Best form of Government is..?

[St Oz]

Perhaps I should just lock this thread for its stupidity...

[Gulliver]

You know, isn't this debate kind of pointless? We're all doomed in the end. If the sun doesn't swallow us up and die then our rotation'll stop, we'll lose our magnetic field and then the solar wind'll strip away our atmosphere. Even if we can escape Earth there's no way to get around the inevitable heat death of all creation, or it all coming back together under the influence of gravity and crushing itself.

[Towlie]

wow how many times can 1 thread be revived

[Myroria]

Heat death is more likely to be the end of the universe, in my opinion. Things just don't randomly collapse in on each other, that's catastrophicism.

[Delfos]

catastrophobic

[Feniexia]

and you felt the need to gravedig this thread because...?

Eek, sorry about that. I didn't look on the date, but I saw it being on the first page of the subforum, so I posted...

Heat death is more likely to be the end of the universe, in my opinion. Things just don't randomly collapse in on each other, that's catastrophicism.

Well, I hope you aren't right. But, however; a small amount of matter will always exist. ALWAYS. And, given the condition humanity won't destruct itself or be destructed until then, we might be at a technology level that gives us the possibility to escape this fate. At least, some of us.

[Delfos]

he's talking about the universe, he loves 2001 Odyssey in Space which is a scientific theoretical exposition about La Place's demon and 20'th century theories about a round universe that have been created and destroyed over and over, and we're a recreation of the last 'inteligence', not exactly human 'inteligence' and the fact is that you're set to receive knowledge from some code, Genesis some say, while 2001 movie materializes into a monolith. This knowledge is the source of intelligence and your task is to set up the next universe, when an entity finally achieves 'The Truth', and that when you know it you will be able to see past and future.
What is curious is that Myroria states:

Things just don't randomly collapse in on each other, that's catastrophicism.

the group of theories behind 2001 movie are catastrophic, it is a round universe that expands from one point and collides into the opposite point...our goal is to set the perfect collision so that there's a new expansion, right like the last one, so that 'intelligence' can *survive*.
It's hard to explain in English, but i hope you understand. I say we shouldn't care for now, whatever happens you're playing your job to the next Big Bang, as long we don't transform ourselves into cavemen again...that would be a waste of time...wouldn't it Bush?

[Myroria]

2001: A Space Odyssey wasn't about space or Genesis. It was about the nature of the human being and how, in the end, HAL 9000 experiences more emotions (fear, sadness) than the astronauts. It's about how as we advance, humanity will feel less emotions. The space part was just a convienient background setting. It's not trying to say the universe will end by falling in on itself, I don't know where you get that.

And I like how you call me Bush, despite the fact that:

I disagree with the PATRIOT act
I agree with gay marriage
I agree with the legalization of drugs
I am pro-choice
I disagree with the war in Iraq

I think the only reason you think I'm like Bush is because I support Israel and I don't think he was the worst person who ever lived. Or that, in your eyes, anyone who doesn't conform to your welfare socialism is a fascist neo-con. 99% of socialists make the rest look bad.

[Delfos]

naw sorry, I said Bush representing Bush himself and modern American mistakes, wasn't exactly talking to you, but I'm glad you replied anyway.

[Lord Oberon]

I vote for Anarchy. I have held that position for some time. Here is a brief outline of some of my points (there is plenty more, but it only gets messier after this point.

 I'm an anarchist, my philosophy being that humans control their own actions and that if people really want to anyone could break the law anyway. Laws are arbitrary. move from state to state or country to country and suddenly something 'legal' is not or something 'illegal' is no longer so.

Of course this has problems (murder, rape and theft come to mind) but firstly anyone is free to exact revenge, and this can act as a deterrent.

Secondly I believe that it is growing up in a 'legalised' society that causes people to break free when law falls apart (eg. New Orleans Hurricane); If brought up with no rules but having to live by 'you help me, I help you' relationships people would be more charitable and less 'criminal'

Thirdly I associate anarchy with the end of establishment. This means no standard currency. Furthermore no concept of 'ownership'. Ownership is arbitrary. The difference between 'your' hill and 'my' hill is that we call yours 'yours' and mine 'mine'.

To elaborate consider the stone currency of Yap in the pacific. The currency was giant (a metre or more (metre in the non-American spelling)) wheels of stone to heavy to exchange. these lined roads and when, for example, I spent one buying your goods it stayed where it was. It stayed the same. It was just agreed it was not 'mine' but 'yours'.

And anyway everything comes from nature. Who owned it first? No one, technically it was claimed, or stolen, from nature.

If ownership is recognised (again, non-US spelling) as arbitrary, what is theft?

[Bara]

Thats deep...i toyed with the Idea for Anarchy for a while.

[Aquatoria]

The problem with anarchy isn't just all those crimes. They wouldn't be called crimes, because there is no one to say they are. Humans need organization, even anarchy there is a small bit of political organization. The thing is anarchy dictates the strongest survives, and the only way to counter that is safety in numbers which means there needs to be organization. And a small organized group of people can do more and has more power than a large group of anarchists. Anrchy however is healthy in little amounts. Like between government changes or reforms, anarchy is seen alot and it helps move the country forward. But world anarchy will never happen.

[The Empire]

Not with the kind of creature we humans are anyway.

[Bara]

thus, i toyed with it.

and i agree. We always will pick the srongest, most good looking, Etc. In a Anrachy driven world, a weak person wouldnt live. IE: Lord of the Flies is something that will probaly happen

[Myroria]

Lord of the Flies wasn't about anarchy. It was about human savagery. Though, what can I expect, schools love to over-analyze books to the point of non-enjoyment.

Regardless, anarchy won't work. Though, look on the bright side, you're tied with communism and ahead of meritocracy, so I guess it's not all that bad. Any system that fundamentally changes human nature will never work, that's what I say.

But, I have to say, I'm somewhat of a sympathist with non-socialist anarchy. It's ideas are good, it's just it's taking small goverment (Which I support) to the extreme, which would result widespread looting, etc. But it's better than meritocracy or aristocracy or absolute monarchy, at least if it worked.