Best form of government?

You're awfully uninformed, and to quote emma goldman "the human nature argument is...an excuse not to think"

There is a huge difference in anarcho-capitalism and true anarchism.

The former removes tabs on big business, whilst enslaving ordinary citizens...creating, guess what, tyrrany.

The latter, removes legislation from ALL people. And no...they don't do whatever the hell they want. They must comply with a basic rule...that they must offer others the same right to self government that they do themselves. Any form of tyranny arises and they will lose their precious freedom, their socioeconomic justice and their community values...I think there is an enormous amount of incentive to remain compassionate and fair right there. Under capitalism the incentive lies with competition...hence people are greedy, and they suck, and hence the myth is perpetuated that humans are unable to govern themselves (which is simply untrue), therefore forcing an increasing desire on the people BE governed. And interestingly enough...what mystical law applies to our leaders that makes them exempt from the "human nature argument"?

Anyway, I am a fan of democratic socialism too, but Anarchism IMO should be the ultimate ideal to strive for. Its not such a "utopian" idea once you simply THINK about it.

A utopian idea is one where millions of people are forced to comply with the laws of one central government...hence 3 million americans currently in prison. Because people supposedly "suck"

What is the answer?

 

Democratic libertarian communism would be the best.

Democratic being it is the people's will, which any legitimate government needs in order to exist (they don't last without being legitimate). Also, we can do things democratically now, make decisions that way. We don't rich white representatives anymore.

Libertarian as opposed to authoritarian. We don't need to be Stalinists and shoot everybody who disagrees with us. That would just mean we aren't legitimate.

Communist so that the government (democratic libertarian government) controls the means of production, things are evenly distrubuted, and society is classless.



So many don't know what communism really is. Its not the Stalinists of the USSR or the Maoists in China or Fidel Castro and his authoritarian government. Stalin kicked Lenin out of the communist party (Lenin! Lenin is part of the definition of communism).
I don't know much about Mao and China, but I know they are similar to stalin but understand a bit more (yea thats vauge). Fidel Castro prosecutes people who say stuff agianst him and locks up judges who don't put people away for him for talking out agianst him (5 years one guy I met). I've also heard rumors that one of the first things Fidel Castro did when he came to power was kill Cuban Troskyists. Nobodys provided evidence though.

 

We agree on something, that's good. I may not be as uninformed as you give me credit (being twice your age and all), but thanks anyway.

Anarchy, as you're proposing, is great in theory, provided people have similar visions, and moral and ethical standards. THAT's the point I was trying to make, and THAT's the challenge to such a system. If, however, everyone is like minded and capable of self-governance, then yes, I agree, let's do away with the government and be free. Less overhead, less beaurocracy, and less fat cats to absorb our collective resources, let 'em go out and produce something good for society instead of sitting on their fat asses while making the big decisions for the rest of us...

Incidently, this is a major challenge to communes. Most communes fail because, while everyone goes into it with similar visions of freedom and self sufficiency, often people's ideals and visions are slightly different, or they change over time, and this becomes a problem. Then there's always those egocentric types (the ones who suck) that end up trying to horde the resources. The human nature argument, whether or not you wanna give it credit, is always a factor.

And I s'pose one can take "Anarchism" to mean a number of things, economic or otherwise, though it's possible I took your words out of context...

I also agree that the number of people we have in prison is ridiculous, but I see it as a way for the system to exploit those who are economically disadvantaged, and keep them in their "place". Look at all the people who are imprisoned for something stupid like posession of weed, for example, then look at the demographics of those people, disproportionately minorities and poor people.

Capitalism on some levels is good because it provides incentive to succeed, but it's gotten out of hand, the scale of disparity is unbalanced and unhealthy in this country, and the reason government has become so invasive is to maintain this imbalanced "order." Less disparity would lead to less resentment on the part of the "have nots," so people would have less incentive to commit crimes, and we would need less law enforcement, ergo less government.

When I was in the military in Europe over 20 years ago, I noticed far less police, the people were honest and self-governing. If you committed a crime and someone saw it, they would turn you in.

Our Founding Fathers had a vision of what America should be. I wonder what their reaction would be if they knew what it is now...

 

Our founding fathers said political parties are dangerous and shouldn't be formed.

They'd defidantly be horrified if they were brought to our time and didn't get a technology shock.

Atleast that is what I like to think. They all might of been a bunch of Lockeians, seen this all coming, and decided it would work to the wealthy white people's advantage.

The people who were agianst the ratification of The Constitution were right about everything. They were right about the executive branch gaining too much power.

 

Yes, but the NDP does not support NAFTA. They are moderate capitalists, if you could even call them that.

 

I think being twice my age you should have been sensible enough to not talk about true anarchism and anarcho-capitalism in the same post without making clear distinctions.

The latter has NOTHING to do with anarchism. So next time...to avoid people telling you you're uninformed, make it a bit clearer what you mean. Personally i don't think you should have mentioned it in relation to anarchism.

Secondly...anarchism has nothing to do with the people being "like minded". Strange, I can make the same point for capitalism. Millions of people who are NOT like minded, living under the SAME laws. How can you govern millions of very different people with the same laws? It doesn't make sense. Its a good system, economically, and in terms of "survival value" (its sweeping the earth). But it doesn't cater for people, their true nature and their social needs. And that is why, under an enourmous central government, people who dont "fit in" need to be fixed, controlled, isolated or imprisoned.

I am not particularly for complete anarchism on a worldwide scale as it probably wouldn't work. In small communities with stable living systems, yes. I am probably for a more reduced government. After all, the argument against anarchism is that people by nature are greedy and immoral, then why, i ask, would you want these disgusting animals could "people" leading you, making your decisions and dictating where you money goes? It doesn't make sense. Again, its successful, but its not good for people, and its not the best life.

 

I'm not sure I know of what distinction you describe here (bein' uninformed and all , but let me take a shot at it...

...I think the assumption you're making is that, in a capitalist society, we are conditioned to be greedy (anarcho-capitalism), but in the ideal case (no conditioning), we would start with a clean slate, and perhaps anarchism would work, since no one would've been exposed to that part of their human nature, sort of a nature vs nurture argument. This is good (if that's what you mean--if not, please enlighten me), but I don't agree, I think greed is an innate part of human nature, call me cynical...

Though once again, I agree with you in that sense that I don't want greedy people running the show either, but there are various levels of morality, obviously some people are of higher moral standards than others. Ideally, those would be the leaders, if any...

In any civilization in which there are decisions to be made with resources to be tallied, it's difficult to do so without some central order. Every civilization has some form of government, even primitive tribes have tribal leaders. Sure, if we could all function independently without conflict of interest, anarchism would be great, but large-scale decisions need to be made, so a lack of order would result in chaos. That was my point.

I guess that in a society in which everyone is self-sufficient, independent, and of high moral standards, anarchism might work...

 

You're pessimistic. There are some greedy people though, but we don't HAVE to protect and value their property over our lives, health, and liberty do we?





I don't think the Russians were communist (the USSR) because they centralized the government way too much (too much power, shoot those who disagree) and they had a state. In Communism there is no state and no money. Also, Communism is classless. The USSR formed out of WW1, when it became normal to live under extremely cenrtalized governments. Basically Lenin laid the foundation for Stalinism, though what he strived for was an arguably distorted version of Marxism.

I don't believe real communism will occur until it becomes the general will (and crisis will cause people to desire change, and by people I mean the proletariat). This will happen though people becoming involved in the decisions they make, and deciding to be free.

I believe you can get most people to see the evil of Capitalism, but there will always be a few psychos out there which will make Anarchism extremely difficult.

Its really the general mindset that determines what is possible. Today most people don't think, they don't have any opinion on politics. Its easier for them to just ignore it all, though I find that impossible myself. It is easier to get the general population (the working class) to see how Capitalism enslaves them and destroys the world than it is to get all people to be responsible (for Anarchism). So Anarchy isn't impossible, just very difficult.

The biggest problem with far left groups is what we are going to do and how we are going to do it. Like any other opposing groups (we oppose Capitalism) we are completely divided. For example, when the Nazis took power in Europe, everybody from Communists to Royalists wanted to fight them off, but they were too different to work together agianst the Nazis.

Theres Marxists, Stalinists, Maoists, Trotskyists, Leninists, Anti-Leninsts Marxists, and a whole bunch of other groups that disagree on how things should be done, but they all oppose Capitalism.

I believe that we should abolish Capitalism. I believe we should establish a libertarian society as opposed to an authoritarian one. Authoritism (if thats a word) and leftism (?) do not mix well at all. Due to their lack of checks and balances they are more prone to corruption, so they can't be centralized if they want to succeed and be true to the ideas of Karl Marx.

There was one more thing I wanted to say. Due to the difficulty is determining what real Marxism is, people think its what happened in Russia. The bourgeois are scared and don't want it, so they encourage this ignorance and practice it themselves, and then they go and exploit the working class.

 

hrmmm... im interested...


i see nobody has voted theocracy... but... how many of you support the dalai lama being put back in power in tibet

 

*raises her hand*

 

so an undemocratic theocrat? put in purely on religious grounds? thats crazy if you ask me.

 

pffft. not undemocratically - ideally no. And not based upon religious grounds alone.

 

but thats the reason he was there... before china invaded (btw, i dont support the chinese controll of tibet) the head of state was the dalai lama of that time. The only way he'd be put in power would be for religious reasons.


also, when the tension between china and tibet started building, he decided just to kick all the chinese out of the country! you want someone like that in power?

 

I'm going to have to say yes, yes I do. But not for religious reasons, for political and ethical reasons. It's perhaps a radical view, but I see it as a longterm solution to regain stability within the country. Tibet would need to be recognised by other countries in order to do this, and they would need to maintain some kind of peace treaty with China. This is all very hypothetical, and I didn't really want to be dragged into this discussion - but I support an independent Tibetan state with a leader chosen by the people.

Kicking all the Chinese out the ... "country" is a radical thing to do, but it nonetheless sends a message to the Chinese that there will be unrest in Tibet until they regain some kind of rightful ownership and control over the land the people wish to govern. At least the Chinese aren't being put into gas chambers, hunted down and exterminated. There are worse choices that a leader could make after years of such a struggle.

A good leader shows some courage against adversity.

 

but you cant ignore the religious reasons, the soul reason he was there was for religious reasons! Tibet does need to be recognised as a country, i agree, but not with a theocrat as the head of state.


If the US had a rift with mexico, would the correct way of sending a message to mexico be to kick all the mexicans out of the US?


Hitler showed courage against adversity, showing that thats a characteristic that can work both ways... in fact, i would liken it to being plain stubborn.

 

Yes, EXACTLY! Thank you!

No doubt I'm a pessimist, but I won't argue that at the root of human nature is good, and perhaps if I hadn't lived my life in a capitalist culture I might see things differently. It's too bad some folks are born sociopaths, and those people are the reason we need government to begin with, to keep the peace and protect the rest of us...

 

Why? Tibet is not a western country. How have they not demonstrated a superiority to western living in several aspects of life within a religious framework? Your western-centric views seem more fundamentalist than the dalai lama's.

Thats hardly a comparison. If you have to think about why, then...I won't say anything.

Again. A ludicrous and pathetic comparison. And it has NOTHING to do with the argument. Sorry to pick on you a lot chris but you have more faith in your own opinions (or your grasp of the facts) than bloody Jesus Christ.

 

No, i am just taking your points, and putting them into other situations? I think doing that just hi-lights the flaws in your arguments.

You seem to act like democracy is a purely western sentiment, that has no place in anywhere that is not the west... Could you verify your stance on democracy for me?

 

Did Tibet not have an effective form of living/government that was based more around tribalism (which is very similar to anarchism)with the dali lama as a religious guide like the pope as opposed to a leader before china raided the country?

So look outside of the rigid merit system in your own brain and look at what WORKS for tibet as opposed to what works for us, you little shit.

 

Don't pick on Chris. He has all valid points, and that's why I didn't want to get dragged into this argument.