It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

What is your ideal form of Government?

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 5 2005 @ 08:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by RANT
So it's more like man got too intelligent for his own good, rather than we aren't smart enough.


I would have to disagree with you. We have these incredible technological advancements with no maturity to control them. For every great invention, half of the people are rushing to use it for selfish means. I would classify that as the inability to govern themselves. The world is much bigger then you or me. With true freedon comes the burden of true responsibility.




posted on Feb, 5 2005 @ 08:28 PM
link   
Transhuman Anarchism, thats very close to what Im saying. As long as biological modification is voluntary, and selective. Too much tampering with the human genome is very dangerous. But we could do with a few choice mods.

Of course, true freedom and responsibility go hand in hand. My concern is not for the betterment of mankind. Simply the liberation of it to start iver and take a time out from other ideals imposed upon him.

Humans have traditionally done fine in anarchy. Only civilization and govornment have convinced humanity it cant survive without them.



posted on Feb, 5 2005 @ 08:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf
Transhuman Anarchism, thats very close to what Im saying. As long as biological modification is voluntary, and selective. Too much tampering with the human genome is very dangerous. But we could do with a few choice mods.


I agree, that is why I am an Open Source/Access advocate. I feel this movement(namely the Open Source Movement) should be applied to Science and Technology for the betterment of ALL of mankind, not just the nation that happened to invent it. It brings up alot of new risks as well that should be dealt with, but I am confident such a system would work much better then the alternatives. It won't happen overnight and to tell you the truth a major paradigm shift has to happen for this to become a possibility, but the more people advocating for it and fighting for it, the better chance it has to make a better future, not a Utopia as I believe that to be a fools dream but at least a society that is a bit better off then where we are at now. Who know it could morph into the perfect society a few hundred years off, but theres no way of knowing that for certain.



posted on Feb, 7 2005 @ 10:29 AM
link   
I was young once, and so I can see where all of you anarchists are coming from. However, it simply is not a viable system. You will rarely find me say this about anything in the entire world, but in the case of Anarchy and Self-Rule being the ideal government, you are flat wrong.

You are mistakenly tying the government into moral choices, and trying to decide your fate. That's not the way government is supposed to work, even though that's the way it does, sometimes.

In REALITY, the purpose of the government is to provide infrastructure (like roads), provide a standardized medium of exchange (money), and a means by which to try and convict those who break the law (courts, police).

Let's approach these one at a time:

INFRASTRUCTURE: - How long do you think, at our current population levels, we would last without roads, sewage systems, power plants, garbage disposal, and so forth? These things are not only expensive, but require constant maintenance, and past a certain population level, they are absolutely critical. A village of a few hundred may be able to live without these things. Perhaps even a few thousand, though not in healthy conditions. Who is to decide where the roads go, to coordinate traffic to ensure there aren't too many bottlenecks, or that tunnels/overpasses/bridges, etc are wide enough, and have enough load-bearing capacity? Who is going to pick up the trash, and make sure the biological waste that is byproduct of ANY society gets properly removed before disease sets in? Infrastructure is a vital part of society, even in ancient times, and without it, civilization is doomed to the stone age at best.

MONEY: - Technically, a society can get by without money. One can live entirely off the land, trading their skills or goods for what they cannot make themselves. However, money has the benefit of being a standardized medium of exchange for limited resources. Let us examine just one problem in a system based purely on bartering.

You are a carrot farmer, because the soil in your area is ideal for carrots. Unfortunately, so is nearly everyone else in your area. Thus the supply for carrots far exceeds the local demand. One day, a hailstorm damages all the roofs in the area. There is but one roofer in the area who has the skills and materials to properly repair the roofs, and he already has all the carrots that he wants. You can either offer him such an exhorbitant amount of carrots that it cleans you out, or you can find out what he wants, and spend the next week travelling back and forth to other areas, peddling your carrots, to get that item. Meanwhile, your leaky roof is ruining everything inside, or collapsing, and your carrot crop is not being tended to. This is a situation where money simplifies and speeds up matters tremendously.

LAWS AND JUSTICE: - Though we would all like to think we can live without laws, the fact of the matter is that in a society, at least a base minimum of laws are neccesary to ensure the peace. Perhaps you, the reader, are fully capable of living your life without harming anyone. But not everyone is. Additionally, vigilante justice, while sometimes neccesary, is not a permanent solution to crime. Sometimes the lines in a crime are not clear, sometimes the innocent are presumed guilty, and sometimes the guilty are presumed innocent. A jury by one's peers, or a judgement by someone whom is trusted and respected would be neccesary. Additionally, the same punishment that goes to one person, should go to the next person for the same crime in the same circumstances. Otherwise you have preferential treatment. For instance, if a white man steals a loaf of bread, and his punishment is to pay three times the cost of the bread, or serve 3 days in labor, then a black woman who steals a loaf of bread, a week later, should not be sentanced to death. A due process is neccesary, even in the barest form, to have a standard by which to convict, judge, and punish a crime.

Hopefully, I have made it clear why at least the barest form of a governing body is neccesary. Anarchy is a child's dream that exists only in the minds of those ignorant of the realities behind even the most basic of societies. Again, you will almost never find me saying this about anything else, but Anarchy is absolutely not the solution, under any circumstances except, perhaps, a hive-minded populace devoid of free will.



posted on Feb, 8 2005 @ 05:47 PM
link   


Choose: Slate (A); Slate (B); or Slate (C)


Libra, I am quite disappointed in you. First, you pose an excellent question: 'What Is Your Ideal Form of Government?' Then you proceed in typical modern American 'democratic' form to dictate to us what we will choose from a 'slate' of choices. Once a majority of us have spoken by 'writing in our own candidate' in favor of freedom, you then presume to correct our choices. And, of all things, you accuse the anarchists of being immature. I am an old man, and raise my voice for true freedom with a lifetime of hindsight behind me (and no, I am not old enough to be senile yet)!


Originally posted by thelibra
I was young once, and so I can see where all of you anarchists are coming from. However, it simply is not a viable system. You will rarely find me say this about anything in the entire world, but in the case of Anarchy and Self-Rule being the ideal government, you are flat wrong.


Opinion. Fact: two million years of hominid existence prove you wrong. Your modern forms of Government (extortion) are an experiment that have lasted for an eyeblink in history and have brought the ENTIRE WORLD to the brink of holocaust.


In REALITY, the purpose of the government is to provide infrastructure (like roads), provide a standardized medium of exchange (money), and a means by which to try and convict those who break the law (courts, police).


I prefer trails. Money is without value to Native people such as myself. And I would prefer to live in a world where cultural prejudice is not 'enforced' by an elite that is too dam lazy to work.


How long do you think, at our current population levels, we would last without roads, sewage systems, power plants, garbage disposal, and so forth?


And how long do you think we will last with them (pollution and overpopulation)?


Infrastructure is a vital part of society, even in ancient times, and without it, civilization is doomed to the stone age at best.


It works for me. It worked for my ancestors. And look at Burt Rutan. Without government, he made it to orbit. Government is impediment.


at least a base minimum of laws are neccesary to ensure the peace. Perhaps you, the reader, are fully capable of living your life without harming anyone. But not everyone is. Additionally, vigilante justice, while sometimes neccesary, is not a permanent solution to crime.


Vigilante justice, the last time I checked, is a very permanent solution to crime. The ancient Cherokee law represents a base minimum of laws: disturb the peace- in any way- and you live outside the wall. Threaten or attack someone, and you get a very small dart in the neck. From the offended party, not a hired professional sadistic killer, er, excuse me, officer. Problem solved. One law: Live and let live, or die.

Hopefully, I have made it clear why at least the barest form of a governing body is the best form of government. That government is best which governs least. I do not want government to protect me. I want it to stay the hell away from me. It is vampiristic, choking, and lives upon the fruits and misfortunes of others.

The power we have given it will be used against us, sooner or later.

[edit on 8-2-2005 by Chakotay]



posted on Feb, 9 2005 @ 03:39 PM
link   
I agree with chakotay and have a couple of extra points.

Responsibility [in all due respect]. I think that in an anarchic world people would become responsible very quickly, because if they didn’t they are going to end up meeting someone who is likely to take all they have even possibly murder them.

Murder. You all probably know that for most of us a human doing something like this goes against all our instincts unless provoked to such a point through some situation. There will always be murderers in any type of world. Within an anarchic world it would be an eye for an eye, civilized law goes out the window. Murderers get away with murder in a government run world, it wouldn’t be any different in an anarchic world.

In an anarchic world there wouldn’t be so many people because all the irresponsible people would die off. Maybe after sometime numbers might grow as some sort of free flowing system evolved, but pretty much those who were irresponsible would soon disappear.

In a world of anarchy it all comes down to the survival of the fittest and the smartest. If we were talking about a world like i described in my original post then there would be some organization for basic medications, there would be a limited power supply, probably free, there would be a sort of law man, but he/she certainly wouldn’t be out to cost you money or impose their law upon you. More likely they would be there to hunt you down and kill you because you have become way out of hand, without any doubt.

Now in my anarchic world, any one bunch of people living together and growing carrots would be just plain silly. That’s just not going to happen. People are smart, if they were going to live in a community then they would soon realize they would need all the basic's an anarchic community would need, all these basics they could create themselves without any corporation. And they would, because if they didn’t, they wouldn’t be able to have their community, and they would die. And that’s all the motivation you need. I doubt they would need money as they would be self sufficient. I guess when it comes to money, then that would be whatever was the most sort after commodity, food, clothes, knowledge, gold, silver.

This is my view of an anarchic world after the status quo so there would be plenty of resource for a while, but eventually those resources would be depleted and then it really would come down to the survival of the fittest and the smartest. It doesn’t take a brain surgeon to cook a rat or a cat even a dog. Sure there are complications when it comes to food but there are some simple rules to remedy. An anarchic world is a possibility, although unlikely, unless something happened to the governments and their army's of the world, where they were unable to control and impose their ways, on mass, upon the individual.

Who knows in a world of anarchy you might even see a more stable world as a whole.

The Libra
Sorry you only got a bunch of us anarchist’s reply.



posted on Feb, 10 2005 @ 09:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Chakotay


Choose: Slate (A); Slate (B); or Slate (C)


Libra, I am quite disappointed in you. First, you pose an excellent question: 'What Is Your Ideal Form of Government?' Then you proceed in typical modern American 'democratic' form to dictate to us what we will choose from a 'slate' of choices.


On the contrary. I never dictated that you had to choose from that list. I merely provided a link to a wide list of choices, with brief summaries, from a well respected encyclopedia site. It was a courtesy to those too lazy to be bothered looking up information themselves, or for those not well educated in the name of their chosen governmental type, but knew what they wanted.

For example "I think rule by scientists would be best, but what's it called? Oh, this list says it's a 'technocracy'..."


Originally posted by Chakotay
Once a majority of us have spoken by 'writing in our own candidate' in favor of freedom, you then presume to correct our choices. And, of all things, you accuse the anarchists of being immature.


I stated in the very first post that this was a thread in which you could debate against each other's choices. I am debating. I happen to think Anarchy is an immature and ignorant view of how to handle large populations of people. Instead of simply saying "You all suck, and are a bunch of stupid heads", I provided an extremely long allegory, as well as a comprehensive list of reasons why.

I can understand your disappointment at my not agreeing with you, but I have done nothing more than defend my viewpoints, and argue against those I disagree with. At last check, I not only have that right, but that responsibility as well, lest I let others do all the thinking for me for the rest of my life.

And before I get some quip about letting the government do the thinking for me, don't bother. I don't let them think for me. If I did, I'd have voted Bush.


Originally posted by Chakotay
I am an old man, and raise my voice for true freedom with a lifetime of hindsight behind me (and no, I am not old enough to be senile yet)!


Good on yer, and I'm glad you still have enough of an interest to raise your voice on your opinion. You have that right, and you have the right to argue your case. As do I.


Originally posted by Chakotay
Fact: two million years of hominid existence prove you wrong. Your modern forms of Government (extortion) are an experiment that have lasted for an eyeblink in history and have brought the ENTIRE WORLD to the brink of holocaust.


FACT: During that two million years, mating consisted largely of rape. Sharing resources was usually done by force. Whomever was strongest ruled over the weaker, also by force, until someone even stronger came along to do away with them. People regularly starved or froze to death, because of a lack of any sort of food storage technology. If you lived in a temperate climate, during the winter you were screwed.

Your idyllic view of our ancestors is laughable in the face of the reality of what went on back then. We were not civilized people, working in harmony on quaint little farms being one with the land with happy medicine men and noble chiefs. The world previous to about 5000BC was a horrific place where your "common man" would sooner kill anyone outside of their own tribe as look at each other. Tribes were, at best, small groups, perhaps a few hundred, who banded together to try and defend themselves against the rest of humanity. They were usually led by the eldest in the tribe, which, by the way is a governmental form known as gerontocracy. At worst, bands of humans were murderers, thieves, rapists, and pillagers, led by whomever was the strongest and best at taking things away from others, aka kakistocracy. Anyone who wasn't in one group or the other usually did not survive long enough to pass on their genes.

This "terror" you call government was how people organized themselves enough to survive against the winter, bandits, forces of nature, and each other.


Originally posted by Chakotay
I prefer trails. Money is without value to Native people such as myself. And I would prefer to live in a world where cultural prejudice is not 'enforced' by an elite that is too dam lazy to work.


Oh give me a break. I'm an active registered member of the Sac & Fox Nation, and I can say firsthand, that statement is complete B---S---. At least my tribe doesn't have bingo and casino parlors yet. Don't get me wrong, I'm proud of my heritage, so much so that I involved the entire tribe in a special giveaway ceremony to propose to my fiance. I'm fascinated by our history, but the prospect that the Native American tribes are (today) something out of a Kevin Costner movie is complete naivety.

Now you, as a person, may have no valuation of money, but don't pull the "Native" card on someone who is a Native themselves. Our tribes have lost their way to the point of no return, the children of the tribe mostly have no interest in the old ways, and the elders are dying off faster than the stories can be passed on. The powows are no longer a celebration of one tribe's traditions, but a homogenous mixture of tribes that are are trying to generate some money for the tribe, and where people compete in events for money more than status All the while they are surrounded by stalls selling junk food and overpriced wares, also for money. God, I'm depressed now...


Originally posted by Chakotay
And how long do you think we will last with them (pollution and overpopulation)?


Another popular misconception is that the air quality is getting worse and worse. This is a myth (at least in the United States). Air quality is presently a LOT better than it was in the 1950's, which was a LOT better than it was in the 1900's, according to "60 Minutes". Now, granted, the Industrial Revolution was what caused most of the pollution to begin with, but that wasn't government in action, that was mankind's ignorance as to the long term consequences. Now that we have a lot more awareness as to the consequences, we are taking enormous steps towards fixing the problems of pollution, even though the outlook and forecast for it is always "Doom, Gloom, and Kaboom".


Originally posted by Chakotay
It works for me. It worked for my ancestors. And look at Burt Rutan. Without government, he made it to orbit. Government is impediment.


Wrong again. Without the Government, Burt Rutan would not have had the original rocket technology to work off of. Again, I can speak this in fact, because my grandfather wrote the book on rocketry. Literally. He was the man in charge of study of the V2 rockets captured at the end of World War II. Guess who paid him? The U.S. Government. In fact, the V2 rockets themselves came from one of the most murderous failures of government, the Nazis. Without either of those, rocketry might STILL have not happened to this day.

Oh, and who do you think convinced the public that the Space Race was even neccesary? Most Americans thought the whole prospect was a joke, and the only people who thought it was a good idea were crackpot scientists. Who do you think had to make the hard decision to go ahead with the project despite the criticism from their constituency? The Government.

The people who are impeding the progress are not the ones in office, they are the ones who are charging NASA $300 for a hammer, and $100 for a nail. And having myself worked within Honeywell's warehouses, doing inventory on NASA shuttle parts, I can say these prices are not remotely a joke. The average cost of a single bolt for the Space Shuttle is $100. Honeywell acts as a middle man, and stores, sorts, and transports these items for extortionist fees. So tack on another 10-25% for all this. Add to this an obsolete design about as efficient as a rubber razor, and you've got a wasteful formula for impediment.

It's so easy to just lay blanket blame on the government for all our little woes and ills, but the truth of the matter is that normal, everyday people like you and me are the real problem.


Originally posted by Chakotay
Vigilante justice, the last time I checked, is a very permanent solution to crime.


It's also a very permanent solution to any other problem that involves a human being. Or do people outside of a government not frame each other for crimes?


Originally posted by Chakotay
The ancient Cherokee law represents a base minimum of laws: disturb the peace- in any way- and you live outside the wall. Threaten or attack someone, and you get a very small dart in the neck.


Yes, and the key word here is "LAW". And who do you think enforces these laws?

Additionally, every single Native American reservation has a police force and constitution.


Originally posted by Chakotay
From the offended party, not a hired professional sadistic killer, er, excuse me, officer. Problem solved. One law: Live and let live, or die.


Again, this is a blanket view to blame the problems of human beings on an entity. I have known many officers over the course of my life. And none of them were sadistic killers. Additionally, the U.S. police have some of the strictest rules of engagement of any police force. Every single bullet has to be accounted for. Any shot fired that hits a living target will likely cost the officer their job, even under circumstances where multiple warnings were given to an armed and dangerous criminal who has been shooting to kill. Should shooting back become absolutely neccesary, and they accidentally kill the person they are attempting to arrest, rather than disable them, they will almost certainly lose their job at best, and at worst, be brought up on criminal charges themselves.

Let me tell you a story of Tacoma, where an inmate from a maximum security prison managed to escape, killing seven officers in the process, and wounding several others. Eventually, a K-9 unit managed to disable the man, by clamping down on the arm (not even breaking a bone) long enough for the man to be brought back into custody, unharmed (aside from the bite marks on his arm). He sued the Tacoma PD for $300,000 and won.

That is the reality that the police have to live with, each every day; that their thanks for laying down their own life, to try and preserve the law by as non-lethal a means as possible, is crap pay and a lawsuit for doing their job.

Yes, there are Bad Cops and Gypsy Cops out there, but they are the exception, and not the rule. The media creates a circus around it to parade around even honest mistakes or misunderstandings, and make even a good cop look like a genocidal psychopath, because it sells air time and newspapers. As a result, it makes people like you believe all cops are sadistic killers.

Or perhaps you personally have had bad experiences with cops. You know what I've found to usually be the case? People who always have bad experiences with cops usually deserve it. They yell at the officers, insult them, spit on them, assault them, or refuse to comply with a peaceful investigation into a violation, and as such, they get the bad treatment. This is totally aside from the fact that a cop almost never is going to stop you unless you've broken the law. So if you've had bad experiences with cops, then at the very least, you likely had it coming.

Now let's assume you were perfectly innocent, and out of nowhere you were apprehended, for TRULY no reason, had broken no law, shown no disrespect, and complied with all their demands. Yet they still beat you, pistol-whipped you, or threatened to kill you. Well then you had a bad experience, and should have reported it to the newspapers first, taken it to court second, and then moved to another city. Because those would have been bad cops.

But that is no reason to judge all cops that way. In my childhood, my street was terrorized by a Vietnamese gang on one side, and a black gang on the other. Do you think I go around hating both of those races? I hold no animosity against either race, because I have the ability to separate my personal experiences from an entire people. Again, only ignorance would paint an entire people or occupation with the same brush.


Originally posted by Chakotay
The power we have given it will be used against us, sooner or later.


Yes, I agree. It has in the past, it is, in the present, and it will in the future. This is not because "Government" is an evil monster, it is because "Humanity" has abonimations that sometimes get into power, and the majority of humans out there are too stupid to rule themselves. Thus, sometimes bad people get into good government, and do horrible things, while the people let them.

Hammers have done an amazing amount of good in the world, but it hasn't stopped the occasional bastage from grabbing one and braining someone with it.

[edit on 2/10/2005 by thelibra]



posted on Feb, 10 2005 @ 03:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by thelibra
I happen to think Anarchy is an immature and ignorant view of how to handle large populations of people.


I don’t think in an anarchist’s world there would be so many people. There would be no need for a large population. Even though it's a cold thing to say, without the organization of something like your Benign Dictatorship people would be dieing out in their thousands from various situations. But this is what an anarchist understands because if he/she is any kind of anarchist then he/she is fully aware of what an anarchic world is all about. So am i saying i want thousands of people to die off? Yes/No, but it could just as well be me dying of to.

So we have created better forms of medical tech and evolved in our understanding of food production. We have been able to increase the numbers of people on the planet causeing overpopulation, lack of affordable feul and war, but what for? What good has really come of it, when you weigh all the achievements mankind has made up against the slow destruction of our planet, the creatures that live on it, and ourselves.


Another popular misconception is that the air quality is getting worse and worse. This is a myth (at least in the United States). Air quality is presently a LOT better than it was in the 1950's, which was a LOT better than it was in the 1900's, according to "60 Minutes". Now, granted, the Industrial Revolution was what caused most of the pollution to begin with, but that wasn't government in action, that was mankind's ignorance as to the long term consequences. Now that we have a lot more awareness as to the consequences, we are taking enormous steps towards fixing the problems of pollution, even though the outlook and forecast for it is always "Doom, Gloom, and Kaboom".


This misconception is true to a point and i have heard this argument used before, but doom and gloom it is, even if you choose to ignore it. Not enough is being done to counter act the problem even when alternatives exist we still use fossil fuels which i suppose we have to to support our overpopulated planet.


FACT: During that two million years, mating consisted largely of rape. Sharing resources was usually done by force.


We can only assume. They were not there and as far as i know there is not enough evidence to prove this as fact unless your relying on cave paintings which may have been depicting an exceptional event. For all we know hunter gathers may have met in the wild slapped each other on the back and fell in love. And i have now doubt occasionally they did. Picture this.

You’re hunting down your dinner with another member of your group when you’re set upon by some huge vicious bear. The bear takes one of you out but hey, suddenly there a group of men fighting the bear off. You have never seen these guys before but they save your life. I think we have a situation for friendship, sharing of resources and love.


Whomever was strongest ruled over the weaker, also by force, until someone even stronger came along to do away with them. People regularly starved or froze to death, because of a lack of any sort of food storage technology. If you lived in a temperate climate, during the winter you were screwed.


Anarchy, the answer to overpopulation and pollution, harsh but fair. And in today’s kind of anarchy we would have more knowledge so it may not be so harsh it may even be more harmonious then it has been in the past. And as does your Benign Dictatorship use less-limited energy sources, so would an anarchist world.

I like your idea of Benign Dictatorship though it would serve well in place of my fortified monarchy. An oasis in the middle of a free world were scientists could work to give us anarchists a better future which i think a free world would except more responsibly then if you was to try and impose your Benign Dictatorship upon us.


Hammers have done an amazing amount of good in the world, but it hasn't stopped the occasional bastage from grabbing one and braining someone with it.


This sums it up on your paragraphs regarding law. That’s simply why its not required in such a complicated form. Lawmen would be present in an anarchist world and they would do their work for free because they enjoyed it IMO. And they wouldn’t have to worry about there own kind shafting them so much either.

Anarchy is by far a more realistic alternative to your Benign Dictatorship, which has no chance.



posted on Feb, 10 2005 @ 08:02 PM
link   
thelibra, I think you have successfully won this debate. You have made excellent and more importantly REALISTIC points. All you anarchist do realize that for the lack of a system to work there needs to be whole lot less people, right? Are you guys advocating leaving billions of people to just fend for themselves as thelibra gave a pretty good example of?

What is your nice tribal culture going to do when the rest of the people turn cannabal and come looking at you for dinner? Gee, if you plan to wipe out 3/4th of the planet's population so the rest of us can have peaceful anarchy (ie: get far enough away from each other), let me know first. I can get out there and play Survival of the Fittest if you want, but you should know that those who usually win that game don't play nice, even if you do.



posted on Feb, 11 2005 @ 12:59 PM
link   
The problem with this debate is that it does not address the question posed. The question is about the IDEAL form of government. Would a sudden governmental change in, say America, work in favor with an anarchic society? Of course not, but that is because everyone would still have the mindset of the prior government.

What is currently America would be completely different under a rule of anarchy. What I mean to say is that anarchy could not support the format that currently exists in America. People as well as everything would have to change as well. But that is what was asked. What is the IDEAL form for the IDEAL situation. I just don't think that American society is the Ideal society.



posted on Feb, 12 2005 @ 01:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by thelibra
FACT: During that two million years, mating consisted largely of rape.


Opinion. Unsupported by the archaeological record. A woman with a hella big flint knife is not about to let any cave bear, saber tooth cat, or mere human mess with her goodies unwantedly. And live for long unscathed. I believe the colloquial word for Cherokee Woman is 'top'. If my wife can be taken as an example.


People regularly starved or froze to death, because of a lack of any sort of food storage technology. If you lived in a temperate climate, during the winter you were screwed.


You know, if you weren't Indian I'd just let all this slide. But you know better. We invented food storage technology. Jerky, machacado, pemmican, fruit leathers, and- Frozen Meat (lol, have you ever spent a winter on a farm in the snow? Starved? rof!). Now of course, you were screwed in the winter- but that negates your argument above.


We were not civilized people, working in harmony on quaint little farms being one with the land with happy medicine men and noble chiefs.


I think better of the Sac and Fox than that. I believe your ancestors were quite as wise as mine.


This "terror" you call government was how people organized themselves enough to survive against the winter, bandits, forces of nature, and each other.


I believe 'these extortionists' would be more accurate than 'this terror'.


Oh give me a break.


Never. I used to be just like you when I was young, until an old medicine man made me understand what freedom means.



posted on Feb, 13 2005 @ 12:42 PM
link   
Government is a neccessary evil. However, the less of it there is, the better. As government grows, liberty decreases. The main purpose of government is to protect its citizens from violence, coercion, and invasion and to protect its citizens' rights to life, liberty, and property.

I believe that the best system to carry these objectives out would be a republic founded upon idea of limited government. I say a republic because a direct democracy would be disastrous. Mob rule and majority tyranny, instigated by demogogues would result.

A word on anarchy. I believe of the various forms of anarchy, many of them could be set up; however, I believe that once set up, they would not be very stable. Also, elsewhere in the thread someone raised the question of infrastructure, justice, etc... I suggest doing some research on anarcho-capitalism--a system founded solely on free trade, the market, and voluntary contracts...very interesting and theoretically plausible...although it could very well degenerate into a form of oligarcy, or something similar.



posted on Feb, 16 2005 @ 12:11 PM
link   
Okay, we seem to have arrived at a sort of understanding regarding anarchy that even I can agree with: anarchy works, if the population is small enough.

The problem, of course, is that with 6 billion people in the world, either billions will die in the transition to anarchy, or it will be so short-term that eventually new powers will rise to take control of the chaos. So... let's say that you could have a stable anarchy in the world with 2 billion people. And that's really pushing it, because we have a tendancy to over-reproduce. Realistically, I'd say it couldn't pass the 500 million mark, but for arguement sake, we'll say 2 billion.

How many family members and close friends do you have, counting yourself? Now reduce that number to 1/3. Even given the choice of which 2/3 of your family and friends will die, the chances are that you are going to lose someone you care deeply for, and if not, the problems are deeper than this thread addresses. But you will not get that choice. Starvation, disease, murder, and other things will befall them at a sickening rate.

The other thing to consider is that not everyone will agree to live in happy hippy harmony. You may very well manage to have a small village of 500 living government free, living off the land, and minding their own business. What happens when Joe the Butcher and his band of 1000 armed men discover your village and decide to either demand tribute, or simply slaughter the lot of you? Where's the armed militia to fight them off? Where are the laws that denounce such activity? What is your recourse for action? Assuming you cannot possibly win the fight, will you allow half your crop to be turned over to these brigands, or your life mate to be carried away by lacivious thieves? Will you let your children be forced to join their ranks?

Or will you stand and fight, losing everyone's life in the process? This assumes that when you step forward and say "My friends and I will not stand for this," that you don't turn around to find your 'friends' are back among the rest of the scared villagers. You would be amazed at the lengths the vast majority of people will go to not to get in a fight. If you all decide to stand and fight, what will you use? The brigands are most likely armed with swords, bows, perhaps even guns. Will you have a stockpile of weapons handy for just such an event? If so, who keeps it maintained? Who keeps ammo pressed for the guns? Who keeps the swords sharp? Where did the weapons come from? During an attack, there is little time to make new ones. Perhaps this duty would have been shared by the "tribe". Who organizes it? What do you do if someone doesn't do their job?

Our lives have reached the point of complication where even in a simple scenario, a good degree of organization is handy. Without infrastructure, ONLY the most powerful will decide who gets the resources. As it stands, we all have access to food and fresh water. What happens when the one water source your tribe uses gets cut off from the rest of you by someone powerful enough to stop you from taking it back? Who will you turn to? Mercenaries? Samurai? Another bandit band? What will you pay them with? Will you leap from the frying pan into the fire, and end up serving new masters, just for a cup of fresh water each day?

Thus, a very low, and very scattered population would be required to maintain any sort of idealistic anarchist society. If this were to be achieved with minimal loss of life, a new planet would be required. So I tell you what, once I am World Dictator, my scientists will eventually learn ways to colonize other planets. At that time, I'm sure anarchist colonies could be founded with numbers small enough to make their system work. People who want "the simple life" can live there. Of course you would all technically still have fealty towards me, but it's not like I'd bother doing anything to enforce it.



posted on Feb, 19 2005 @ 09:58 PM
link   
In my ideal world I like the idea of tribalism or democracy - true demoocracy. I would rather be a member or a small group and have a voice, even if that means no amenitiess. - I don't want to be a nameless number in the masses. Unfortuately, as Libra states, our population is simply too large for this to function well.

Virtually any type of governement has leaders. When we have good, honest leaders we live relatively good happy lives. I don't think the problems lie in the systems themselves, but the leaders. Every type of government I've seen is not immune to corruption, and therein lies the problem. Even anarchy, I think. An anarchical (is that a word?) society would be built on the premise of trusting your neighbors, right? I'm not sure I really want to go there; I've met some of my neighbors!

The best leaders tend to be those who do it because they know there is not one else, not because they are power seekers. With a small group we could have leaders who were put in power not because *they* wanted it but because I did. As for a utopia or anarchy I think those work will - until my friend decides he wants to rule over the rest of us.

In the end, I think the best government is one that elimanates or greatly reduces corruption. To do that, I think we need to know who are neighbors are, know who are leaders are, and help keep one another in check. Ergo, a much smaller population. Since that's not going to happen anytime soon (unless we get WW4 - and I have no desire to see more people killed) for now I will just have to keep on dreaming. Oh. And voting for who I think is best, despite the masses.

[edit on 19-2-2005 by Cercey]



posted on Mar, 20 2005 @ 11:16 PM
link   
My ideal form of government, would be to have no government per-se... Where everyone simply is ... Everyone exists and works together, for everyone... There is no me, there is no you, there is simply us... So I guess it would be something along the lines of socialism/zen/nihilism ... A weird mix, but thats how I sum up my beleif system...



posted on Mar, 24 2005 @ 04:36 PM
link   
My vote would have to be tribalism- It may be idealistic, but then we are 'talking about idealism' here. In watching a movie called Emerald Forest- it's a story about a dam builder whose son is kidnapped by a unknown 'tribe' The favorite quote from this show was 'If I tell a man what to do, I am no longer chief"

But I do not base my ideology on one movie. My study of tribalism as a social structure includes celebrations, spiritual beliefs, and conflict resolution- Not quite a new ager, but perhaps more of socialist than an anarchist. Violence may not be necessary if the population gets reduced by rampant disease- which is my #1 prediction currently.

I am very disturbed by the recent school rampage by a native american- especially since I am also watered down Ojibwe- They were a medicine, canoe, moccassin forest based tribe, and I'm afraid that there may be a 'crazy' gene in many of the tribes' population. Probably not any more than other populations, but then that is not something I have really researched and a whole 'nother can of worms.



posted on Mar, 25 2005 @ 12:12 AM
link   


Originally posted by accountability
Violence may not be necessary if the population gets reduced by rampant disease- which is my #1 prediction currently.


Well if this bird-flu has anything to do with it, your prediction may be correct...



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join