Taijitu
Forum Meta => Archive => General Discussion Archive => Topic started by: Noachian on August 27, 2007, 08:35:36 PM
-
What you think.
-
Democratic solcailsm.
sorry, i suck at spelling.
-
Would that not be under Democratic Republic?
-
i quess so.
-
No, democratic socialism would not sort under democratic republic since a republic isn't nessessarily a democracy.
I myself belive that the only good government is a government that is at all times working to make itself unneeded, obsolete and to abolish itself.
-
cool.
-
constitutional monarchy.
-
AMEN
-
I live in a constitutional monarchy, it doesn't work too well, could work better and is definitely better than most of the alternatives. And you need to differentiate between constitutional monarchies: Those where the head of state has real political power and those where *he is only a figure head.
-
I also live in a Constitutional Monarchy ours works great really, but ours is a little more involved with the Government than our Scandinavian counterparts.
-
I am of the belif that if the Swedish prime minister and government was accountable for their actions before the king who in turn were to represent the people's interests with the power to force re-elections when he sees tendencies of the politicians loosing themselves in their own ideologies, then Sweden would have a much better society than we do now.
-
Seeing that Communism isn't on the list for some reason while Anarchy is (neither have governments), I'll pick the latter.
-
Seeing that Communism isn't on the list for some reason while Anarchy is (neither have governments), I'll pick the latter.
Really that's an interesting point! I would have thought Communism would have come under Authoritarian category.
-
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
I take it you have no idea what Communism is to mix it with Stalinism, Maoism and other state capitalist doctrines.
-
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
I take it you have no idea what Communism is to mix it with Stalinism, Maoism and other state capitalist doctrines.
;)
-
:D
-
"Monarchy with Myrorian characteristics": Where the King can avoid all the squabbling of a bureaucracy/democracy, but can be impeached on a whim if he breaks any of several "unbreakable laws" (i.e., a constitutional amendment). The judges who do so would be the only democratic thing in my government, to avoid a king appointing corrupt judges and then go about violating everyone's rights.
-
"Monarchy with Myrorian characteristics": Where the King can avoid all the squabbling of a bureaucracy/democracy, but can be impeached on a whim if he breaks any of several "unbreakable laws" (i.e., a constitutional amendment). The judges who do so would be the only democratic thing in my government, to avoid a king appointing corrupt judges and then go about violating everyone's rights.
Your form of Government is as interesting as your Nations Church. However that sound much like a Constitutional Monarchy. Does your King have all political power?
-
raw communism isn't a form of government, if that's why it's not there, than Anarchy shouldn't be either. My answer is not what is the government i think is more efficient or the most fancy, but the best form of government as a leadership form. Chosen Republic (Doesn't have to be democratic, but what the heck, plus what is now democratic isn't the true form of the word, democracy is an anti-authoritarian form, almost left-ish, but most of the democratic movements are right-ish.)
Republic has someone in power, actually more than one, that's what makes me feel good about it, there's not 1 asshole up there, there's more than one, giving him more than 1 points of view, and all should be governed by what people wants. Anything that is ran by 1 man only turns out authoritarian, basics for dictatorship. Any anti-dictatorship system is welcome in my opinion. This excludes most of the forms of government there are written on the choices.
Theocratic is a good one, normally theocratic systems are ruled by spiritual leaders, that tends to be a dictatorship because either you follow the spirit the spiritual leader orders you, or you get decapitated or something. But it's a good system nevertheless, giving you an example, i can listen to Morocco radio when i go to south Portugal, they always say thank you to each other, they are always very polite. People in this countries are always very polite because of the religion. So theocratic systems make the people, by force, follow moral guidance, and that's nice. Except you can't follow your own convictions, but there can be a miracle that a theocratic system may not be authoritarian.
Anyway, Republic/democracy systems are as good as quoting Winston Churchill
Where the King can avoid all the squabbling of a bureaucracy/democracy
so the king has all the power, but doesn't have all the power? people are not free to follow anything but the King, but they can follow everything they want?
-
Huzzah for representation rather than mob control! (Republican Democracy).
-
vote :fight:
-
VOTE MONARCHY O:-)
-
Of course someone deserves authority over me without consent of the populous :D
-
i think you are the reason there are such messed up kids around here...speak straight...your ideals are misunderstood by some lost children of the world...*snif*
Hey I know how Kings can be as great as fascist dictators, and how Kings can suck as fascist dictators, and how Kings can suck as ruining a whole country to pursue their interests. I learn from history...I don't make mistakes that have been committed long before me. That's why Europe is so great after having Hitler and Berlin Wall, among other things...some other countries could use some of this History lessons...
-
Ok ok VOTE CONSTITUTIONAL MONARCHY (and most dictators nowadays are Presidents)
-
Delfos: He has all the power, unless he wants to do something illegal. Then it can be taken away from him.
And about "learning from history": That's funny, considering socialism's horrible track record.
I also love how you call believing in people's right to own themselves "messed up". Such a cunning argument by an equally cunning political theorist.
-
VOTE MONARCHY O:-)
Ok ok VOTE CONSTITUTIONAL MONARCHY (and most dictators nowadays are Presidents)
VOTE MONARCHY O:-)
Vote Barakarin!
-
DOWN WITH KINGS!
No, I don't mind them too much as long as they sit on their thrones and leave all the administration to elected government. I still voted democratic republic, though.
-
ELVIS WAS THE ONLY TRUE KING! DEATH TO THE FALSE PROPHETS!
-
Delfos: He has all the power, unless he wants to do something illegal. Then it can be taken away from him.
And about "learning from history": That's funny, considering socialism's horrible track record.
I also love how you call believing in people's right to own themselves "messed up". Such a cunning argument by an equally cunning political theorist.
haha, you didn't get it, i wasn't expecting that you would get it, but thanks for the comment.
your socialism consideration is horrible...I'm sure you haven't yet tried the sweet taste of socialism. Kings do whatever they want, that's why they are kings, if they cannot rule properly, they are not kings, just Very Important Puppets. I can clearly see you have some kind of fantasy for Kings and monarchies, i assure you they are only as sweet as you describe in bed time stories.
thanks again for the comment (big laugh) about the "messed up", you clearly fit there
-
If everyone ruled no one except themselves, we would have anarchy.
-
i honestly believe that there should be a democratic republic in which the federal govornment is only in charge of maintaining the armed forces and making sure the economy prevails. all other power should be localized. i believe each county should self govorn for the most part, set up whatever regulations you wish. so if maine wanted to be a libertarian paradise it could, if northern california wanted to be completely communal (much like communist except not world wide) it could and florida could continue screwing up their own elections. basicly don't baby sit let the people decide what they want in their own neck of the woods.
-
in theory the systems are perfect, otherwise they wouldn't be political systems ever considered to be considerable
-
I have yet to hear valid arguments against making me the absolute ruler.
-
I ahev answered the question, but I would have found it easier if I had known the context of the question.
For example, are we talking for a NAtionstates region? Real life nation? Nationstates nation?
Also, what may be the best form of government in a large, industrialised state would not be the best form of government in, say, a bronze age city state. "Best" is a very subjective word.
I have picked the form of government I would most like to live under. But that is not necessarily the "best" one.
-
Why is Monarchy not under Autocracy?
-
*realises that we do not have a ROFLMAO expressive icon*
man, this kind of topics...
-
It's a theory of government. And again, in theory, it works. Like socialism. But the difference is mine hasn't been tried, so we don't know. Socialism fails every time.
And you don't need to rule absolutely to be a king. You just need to inherit the throne. Like you criticizing the USA, Delfos, you need to research before you criticize. Again you've run out of arguments against me, so you turn to blunt insults like insinuating I get bedtime stories at night. Hey, that might work if you're on CNN.
Here's democracy for you:
"Speaker of the House, we've just been attacked! We need to go to war!"
"WAIT. WE NEED TO VOTE ON THIS."
*six months later, among the rubble of the House*
"OK, we can go to war."
-
hm hm? might fail in USA, not exactly everywhere...it's slowly working in here, but the government has better things to do than sit and be true socialist. I know it's possible, just not possible in USA because of £@§@£€£ like you.
-
i thinl that pur is correct Confederacy is the best form for government the states should be the ones to decide what is best for them not the feds what is right for one area isnt gonna be right for every where the fed should watch out for the nation as a whole security wise but not in domestic way
Confederacy = power flows from the state to the feds
-
I call my preferred form of government Council Democracy, as it is based off a system of workers' councils. It's very similar to Syndicalism, in that it's based off the workplace. Basically, it looks like this:
All the workers in a given workplace (i.e. a factory, retail outlet, farm, and also the armed forces) are members of their Workplace Council. Each Workplace Council governs the affairs of its members inside the workplace. It is a forum where members can air grievances, suggest changes, and basically speak about any relevant subject. If a change is to be adopted, it must be approved by a simple majority vote. The members also elect one of their number to speak for their workplace at the Industrial Council. This member is recall-able at any time.
The Industrial Council is made up of these representatives from the Workplace Council, and represents all the workers in a particular industry. There might be a Farm Workers' Council, a Steelworkers' Council, a Soldier's Council, etc. The main responsibility of this level of Council is to ascertain the productive capacity of each workplace, and to disseminate beneficial changes from one workplace to another. For example, if workplace A adopts a more efficient system, the Industrial Council exists so every other workplace in that industry can learn about and implement this change. The Industrial Council then elects one of its members to the Executive Council. This representative is recall-able at any time.
The Executive Council is empowered to concoct the national economic plan based on the information provided by the Workplace and Industrial Councils about productive capacity. That is, it sets goals to the workplaces on how much they will produce. Individual Workplace Councils may withhold their productive capacity if they feel the demands placed upon them are unreasonable. If this happens, the Executive Council is expected to moderate its demands, though it may not demand less than the Workers Council felt to be its productive capacity (see second paragraph). It also oversees fair distribution of resources, and surplus resources (minimum resource allocation to individuals is decided by the Industrial Councils) are remanded to itself. With these surplus resources, it may perform all the functions of a national government.
This system is meant to be as democratic as possible, and reflects the fact that political power stems from productive power. It is a Federal system, I guess, but the federated entities are not geographic states, but are instead very small productive units.
Also, Myroria's criticism of democracy two posts ago assumes that both citizens and representatives are morons. Historically, if a democracy feels it's been attacked, it responds incredibly quickly. Look at the Mexican War. The United States wasn't even attacked on its soil (the soil was disputed at best), its army was far smaller than Mexico's, it was totally unprepared, even though it had faced a major diplomatic crisis only months before (over Oregon), and yet it won the war. Why? Because democracies can respond quickly, and because procedure, bureaucracy, and lengthy debate are consigned to peacetime. If a people is attacked, it knows to fight back immediately, and with all of its strength.
Now, you're completely right that democracies are incredibly reluctant to take part in aggressive or preemptive war, and those wars are correctly subjected to long debate and popular input, both before and after they are entered into. But I see this as a good thing. Don't you?
-
a very good system indeed but i still prefer a confederacy. but then again i am all for self determination even with the systems we use.
-
What exactly do you mean by "self-determination"? To me, this phrase means "national self-determination," but you may mean something entirely different.
-
indevidual self determination.
-
but council isn't an option :p and in my version the council is quite larger and more 'republic' style, the ones in the assembly are, in example of the workers, the working leaders, or working syndicate leaders. And head of the assembly would be a minister, that would be included in a council of ministers, basically as i have in my RP nation. It's not exactly the same as your council but very close. I don't know too much about "Council Democracy" myself...maybe your could light things up
-
To PUR: ah. Well, isn't that a given? :drunks:
To Delfos: I know it's not an option, that's why I didn't vote. The closest would probably be "anarchy," but only since the democracy option limits your choice to a democratic republic. To be real "anarchy" the Executive Council will have ceased to exist to to underuse.
The basic difference between my system and yours is that mine comes from the Councilist and Syndicalist traditions and keeps a very large element of decentralization, while yours makes the national government much larger, in the Social Democratic tradition.
-
yes quite like a government-nation
-
you've lost me. Do you mean nation-state?
-
maybe, don't forget I'm not English, most of my concepts come from mother language :p My version of council if practically the same as yours, only that yours have (if i understood right) authonomous different councils for each while in my theory there are presidents and ministers leading this councils, like a centralized council. The Government is your best friend and strongest ally.
-
A nation with an authoritarian militant government that can have absolute power in the social lives of humans and enforce patriotism, while having minimal power in the economy.
-
some use double standards, there's always a way to control everything and everyone
-
A nation with an authoritarian militant government that can have absolute power in the social lives of humans and enforce patriotism, while having minimal power in the economy.
This is known as a dystopia. :trout:
-
After this vote, i guess Churchill was right, ironic...
-
First of all, I think there is no such thing as a perfect form of government... All systems have their pros and cons.
As for what the best form of government is, I don't really know. However, I would choose the constitutional monarchy, provided that it is a representative democracy of course.
It means that the head of state can be a constant in a country where changes in political relations may frequently occur. You won't up losing a head of state (who is often also the political leader) that is finally getting some experience and getting some rookie in return.
It also has the added benefits of not having to spend millions on presidential elections, nepotism and redecorating presidential residences (let's not forget that bit! :P).
And of course, elections shouldn't be based on a district system, as this would inevitably lead to misrepresentation.
Quick example for an election with two parties (A and B) and districts with equal numbers of voters:
A wins 51% of the districts with a 55% majority
B wins 49% of the districts with a 60% majority
Party A has 47.65% of the votes, but gets 51% of the representatives
Party B has 52.35% of the votes, but gets only 49% of the representatives
Now over 3% of the population isn't represented and those who voted party A are overrepresented. More importantly, due to this misrepresentation new government policy will now be made to suit the wishes of the minority...
-
A nation with an authoritarian militant government that can have absolute power in the social lives of humans and enforce patriotism, while having minimal power in the economy.
This is known as a dystopia. :trout:
The Maoists appear to know dystopia best it appears
-
WHO THE FUCK ARE YOU CALLING A MAOIST!? >:(
-
Verak, you voted Military state yet your a proud Canadian, fair enough :'(
-
well i meant Republic Democracy won this votation democratically, proofing it's the best form of government, that's how ironic it is.
-
well i meant Republic Democracy won this votation democratically, proofing it's the best form of government, that's how ironic it is.
A Constitutional Monarchy can be democratic as well (and usually if not always is). The voting option 'Republic (Democratic)' wasn't meant to represent democracy; it was representing a Republic that ISN'T Authoritarian or Dictated etc, simply representing Republics with a Democratic system as 'Monarchy (Constitutional)' represented Monarchy that has a democratically running system so there isn't actually a voting option which represents democracy because there is in fact no such thing as just a democracy because a democracy is the way the country works not its 'frame', its 'frame' is the the way it has set itself up; with a President or a Monarch or a Militia etc. In conclusion Democracy was not represented in this 'votation' and it was not Democracy which won; it was a Republic (the Republic just happens to have a democratic system) and therefore in this voting Republic won against Monarchy not Democracy against Absolutism.
-
WHO THE FUCK ARE YOU CALLING A MAOIST!? >:(
Hehee.
-
Constitutional Monarchy IF:
The constitution is strong and the Monarchy is weak AND
The nation is very large in which case sub governments (states or dukedoms) are needed.
Smaller country = better for Monarchy. ;)
-
A police state goes against everything I believe in. I agree with GC: What Verak suggests is indeed a dystopia. One uncannily like Ingsoc.
-
Hmm......the best or the most moral/just?
-
I believe, Ryaz, that according to the terms of the OP, we are allowed to define "best" in whatever way we want. I happen to define "best" as "able to most effectively serve the interests of the proletariat and each individual worker." Others may define it differently, and are indeed encouraged to do so.
-
Hmm......the best or the most moral/just?
This poll was to vote for YOUR personal favorite form of Government or the one you think is best to suit any country in any condition.
-
I thought it was like the best model of government, the more efficient or the one that works better for everyone (most efficient). My favorite is a sort of raw communism, like a cooperative autonomous society which doesn't imply government at all. but that's just fantasy (sorry GC :trout:), but i consider under a world of capitalism, socialism is the girl of my eyes.
-
Well, it's the next logical historical step, certainly, Delfos. And you didn't have to hit me with a fish. :'(
-
I voted constitutional monarchy, all though I think a system similar to one, where the monarch has a bit of actual power and woks with Parliament would be better.
I think constitutional monarchies work best for the simple reason of unity. With modern day politics it gets to easy to lose site of the goal, the bettering of the state. People get disillusioned with the state because of all the bickering going back and forth between parties. The constitutional monarchy, however, provides something above all of that, a monarch who doesn't partake in political squabbles. Someone who symbolizes the nation, not a party or ideology, simply the nation. Someone who people can unite around when the politicians can't seem to agree what pizza joint to order from.
Economically I believe in capitalism, with an ever-watchful government ready to take the needed steps to make sure the economy doesn't go out of control. Basically let the free market work, but step in if the economy is unstable.
-
Sorry GC :drunks: this is the closest emoticon we have for hugging.
-
Yeah, we need one of those...
With modern day politics it gets to easy to lose site of the goal, the bettering of the state.
I'm going to take issue with this. Is not the goal of any responsible government the betterment of the people's condition, the promotion of the general welfare, rather than the betterment of the State?
-
With modern day politics it gets to easy to lose site of the goal, the bettering of the state.
I'm going to take issue with this. Is not the goal of any responsible government the betterment of the people's condition, the promotion of the general welfare, rather than the betterment of the State?
Yes, I agree with you actually. Betterment of the people's condition, the promotion of the general welfare is part of what I mean when I say "betterment of the state."
-
well it's in profit of something or someone, we can't assume who that would be. Some say politics are liars and manipulate the people, can be true but we have different politics in Portugal and similar countries, our presidents don't do as much speeches as the American ones, so there are less opportunities for them to lie. And the government opposition is the one that speaks the most in news, and the government justifies themselves and their program instead of attacking the opposition like i see in USA. Well yes, they can attack, but they justify what happens, not just: "You smell!" "Yes but you are stupid!", it's more like "You smell!" "Yes it comes with the outfit, but you had the same smell a while ago, and we're doing better than you"
-
With modern day politics it gets to easy to lose site of the goal, the bettering of the state.
I'm going to take issue with this. Is not the goal of any responsible government the betterment of the people's condition, the promotion of the general welfare, rather than the betterment of the State?
Yes, I agree with you actually. Betterment of the people's condition, the promotion of the general welfare is part of what I mean when I say "betterment of the state."
Glad we've cleared this up O:-)
-
Speaking of forms of government, I watched government propaganda in school today. Here's how the video envisioned monarchy. This is a direct quote:
*poor man kneels before the King, quivering*
King: "I give you all the lands to the West!"
Queen: "But the lands to the West are for my cricket matches!"
King: "Oh. Uh, uh...off with his head!"
This is no joke. I love how the propaganda democrats feed us oversimplifies monarchy, acting as if one would have no restraints at all. Anyone who RPs knows the Myrorian monarch can't just do whatever he wants.
So, again, the best form of government in my opinion: A monarchy and/or dictatorship where the monarch and/or dictator has limitations on his power, but needs no stagnant Senate.
So, here's my idea of democracy, in the viewpoint of the propaganda I was fed:
*poor man quivers before Speaker of the House*"
SotH: "I give you all the land to the West!"
Senator 1: "No! That's a grave abuse of your power! I move for your impeachment!"
Senator 2: "No! He should be allowed to do that!"
Senator 3: "Global warming is a threat on our society! Outlaw cars!"
Senator 4: "No! That's a threat on our economy!"
Senator 5: "Increase production of cars!"
Poor man: "But what about my land?"
Senator 2: "Give the man his land!"
Senator 5: "Increase production of land!"
Senator 3: "More land means more cars, which means more pollution! Outlaw land!"
President: "Ah! I'm choking on a pretzel!"
Senator 3: "Pretzel factories harm the environment! Outlaw pretzels!"
Senator 1: "I move for the impeachment of the Speaker of the House!"
SofH: "But the President is having sex in his office! Even though it's not illegal, impeach him for immorality!"
Senator 1: "Yeah! Impeach the President!"
-
I believe the best form is Autocracy but is it fun? no!
-
Ah, how representative democracy ph4ils.
-
heh, how over simplified. democracy has problems, but monarchy has much more, that's my ultimate point, look at what happened to the french monarchy...i would laugh if someone took control of your country and did that. There goes myrorian monarchy heads rolling down the street...
-
So, here's my idea of democracy, in the viewpoint of the propaganda I was fed:
*poor man quivers before Speaker of the House*"
SotH: "I give you all the land to the West!"
Senator 1: "No! That's a grave abuse of your power! I move for your impeachment!"
Senator 2: "No! He should be allowed to do that!"
Senator 3: "Global warming is a threat on our society! Outlaw cars!"
Senator 4: "No! That's a threat on our economy!"
Senator 5: "Increase production of cars!"
Poor man: "But what about my land?"
Senator 2: "Give the man his land!"
Senator 5: "Increase production of land!"
Senator 3: "More land means more cars, which means more pollution! Outlaw land!"
President: "Ah! I'm choking on a pretzel!"
Senator 3: "Pretzel factories harm the environment! Outlaw pretzels!"
Senator 1: "I move for the impeachment of the Speaker of the House!"
SofH: "But the President is having sex in his office! Even though it's not illegal, impeach him for immorality!"
Senator 1: "Yeah! Impeach the President!"
:clap:
Post of the YEAR!
-
ROFL!
I do not think I have seen something here that funny. You rock Myroria
-
Anarchy would be the best, and the reason is thus: If humans could all settle their differences and not be the stupid people we are today, we could have an anarchy, which is maybe a little like democracy in the way of power to the people. Better still, with our evolving technology today, we may be able to have a direct democracy, with the people controlling everything, instead of electing corrupt representatives.
-
Although I am not a member of Taijitu (I am in The Federation of Folsom), I voted other. I voted other because I feel that any form of government will do as long as it is economically sustainable. Zakalak is currently a Compulsory Consumerist State, though every once in a while it crosses over into Corporate Police State. I do not know how my economy got to be so good as the Tax Rate in Zakalak is a flat rate of 59%.
-
So if I, as supreme ruler of your country decide to torture in every conceivable way you and your family, it's okay as long as the economy is okay?
-
I guess Solnath has a point there as I do not want to be tortured, nor my family.
-
Meritocracy isn't on the list. That must be a conspiracy!
-
and you felt the need to gravedig this thread because...?
-
He just had to start it all over again...
-
who knows, who knows....
-
:koala:
I've some doubts about this animated koala...he looks suspicious.
-
heh, how over simplified. democracy has problems, but monarchy has much more, that's my ultimate point, look at what happened to the french monarchy...i would laugh if someone took control of your country and did that. There goes myrorian monarchy heads rolling down the street...
If that happened, the occupiers would be thoroughly owned by 109 million pissed-off Myrorians.
-
occupiers?
-
Perhaps I should just lock this thread for its stupidity...
-
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.
-
wow how many times can 1 thread be revived
-
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.
-
catastrophobic
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
Thats deep...i toyed with the Idea for Anarchy for a while.
-
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.
-
Not with the kind of creature we humans are anyway.
-
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
-
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.
-
To make a few narrow points:
Lord of the Flies presents a certain view of human nature, which in turn informs particular sense of the nature of society which human will (naturally) form. It's a bit harsh to say a reading of the story is invalid because it isn't directly expressed. Lord of the Flies definitely presents a microcosmic society, and themes of submissiveness-to-natural-leader (the tendency to form a non-anarchic society) are prevalent.
But it's better than meritocracy or aristocracy or absolute monarchy, at least if it worked.
This seems rather tautological - "If it worked, it would be good." By definition, I think, if something works, it follows that it is good, i.e. the statement is trivially true.
-
sorry....
-
Of course no system works completely. Even in democracy crime still occurs.
The more freedom there is, the more freedom to hurt others, and the less security. The more security, the less freedom. The perfect system would have both freedom and security, and this is a contradiction. One must balance ones own preferences for their ideal system. Some cannot see the point of freedom without security to let them enjoy it. Others cannot see the point of security without freedom to exercise. I just prefer freedom because I can think of other forms of security (such as revenge, mentioned before) and I value freedom above all else.
Every system will have flaws.
Perhaps some humans will need organisation - anarchy provides the freedom of association required. The flaws here are that freedom to escape a system is also required, but cannot be assured (so one should just be careful what one joins) and the possible result of militant gangs (but hopefully by not allying with a gang one can just hide while the two sides blow each other away.
On the up side, no war (except invaders who come to steal your land, so self defense may be necessary: good old gun-law free anarchy), no corruption and no taxes.
-
This topic has long been a debate that can never be truly addressed. While Republic/Democracy is the most fair, different governments work for different countries. Take Iraq for example. These people have always been given what they want: energy, water, food, you name it. Even if it was a small quantity of it, they got it. Iraqis have always been dominated. Democracy does not work there. If you tell them that they have a choice between an 80-year-old idiot and a 32-year-old democracy vigilante, they wouldn't even vote because they know that the 80-year-old is the most qualified because he is the eldest. Communism would have worked great in Iraq. In Africa, some countries need democracy. In the Middle East is where it all comes down to it.
Thus, the government depends on the culture.
-
"Communism" and "worked" shouldn't even be in the same sentence.
Though the idea that meritocracy would even function as a form of government is even more laughable.
-
Communism would work more than democracy. The Iraqis have to be told what to do. They can't make their own choices.
I agree. Communism is a foolish concept and will never happen. It's a great idea. It's a bad plan. Karl Marx had a three too many than he usually did the night he sat down with Engels.