't work, because if everything was produced in a factory then the workers would not be able to produce their own goods, and therefore would not have anything to trade, meaning that they would have to get all of their products from the factory owners who control the production of goods, in exchange for their labor...which would be some sort of strange, twisted industrialized encarnation of the Feudal system, which is actually quite frightening (yet not too far off from the way things are in the actual world).

In the end, what it all comes down to is that money is not the problem, it is simply a symptom of the problem. Money is the visual and material manifestation of the economy, so whenever there is an economic problem, it is easy to blame money for it. However, the problem is not money, but but rather the problem is the system that causes society to use it.. So you might as well blame society for having such a thing as an economy and a marketplace (be my guest, lots of people have already), But then you're barking up a whole different tree (a Communist tree), that has its own set of problems, and its own reasons that it will never be implemented.

I think in trying to envision the perfect society (which won't be envisioned anytime soon) you need to figure out exactly what it is you're looking for. Is it a society in which a nation has as much world power as possible? Because in that case you'd want to look to dictatorships such as Nazi Germany, which everyone still hates? Is it a society in which people have the most material goods? Well, there's been an ongoing debate as to which system actually encourages wealth, but over the past century both Communism and Capitalism have been recipes for disaster. Is it a society in which everyone is completely happy, and never needs or wants anything that they don't have? That would be Brave New World, which is yet another dystopian nightmare.

You say we need a system of government to save the human race. That somehow a new inspiring political vision will rid the world of all of its problems, and set the world population on the right path once again. Yet I ask you how the human race came to be in such desperate need of saving in the first place. Every massive system of government that has thus far been concocted to save the human race has only plunged the world deeper into this hellhole we call modernity. I'm wondering if another "Perfect System" is really the answer we need.

[inamerica55585]

WOW. that's a lengthy post.

I admit your right. still, current credit systems are flawed.
I think the economy needs some kind of an overhaul.
certain government expenses need to be removed.
social security, for one. we should not be paying old people other people's money to sit on their bum for 20 to 40 years. either people should set aside a percentage of their income for use in retirement while they work, or just keep a job.
the idea of universal government provided health care that everyone has is flawed. first, the coverage is limited, and also it means paying people below the poverty line other peoples money so they can get their appendix removed or something like that. The government can fund private health insurance corporations, but there should still be a multitude of choices.

I also think we need to reduce overpopulation.
warning: what I am about to say is very controversial, so those who have very strong opinions against birth control should not see. therefore, I am going to hide it.
I think no one should be allowed to have children without first being able to prove that they can support a child. this includes having a high school diploma at the very least. I don't want to say retarted people shouldn't have kids or that they should be "sterilized", but they should try to be abstinent until they can be certain that they will not have a retarted child. there may need a certain "childbirth liscence" (and I use the term very loosely) that could be issued to people who pass some sort of test proving that they are ready emotionally and financially for parenthood. unliscened pregnancies would be required to either have an abortion or have the child adopted by another family. <img src='/images/emoticons/smiley5.png'> I'm sorry for saying that, but that's my unbiased opinion.

one last thing. what does Luddite mean? and does it apply to me?

[Henriksson]

the idea of universal government provided health care that everyone has is flawed. first, the coverage is limited, and also it means paying people below the poverty line other peoples money so they can get their appendix removed or something like that. The government can fund private health insurance corporations, but there should still be a multitude of choices.
Sweden is going pretty well in case you haven't nothing. And Sweden doesn't have ANY form of private health care - still is currently number 6 in Human Development Index. The US is much lower.

[Tatterdemalion]

Oh dear, here we go...

Okay, first off, Luddites were a British social movement during the 1800s, which stood out in opposition to the industrialization of the textile industry. I called you a Luddite because your proposition that we return to the barter system stood in direct opposition to industrialization. I wasn't being serious, of course.social security, for one. we should not be paying old people other people's money to sit on their bum for 20 to 40 years. either people should set aside a percentage of their income for use in retirement while they work, or just keep a job.

You know, I really don't care for your rhetoric here. But I'll get to the rhetoric in a minute. First, social security.

The thing with social security is that it's an investment. Or not so much an investment, but an insurance. That is, everybody pays into the system, and everyone benefits (something like socialism). As long as you work, both you and your employer pay a certain percentage of your earnings in taxes, and as a result, when you retire, you recieve a certain amount of money from the government. You say that people should "should set aside a percentage of their income for use in retirement", however that's exactly what social security is, only it applies to everyone. So what you're suggesting people should do is already being done on a national level, and now you're criticizing it...I don't know, that doesn't seem too well thought out to me.

Also, I find your whole "old people are lazy" rhetoric to be slightly amusing, and a bit irritating. See, what you're implying is that anyone who has reached an age at which they are elligible for social security are sitting around in the lap of luxury, not having to lift a finger to support themselves, while the young people who are actually willing to put in the effort to do some hard work are forced to support their extravagant lifestyles...yet at the same time it seems that (1) you're ignoring the fact that everyone who works legally in the United States pays social security, meaning that the old people who "sit around on their bums" paid out a percentage of their own earnings throughout the course of their career, so it's not as though they never had to pay for the money they are now recieving. Also (2) it seems that een though some people like the idea that old people should work to support themselves, I'm sure that far less would exactly be comforatble in knowing that 85 year old Grandpa is working 8 hours a day in the factory cutting pipe...or knowing that their pipes were cut by a factory filled with 85 year old Grandpas.

On top of that, as far as the elderly working is concerned, no company in their right mind would employ old people, as it is a bad business practice. Because old people are more likely to have health problems that are onset with old age, and are also at greater risk of illness/injury/other medical conditions, they would be very ureliable workers. They would end up taking more sick days, and as far as any sort of health plan that the employer would have to provide, with insurance for injury on the job and workers compensation tacked onto that...forget it, the expenses would be through the roof. So what you'd end up with is a bunch of old people who need jobs because they need a means of supporting themselves, yet very few people who are willing to hire them.;..so the old people end up being more than willing to take jobs from the few employers out there who will hire them, making it easier for such employers to take advantage of this by paying them a lower than average wage...so you end up with the economic exploitation of the elderly.

And then, EVEN IF you had old people recieving widespread employment (which you wouldn't), then you'd end up with a bunch of displaced workers who would end up unemployed due to significantly less job opportunities, due to the fact that their jobs will have been taken bvy old people...so it's funny that you should complain that now when you work a small percentage of your paycheck goes to support senior citizens, with the implication that when you retire, you will have the same security, when in the best case scenario, the alternative is being unemployed. Funny, it kind of seems as though you didn't quite think things through.

I hope you appreciate the detail I'm going to to respond to you. You wouldn't get such a long response from most other people.

Now, moving onthe idea of universal government provided health care that everyone has is flawed. first, the coverage is limited, and also it means paying people below the poverty line other peoples money so they can get their appendix removed or something like that. The government can fund private health insurance corporations, but there should still be a multitude of choices.

First off, Henriksson brings up a very good point about Swedish healthcare. So that's a nice bit of evidence right there. Universal healthcare might not be able to work the same way in America, but that's because nothing works in America (in case you haven't noticed).

Then there's the bit about universal healthcare helping people below the povety line...yes, that's really half the point. It seems that there's something you're not quite getting, that the idea behinduniversal healthcare is that everyone can benefit, not just people with lots and lots of money. And I don't see why you wouldn't want someone below the poverty line to have their appendix removed. Although I there's not that much offence intended by when I say this, it seems that you have a rather closed-minded attitude, suggesting that somehow everything is your own, and that there is no sense in ever letting anything, such as your money, go to support people who have less money at any given time. While this gopes against basic human decency to begin with, I'm not even going to go into what's right and what's wron, and will insteadsay that it's an incredibly bad decision economically to deny such a person healthcare.

Let's say that the appendix of the person who is below the poverty line is inflamed. Now, if he has the operation, his appendix gets removed, and that's it, right? But if he doesn't, because it's against your principles, then the person who has appendicitis dies, and while that may not seem like that big a deal to you, keep in mind tat that's one member of the workforce gone. Look at it on a much larger, nationwide scale and you end up with a significant increase in the mortality rate of people below the poverty line, and a lot of people who may have previously been working multiple jobs to just barely make ends meet dead...which means that all of those employers have lost their workers. So who's going to fill the gap in the workforce? Old people?

And moving on to the "controversial" part of your comment (as though the rest of your comment wasn't). To begin with, don't censor yourself or white yourself out, it makes it look like you're ashamed of your opinion.I think no one should be allowed to have children without first being able to prove that they can support a child. this includes having a high school diploma at the very least. I don't want to say retarted people shouldn't have kids or that they should be "sterilized", but they should try to be abstinent until they can be certain that they will not have a retarted child. there may need a certain "childbirth liscence" (and I use the term very loosely) that could be issued to people who pass some sort of test proving that they are ready emotionally and financially for parenthood. unliscened pregnancies would be required to either have an abortion or have the child adopted by another family. I'm sorry for saying that, but that's my unbiased opinion.

Okay, first I want to clear something up: There's no such thing as an unbiased opinion. If you have an opinion, any opinion, you're going to be influenced by your ideas to take a particular side. That's why they call it an opinion in the first place.

So what you're saying is that having a child should be like buying a house. You go to the bank, you prove that you're financially stable enough to get the loan, then you're either approved or rejected, right?

Nah, there are several quarrels I have with this. First off, you're linking being able to support a family with population control, when the two are not exactly related. Are poor people the only people who have children? I didn't think so.

There's also a whole bunch of stuff that doesn't add up, before we even get into the issue of morality, or the fact that no one would ever let a law such as this be passed in the first place.

Now, there's the bit about the high school diploma. This would be nice, but it plays into the myth that somehow we live in a society (America) in which everyine is high-school educated, or in which everyone is expected to be high school educated. They tell you in school that you have to do well in order to get a good job, but the fact of the matter is that in an industrial society, education is not the economy's friend. The ideal worker is an uneducated one, because most jobs are either menial labor or acquired skill. Remember the pipe cutter we discussed before? Keep in mind that the man who works on an assembly line cutting pipe does not necessarily need a high school education. Nor does this mean that anyone who is capable of supporting a child is high school educated. So that's something out right there.

As far as retarded people are concerned, just keep in mind that not all retarded people have retarded children, and by far not all retarded children have retarded parents. So unless you're advocating euthanizing every child born with a developmental disability, the idea that we need to stop mental retardation by "promoting abstinence" amongst retarded people (which still makes little sense) doesn't quite hold water.

And then the bit about parents needing to be "emotionally" capable of raising a child...how are you going to figure that before the person even becomes preganant? Design the test, then we'll talk.

Somehow I get the feeling that this isn't about population control at all. It seems to me that what this actually comes down to is that you've bough into the myth that somehow poor people are ignorant fools who hump like squirrels, then leave society to pick up the burden of their irresponsibility. Because all your proposal does is promote discrimination against the poor. You know, kind of like they did with the Irish. But in the end, even after the massive public backlash, all you're doing is killing off the foundation of the industrial work force, people who are forced to work multiple jobs involving unskilled laborin order to just barely support themselves. Do you think that somehow if you make it illegal for everyone who cannot support a family to have children, then somehow there's going to be no more poverty? No, what you'll have is a sudden collapse of the economy. I don't exactly like the system, but at least I'm practical enough to understand what is and is not practical right now.

And then there's the final, perhaps most important issue: Enforcing it. The United States already has a tremendous national debt, and you're suggesting that we somehow fix it by creating what would end up being the most expensive and unmanageable department in U.S. government history. What you'd need to do is fund a program capable of running economic and psychological evaluations of literally millions of people every year, and a system by which to allow appeals (because you bet there'll be appeals)...that's people, resources, paper, salaries, buildings in which to house these departments...then actually enforcing it! Are you going to have a system by which to find every pregnant person in the country, then abort their fetuses (by the thousands) if they can't present their papers? And if someone without a license gives birth, you're going to have to have a system by which to place the child under adoption...and there are already thousands of children across the country who are separated from their parents and never adopted. Now you're suggesting adding thousands upon thousands more? The system would collapes before such a policy could be implemented.

It seems to me that you're not really thinking things through here. I'd advise giving a bit more thought to these sorts of things, or else it might end up being that no one will take you seriously.

[inamerica55585]

one or two things:
I was not considering my proposal to fix the national debt.
In fact I was simply throwing the idea out there. I had no intent of anyone ever implementing it.
as for the health care thing, it seems to work better in smaller countries than in the massive corporation-run conglomerate that is america.
you are right, I don't think these things through, and I don't really know what I'm talking about. I created this thread as a forum for opinion, not just to voice my own. I was hoping for a thought provoking discussion where everyone has thought through ideas.
I'm a smart and honest man. I'll admit when I'm wrong. therefore, I won't provide any more opinions of my own. however, I would still like to hear other people's opinion, which I may comment on. this is a forum of discussion, and I intend it to remain that way. now then, what's next on the agenda?

EDIT: my rhetoric does not necessarily apply to all people. with age comes experience, and some senior citizens live succesful, healthy lives on the work force.
Not all poor people need their appendix removed. regardless of how poor they are, we can't just provide completely free health care.

ANOTHER EDIT: I am a little ashamed of my opinion. I don't think poor people hump like squirrels a lot. in fact, the really rich may have 200% more sex than those below the poverty line. talk about quintile disparity. ok, that's a bad rhetoric.

[darkarcher]

I don't have time for a long post on this matter, but I will say that there is no "right" government in the sense that everyone thinks there is. There are inherent flaws in all forms of government, some more glaring than others, and (like previously said) the most efficient government depends on the conditions of the nation being governed.

[inamerica55585]

you know you're right. but, let's just consider the one with the least inherent flaws or the ones that can be easily dealt with.

[Tatterdemalion]

You know, I think the most obvious answer here, the one glaring us all in the face, is that there is no simple answer.

[inamerica55585]

we know that there's no simple answer. so how about a complicated answer?

[DarkWarrior]

Then please, inform us.

Take the time to write a 700 page book on the subject, then present it to us. :)

Seriously, that's what it'd take.

[inamerica55585]

OK.....
well how bout we look at some books about dystopian society and see what went wrong.
let's start with george orwell's animal farm.
in the book, one demographic, namely "the pigs" rises to power and becomes the very thing they set out to destroy.
From books about rebellion you have to realize that sometimes an outside power has to step in to restore order.
*disclaimer* I don't support the Iraq war in any way, nor do I think by any means we are restoring order.
so maybe the problem lies within the executive branch.

[GelynnaCaladon]

There will never be a perfect government if people have a free will. Free will, with the knowledge of good and evil, is a lethal combination if you think about it. No, people should never be made puppets. It's the price you have to pay for freedom, though. Knowledge is power, whether it's used properly or not.

By nature humans look towards a leader, and by nature there's always at least one who is willing to take that leadership. Then you have someone wanting to oppose. Then hostile take over yay! Or, that someone gets, as you kids say, gets "pwned."

If you think about it, everything's just one big cycle. Rarely something brand spanking new pops up. Children's card games, for instance. Adults play poker, kids play their games, and so on. You have a card for everything. You have a government for everthing. I'll still laugh at the fact that Anarchists convene for meetings.

Many blessings,
~GC

[Tatterdemalion]

OK.....
well how bout we look at some books about dystopian society and see what went wrong.
let's start with george orwell's animal farm.
in the book, one demographic, namely "the pigs" rises to power and becomes the very thing they set out to destroy.
From books about rebellion you have to realize that sometimes an outside power has to step in to restore order.
*disclaimer* [ I don't support the Iraq war in any way, nor do I think by any means we are restoring order. ]
so maybe the problem lies within the executive branch.
Well, as far as Animal Farm, what you need to take into consideration is the fact that the pigs were able to come into power because (1) they were the ones who concieved and orchestrated the revolution in the first place, and more importantly (2) they were inherently smarter than all of the other animals. It's easy to say that the problem with government is the people in power, but then again, if the people in power weren't in power, there would be no government in the first place.

Also saying that the problem is the "executive branch" is now focusing on one particular govenrment rather than all governments in general.

You're still overlooking the fact that these "problems" or "flaws" are not just little single superficial blemishes on the surface of any governmental structure that can be easily isolated and eliminated with a bit of cosmetic surgery. If they were, we wouldn't be having this discussion. To the contrary, these "flaws: are inherent to the entire concept, and iven if you identify them, they're not just going to go away because you want them to.

I think it's good that you're taking an interest in politics and government. But I also think you're deluding yourself if you think that you're going to come up with "the answer" by sitting around at your computer and asking people what "the solution" is. If it was that simple, I'm sure someone would have figured it out long before you did.

I also think it's a bit silly to look at dystopian novels and try to identify "what went wrong". It's not as though these are actual societies that historically existed, they are instead an author's criticism of certain social trends, systems, or even ideals. To interpret these works is fine, but it's not any sort of objective interpretation of events, it's just understanding a particular author's opinion.

But still, since I'm in a fairly good mood I'll play along. I'll go with Brave New World as my distopian novel, although this would really apply to almost any dystopian work.

The major themaic problem in said society is that the society emerged as a result of people trying to engineer the perfect society. The Brave New World is the perfect society, but is also a dystopia because, looking at things from a postmodern perspective, the problem inherent to modern societies is the belief that we can actually engineer a perfect system.

And you were the one who first used the words "perfect system", not me.

Think about that.

[inamerica55585]

fine.
****.
so maybe their isn't a utopian system of government.
still that doesn't mean all is lost.
I guess we'll never know what government, if any, is the best.
anarchism is still bad, though.
STUDENT ANARCHISTS DISUNITED I've heard about.
anarchy means no one is in control. its mob rule. you can do whatever the hell you want and unless some one else has a bone to pick with it, you can get away with murder.
but I digress. I guess all we can do is just watch and wait. <img src='/images/emoticons/smiley5.png'> <img src='/images/emoticons/smiley5.png'> <img src='/images/emoticons/smiley6.png'>

[Tatterdemalion]

There's nothing wrong with anarchism other than the fact that it rejects all of the traditional, and in our society almost compulsory views regarding government and political structure. Granted, there are some anarchist extremists who I wouldn't exactly want to find myself involved with, but as an overall concept I'd say you should at least entertain the thought.

You seem to be hung up on the idea that if there wasn't a massive government in power to tell everyone how to behave, and a highly structured police force, military and justice system in place to make sure they behave, then all of the world would be in complete chaos, with people killing and stealing and raping each other left and right (you'd love Thomas Hobbes).

The problem with this position is that it operates under the assumption that humans are naturally entropic, and that unless we are restrained we seek to create disorder and chaos wherever we can. Now, I ask you, if there were no government, would you go out and start stealing and killing and raping anyone you could get your hands on? Well, I certainly hope not. But I can tell you for a fact that I wouldn't. And most of my friends wouldn't. And in fact, most of the people I know wouldn't. So then what do you have? A society of people who for the most part do not want to kill and rape each other. So then why do you need the government to tell people how to behave when people are already inclined to behave the way we expect the government to force people to behave?

Perhaps you're convinced that the government is needed to keep the world from degenerating into madness because crime rates are so high, meaning that if we're having this much crime WITH the government, without the government there it would be a disaster. Still, this is based on the idea that 1) the government actually prevents crime rather than just punishing it, and that 2) the government never creates crime. Keep in mind that the reason people steal is because they have no money, or more importantly, the things that they buy with money. Therefore, if we lived in a truly socialist society, in which the socialism was enforced by the citizens themselves, then there would be no need for a government to prevent people from stealing. Also, keeping in mind that often people kill for property,so you'd have less murder. Then as far as the few who are left who would kill and perhaps rape, keep in mind that most people do not actually support rape and murder, and abhor rapists and murderers, meaning that if anyone were to do so in an anarchist society, they would be ostracized, exiled, or even punished, simply by the community itself rather than the government acting on the behalf of the community. And keeping in mind that the government doesn't actually prevent crime...things could hardly be any more chaotic than they are now.

[langleyassault]

<i>Post censored by DarkWarrior.</i>

[inamerica55585]

so are you saying that anarchism is a good thing? or are you implementing the oxymoron that is organized anarchism?

either that, or you are sorta saying that the government is a hollow shell that forces people to do what 90-95% of those people would do without the pressure.
so are you suggesting anything?

oh, and you don't need to make that lengthy of a post.

[toph3r]

this is an interesting discussion, so I will jump in with a post I made the other day in the \"Democracy\" topic. Some of it may not relate, because it is from another topic. But first, (although I am short on time here) I will point out that I don\'t think Univ Healthcare would be a good idea for this country. It may work in Sweden, but it is currently failing in Canada.

Anyway, here is what I posted in the other topic:

\"well, I\'m not going to say you\'re wrong, BoxOfFun, but I am going to disagree that Democracy is a terrible form of government. Most forms are good in one or another, it\'s just that there is always a problem, and that problem is so ironic: the Human element. The point of government is to keep society in decent order, but society is unpredictable! But of course it is! We\'re Human! For example, Communism, great concept, bad idea. Humans can\'t live in perfect 100% equality, because we are all different. Democracy is the best form of government at this time because the human element IS the government. It changes, it grows, it advances, it worsens, it improves just like humanity, and it does all that together with humanity.

I don\'t want to keep explaining what democracy is, because I\'m sure you all know exactly what it is or already have your own take on it.

Anyway, I think part of the reason Denmark\'s democracy works so well is that the population is only around 5 million and the education and literacy rate are probably much higher than the US. However, America has a working Democracy right now, it\'s just that the People are not taking their right to power. Ever since the New Deal, the President has been gaining more and more power. Also, Congressmen have never done anything but try to get re-elected. Plus, The Supreme Court has been rather Activist for the past few decades, so they are practically writing legislation when that is not their responsibility. And the media just makes things worse (especially with their strong left influence).

Well I could go on about this for awhile, so I guess all I can say is this: If you live in America, do what you can to influence the nation. Don\'t let media tell you what to believe, and don\'t let poiticians tell you what you want. That means telling Obama that you don\'t want a government-controlled healthcare system which is proven to work poorly in Canada (if that\'s your opinion), and telling McCain that we can\'t just stay in Iraq forever (if that\'s your opinion).

Anyway (again), I suggest listening to a radio show called the Glenn Beck Program. It\'s very informative and it opens your eyes. Plus it\'s pretty funny. But listen and watch other sources too. You can\'t form an opinion from hearing only one side.

okay I\'m done.\"

I will point out here that I am currently a McCain supporter, but I tried to remove bias from certain parts whenever possible.

[RedRook]

Botonism. We all worship plants and turn to them for political advice and aren't allowed to wear clothes. All Governmental systems are inherently flawed to their core, simply because they are run by people.

[toph3r]

hmmm... you may be on to something with the not allowed to wear clothes part, RedRook.

[Tatterdemalion]

so are you saying that anarchism is a good thing? or are you implementing the oxymoron that is organized anarchism?

either that, or you are sorta saying that the government is a hollow shell that forces people to do what 90-95% of those people would do without the pressure.
so are you suggesting anything?

oh, and you don't need to make that lengthy of a post.
So now you're telling me how long my posts can be? Fascist.

What I'm saying, Mr. Hobbes, is that anarchism is not the same as mob rule, and that a society lacking a central government is not inherently chaotic and disorganized.

And apparently there is a need to make such a lengthy post, because even at the level of detail I went into, you're ignoring what I said.

[RedRook]

What I'm saying, Mr. Hobbes, is that anarchism is not the same as mob rule, and that a society lacking a central government is not inherently chaotic and disorganized.
More of a Reply to your post before, but still. First off. I think that if you describe a form of government as an anarchy then it inherently stops becoming an anarchy. True Anarchy is kind of an illusion because there is always a form of ruling system even if it is a general sense of moral code and conduct. Realistically though if all of a sudden government just dissolved, there really would be a mass of looting and killings involved with said looting. Mostly because there is no such thing as a general consensus between people. We all have different and entirely unique opinions in subtle ways, so if one of us believes abortion is right and the other believes abortion is wrong, then it begins a conflict, and conflicts build and without enforced conduct people do turn to destruction. Now I am not a conservative in any way or a communist either, I find both to be inherently flawed and abhorant but there are simple truths about human nature. One truth is that people are animals. We fight for land, food, resources and bragging rights. There may be a handful of us who would refuse to struggle but in the end they would simply be the victims. You see without a law code of some kind, we loose our will to work. like Communism, if everyone gets the same thing, then why work harder to produce a better product if you don't get benefit from it? So without a system, there is no regulation for work. Those who work only work for their own survival and those directly around themselves. If you try to work who is going to pay you? There is not a company in the world who wouldn't just go back to the slavery system if they could. Now if you're not working for money, you're working for clothes and food and housing, but so is everyone else, and people are instinctively selfish, regardless if people want to believe that, it is generally just how it works. So you work for your resources and so does the other guy, and eventually your paths cross. If there aren't any resources to share, and if there is no one bringing in resources, you have to take it one way or another.

I know it probably sounds harsh but people are no different than they were in cave man times. They just wear better clothes and pretend articulation. We don't have built in moral codes or deep seeded belief structures that transcend our basic needs and wants. We work in very much the same way Dogs work. We form our packs, have an Alpha Male and follow him just so long as he keeps providing for us and treats us within our respective options. Eventually we fight for control rights, then we fight for food, then we fight for breeding rights and space. It is unfortunate but human kind isn't superior in any way, we simply are and theres no feasible way with our current capacity to have any kind of wide scale open government. It would simply open everything to a free market and free market without a limiter or regulations will just grow to monarchy and totalitarianism where eventually one party controls the resources and lords it over the ones too weak to do anything about it.

[Tatterdemalion]

Well, let's take a look at what you're saying here. It's interesting enough to dissect, no?True Anarchy is kind of an illusion because there is always a form of ruling system even if it is a general sense of moral code and conduct.
Anarchism opposes the state, and organized government. Moral codes and non-government-imposed societal standards are A-okay.Realistically though if all of a sudden government just dissolved, there really would be a mass of looting and killings involved with said looting.
Hey, I'm not saying that the government should disappear overnight. Hey, I'm not even saying we should get up in arms and have an anarchist revolution (if an entire industrialized nation got up one day and overthrew the government, the resultswould be neither pretty nor practical). Still, I think what we need to understand is why there would be such widespread looting. It would not necessarily be because humans are inclined by nature to steal, but because we currently live in societies dominated by authority and submission to authority...if the authority were to disappear, the society would clearly collapse.

What we need to understand is that any Anarchic society would be markedly different from anything we are familiar with...an entirely different social structure, which probably would not encompass mass industry, mass market, mass media, or anything involving mass...different framework, different everything. So it's probably a mistake to try to apply Anarchist principles to the society in which we live right now...Anarchism is a hypothetical concept (if that's not a tautologism), and so we would have to apply it to a hypothetical society.

Skipping down a bit we come to the great myth about Communism...what fun.You see without a law code of some kind, we loose our will to work. like Communism, if everyone gets the same thing, then why work harder to produce a better product if you don't get benefit from it?
Erm...yeah. See, this operates under the false assumption that people will only work for monetary gain, because money is the only thing that has value. It's true that in a capitalist society money is probably the most important material thing to people, simply because the structure of society makes it almost impossible to live without it. So people work for money because they have to in order to survive...in a Communist society people don't need to work for money, but they still need to work to survive. The difference is that their labor supports the entire community rather than just themselves...so in a way, in a communist society the will to work would be stronger, because everyone's work is seen as important not for their own gain, but for everyone's gain.

And the bit about a lack of technological advancement in a Communist society is pretty silly, if you don't mind me saying. People would try to create a better product because they do benefit from it. They're going to be the ones using the better product, right? So why wouldn't they want to build something that would make their lives easier?Those who work only work for their own survival and those directly around themselves.
Exactly. Those directly around themselves = society. So people work for themselves and society. So considering that people themselves are simply a part of society, then people work only for society. Hence socialism.There is not a company in the world who wouldn't just go back to the slavery system if they could.
Are you sure you're not a socialist? Because that certainly sounds like socialist talk to me.Now if you're not working for money, you're working for clothes and food and housing, but so is everyone else, and people are instinctively selfish, regardless if people want to believe that, it is generally just how it works
Who says people are instinctively selfish? People being "instinctively" selfish is a survival mechanism...people hoarde things because they fear it will be taken away from them. If something is free to all (and hardly anything is in this day and age), then why would people feel the need to keep it to themselves more so than they need.

(wow, this is turning into an argument for Communism)So you work for your resources and so does the other guy, and eventually your paths cross. If there aren't any resources to share, and if there is no one bringing in resources, you have to take it one way or another.

I take it you're not a Utopian either? What if you (or I) and the other guy pool our labor and work together for all of these resources? I mean, assuming we actually have some sort of system in place to get what we need (i.e., growing food, making clothes), and aren't just walking around trying to fight over whatever's lying around...then wouldn't it behoove us to work together to make it easier to get what we need rather than relying on our individual selves, which would make everything substantially more difficult?

So, looking at all of this, what you're saying is that people are inherently selfish, and that unless forced to they will always look to serve their own individual interests rather than the interests of their community, even when helping their community will in turn benefit them...

...well, I disagree with you on many levels, but still, because of your very opinionated, albeit cynical post, I officially bestow upon you, and only you the honorable title of Mr. Hobbes.

http://i264.photobucket.com/albums/ii198/C16H12FN3O3/thomashobbes.jpg

Enjoy, you've earned it.

inamerica55585 has his title revoked, and is instead awarded the less prestigious title of Il Duce.

http://i264.photobucket.com/albums/ii198/C16H12FN3O3/Ilduce2.jpg

[RedRook]

Are you sure you're not a socialist? Because that certainly sounds like socialist talk to me.
Actually, views wise I am very socialist. I believe in socialism to an extent, but the thing is, I don't believe in people. I feel that a lot of the idealistic views "could" work if we lived in a world or a society where education, tolerance, and open mindedness were actual values instead of capitalism, xenophobia and ignorance. The main problem is when you put people on the honor system, you start finding people who have no honor. Anarchism opposes the state, and organized government. Moral codes and non-government-imposed societal standards are A-okay.
Anarchism isn't an opposition, it's a lack there of. My point is basically that whenever there is any kind of governing moral code, even an individual one, anarchy is impossible. There is always some form of government even if it isn't openly stated as one. I just have always hated the 'fight for anarchy' thing. It's kind of redundant. It seems to get the wrong point across and doesn't make much sense.Erm...yeah. See, this operates under the false assumption that people will only work for monetary gain, because money is the only thing that has value. It's true that in a capitalist society money is probably the most important material thing to people, simply because the structure of society makes it almost impossible to live without it. So people work for money because they have to in order to survive...in a Communist society people don't need to work for money, but they still need to work to survive. The difference is that their labor supports the entire community rather than just themselves...so in a way, in a communist society the will to work would be stronger, because everyone's work is seen as important not for their own gain, but for everyone's gain.

And the bit about a lack of technological advancement in a Communist society is pretty silly, if you don't mind me saying. People would try to create a better product because they do benefit from it. They're going to be the ones using the better product, right? So why wouldn't they want to build something that would make their lives easier?
Well the thing is, that on a small community level the idea could work, but the thing is, communism doesn't work that way. If there was a wide scale communism then there would be groups of people working in one part to do something to benefit some completely different group somewhere entirely different. My point isn't monetary gain as much as it is product or perceived gain. The workers whom are really under no obligation to do their job, do it until the day they realize that all of the work they've done has brought them no actual benefits. Since having no job doesn't really hurt them either, eventually people begin being lazy. Money is one thing, it will most likely never be eradicated and in all honesty is more comparable to organized religion in it's sway and all encompassing nature. If we take it out of the equation and everything reverts to pure trade, there would be the same problems that caused a monetary system to begin with. Things like low yield products and resources, uneven distribution of resources by area and things of the like. I am not saying the monetary system doesn't have the same problems, but really it doesn't change how it would work out. As for Communism, I don't consider Communism to be the same as Socialism. Communism has a lot of flaws and loopholes as well as a lot of 'ideals' that becomes distorted along the way. Communism is kind of like the mass marketed idea of Socialism. Where there are compromises to let there still be an overwhelming rich ruling a poor majority. Exactly. Those directly around themselves = society. So people work for themselves and society. So considering that people themselves are simply a part of society, then people work only for society. Hence socialism.
Again, on a small scale it's feasible, if not beneficial. On a large scale, people are completely under evolved emotionally, and mentally for each healthy minded human to grasp or agree with that kind of a society. Not saying it's impossible, but for us it is.I take it you're not a Utopian either?
I don't believe in Utopia. There is and always will be problems with any society. The only way to achieve true Utopia would be if we were bacteria or single celled organisms. The truth is if we can't grasp our own awareness and feel no actual pain, simply live for a purpose which is arbitrary to us, I would think that is the only way for Utopia to exist. Much like the concepts of perfection in Heaven, I feel like if there was a society without conflict in any way... well life would seem pointless. When every need is met, what point is there to need anything? There is no beauty in stagnation. All my opinion of course....well, I disagree with you on many levels, but still, because of your very opinionated, albeit cynical post, I officially bestow upon you, and only you the honorable title of Mr. Hobbes.
Aye thank you sir. In reality, when everything around us is ultimately an illusion. When we can't stand back and realize that we are a billion little viruses clinging to an insignificant mud ball thrown threw space at a million miles an hour, where at any single moment everything we've known as a society, as a people, as brothers and sisters can be gone and the universe won't bat an eyelid. Isn't our differences what makes our world worth living in?

[inamerica55585]

<i>Post censored by DarkWarrior.</i>