Which One?

Originally posted by Freddie
What was Stalin's quote (possibly Lennin's)? The democracies will sell us the rope that we will hang them by.

yes... it was lenin...
but he referred to capitalism...
not democracy.

Why not go with a Constitutional Republic? It seemed to work pretty well for a while...Until some jackanapes thought a Democracy would work better.

I think the biggest mistake was making a system. But taking that away now would be like putting a baby in a snow field, we couldn't survive, and thats why anarchy will never work (or at least not until some kind of apocolypse).

I'd say socialism has the right ideas, but the wrong people and the wrong way of getting things done. Right now, I don't think any system would work, ecause there's not enough people who really want change.
for every person who wants an ideal world, theres a 1000 who couldn't give a sh*t.

once people go to true communism, the true marx ideal expressed in the Manifesto, instead of some personal crossbred ideal help up by some military coup leader. some nation will rise, that looks towards the good of people, and not control, but expand. if people are educated, then they won't be ignorant, and realise the truth, and not the lies, allowed to permeate in the undefunded indoctrination system here in the US. freedom and liberty is told to us by the gov't, it is felt known and loved by the people, and above all it is SEEN.

Originally posted by phoenix_cross
once people go to true communism, the true marx ideal expressed in the Manifesto, instead of some personal crossbred ideal help up by some military coup leader. some nation will rise, that looks towards the good of people, and not control, but expand. if people are educated, then they won't be ignorant, and realise the truth, and not the lies, allowed to permeate in the undefunded indoctrination system here in the US. freedom and liberty is told to us by the gov't, it is felt known and loved by the people, and above all it is SEEN.

Well said

Aristotle argued that, in their best manifestations, Monarchy was better than Oligarchy, and Oligarchy was better than democracy... because, assuming you DID have the brightest minds planning things, everything would be organized along the best possible lines...

BUT, he also said that all governments eventually entropy, and, in that case, he argued that a bad democracy was better than a bad oligarchy or a bad monarchy. So, his belief was that democarcy was the best form of government, overall.

For example, Marcus Aurelius may have been wiser than Abraham Lincoln, but James Buchanan and Warren Harding were better than Nero or Caligula.

the dynastic monarchal system was great. in eygpt it worked more than well for three millenia. the only problems is people today have no goal. people aspire to be great for themselves, rather than great for the world. if an egypt like system, modified to todays world, were create and upheld, then maybe we could re attain their level of knowledge of the universe.

Did egypt 'work'? Sure, if you define 'working' as the ability to buld giant monuments that serve no purpose, then, yes, it worked. If you define it as maximizing the lives of the most people, then it failed.

We tend to think that the greatness of a nation is just a function of its longevity-- and, when Egypt is talked baout as the greatest civ there ever was, that standard alone is used, because, otherwise, the average egyptian lived a lousy life...

Hell, if was around in 2000BC, I'd much rather be some barbarian in Europe, roaming around the Carpathian mountains hunting elk. Even in regards to ancient Rome, which gave us so many things, the 'great' civilization was surpased by various germanic tribes that, because they were more democratic, encouraged their people to be more active (just as Republican Rome had overun various established monarchies). Today, my guess is that the decendants of those barbarians far outnumber those who came from Roman nobility...

man only in dreams you are so dumb go somewhere else

very interesting. only in dreams is now the dumbest person alive

Originally posted by onlyinmydreams
Did egypt 'work'? Sure, if you define 'working' as the ability to buld giant monuments that serve no purpose, then, yes, it worked. If you define it as maximizing the lives of the most people, then it failed.

We tend to think that the greatness of a nation is just a function of its longevity-- and, when Egypt is talked baout as the greatest civ there ever was, that standard alone is used, because, otherwise, the average egyptian lived a lousy life...

Actually, that's not quite right;
Egyptians loved their lives so dearly that they made the afterlife into a mere continuation of how they lived. Everybody served a purose under Ma'at (Ma'at was the concept involving the order of the universe & how everything fits into its place within it). They loved their festivals.

Most people have been led to believe that the pyramids (& many other monuments & temples) were built almost exclusively with slave labor, but that wasn't true...Most of the workers were farmers who were temporarily out of work while the Nile was innundated. They were payed in wages of grain & beer (Yes, Egyptians loooved thier beer). Because of the fertility of the flood plains, food was plentiful, trade brought in exotic items & everyone had a purpose in society. If you get only the Bible's version on how the Hebrews were enslaved in Egypt, you'll also have to be reminded of a couple of things that the Bible *doesn't* mention: Hebrews weren't the *only* slaves in Egypt at that time; Nearly every other country *also* practiced slavery.

Granted, under certain Pharoahs (& even whole dynasties) there were some breakdowns in the sytem of prosperity...However, even all the way through the Greek Ptolemic Dynasties, any other empire that had even temporarily conquered Egypt (During the Intermediate Periods), even those rulers adopted Egyptian custom & social behaviors. Egypt *does* have the longest running history of maintaining its own indigenous *culture*...Even longer than China has!

But, getting back to the main topic of this thread, I think I'd prefer a Consentual Anarchy...Everyone has as much freedom as he can handle. There's basically two rules I'd consider to be worthy of such a culture: Each individual must take responsibility for his own actions (Basically, anyone can do whatever they wish as long as no one is hurt unnecessarily); Your freedom ends where my nose begins (Your right to freedom doesn't include impunging on my right to the same freedoms).