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 the best form of government to live under?

page: 3
2
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 13 2008 @ 11:17 PM
link   
Hi There,

Wheresthetruth:

What is the best form of government to live under?


I am not sure that the question (and quite a relevant one it is) is framed correctly. I think we should be asking (and continually debating) 'what is the correct system to live under, and are we capable of creating a body of management to reflect such system'?


Society in every state is a blessing, but government even in its best state is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one; for when we suffer, or are exposed to the same miseries by a government, which we might expect in a country without government, our calamities are heightend by reflecting that we furnish the means by which we suffer.
Thomas Paine (1737 - 1809) "Common Sense"

In order for us to choose a government to which we would allow ourselves - by consent - to be governed, we must first clarify to ourselves why we need to be governed in the first place. Such clarification may unarguably center on individual wants and needs, and from that understanding, extend socially outward to the family, tribe, community, state or county, and ultimately to the nation as a whole.

Most individual 'wants' and 'needs' can be encapsulated in the principle and desire for...freedom. Freedom to attain the 'wants' and to pursue the 'needs' unfettered and unassailed from others equally pursuing their 'wants' and their 'needs'. Fair and equal society would provide the foundation by which individual 'wants' and 'needs', and their pursuance, are equally protected and safeguarded by all for all. This in hindsight, is I feel, the basis for the formation of society and societies.

In order for a society to be formed, it is necessary that agreements between the individuals coming together to form the society be reached and adhered to. That in the 'agreeing' to the 'agreements', it is understood by all members participating in the creation of a society, that certain ideas regarding personal freedoms are necessarily self-abrogated, self-censored, so that a founding framework for the cohesive strength of that society be established. It must be noted that the cohesive strength of any society lies not in its government and the authoritarian powers it may yeild, nor in the strength of its policing, but in the strength of the consent of its members to the agreements.

These are, of course, idealistic tones which we hope bring with them in their notation harmony and harmonics for civil infrastructure. The point of establishing a society, and the litmus of its success, lies in the expanse of its reciprocation of nurturing equal freedom for all the individuals abiding within its framework. The most successful society will be the one that is neither layered nor stratified by any kind of differentials; nor will it be based on utility, or utilitarian ideals, which are now becoming anachronisms of the passing industrial age. We need new concepts by which we can re-model our societies to reflect our technological level, and also that of the free exchange of information. Tools such as the internet make a mockery of closed and semi-closed societies, and just as equally, psuedo open ones too.

Therefore, it is not the best form of government that we seek, but the better system of society, and once we gain such a society, its government should truly and genuinely reflect it...otherwise, all agreements become null and void, and the society crumbles under its own dissatisfaction.

Best wishes




posted on Oct, 14 2008 @ 12:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by elysiumfire
Hi There,

Wheresthetruth:

What is the best form of government to live under?


I am not sure that the question (and quite a relevant one it is) is framed correctly. I think we should be asking (and continually debating) 'what is the correct system to live under, and are we capable of creating a body of management to reflect such system'?


Thank you for that very analytical and professional response. You pose a very insightful question and commentary. I agree with many of your points, but feel it is a bit too eutopian for mankind at any stage of evolution. In every recorded stage of humanity, we have proven ourselves incapable of a uniquely satisfactory form of leadership. Even the tribes spread out around the deepest parts of the often hidden world experience conflict, though they have no or little knowledge of modern society, parlimentary procedure or the freedoms that we suppose are granted to every person. Modern man has tasted power and greed and the satisfaction that this evil can bring and most have fallen prey to its lure.

I did consider, even rewriting several times, the heading for this thread. I settled on the current wording because it is the most appropriate, in my opinion, to the current state of mankind and our desires. Most people do not want an intrusive government until they need government help, which is its own counterpoint and a self-defeating ideological desire from the start.

To ask the common man the 2 questions posed here would most likely end up with an answer to the one I asked, because most cannot fathom a life without some sort of formal, pre-established form of governing body. Even to give them a list of up to 3 to choose from would likely bring confusion rather than clarity to a large percentage of the general world populace. Therefore, I did decide on a more simplified form of the question in hopes, and proud to have so far had, an excellent debate on the fact that, if you have to be governed, how would you want it to be done. I hope no one reading this or having had replied takes the impression that I in anyway think of anyone here as simple, rather that statement is meant as it is said. Meet anyone on the street and pose them the questions and you will see what I mean.

As well, I chose to pose the question as I did because throughout our history, mankind has made it something of an artform to create and recreate even the most basic forms of government into some blasphemic new hydra of its former self until unrecognizable are the core properties and only the new face is born to see. Every ideology infused with an opposing ideology in hopes that the "far left" and the "far right" can come together to somehow sit upon the fence without tettering, tearing or dividing into halves. However, every "smashup" has proven itself unworthy or unsustainable, though the few try to keep their ideals impressed upon the many. Just as the great USSR failed in its form of Communistic rule, so must the US fail in its now corrupt and all too often debunked Democratic Republic.

Granted, the governing ideal of the US has outlasted most of the governments of the world and I think it would continue to last as a cherished state of living were it not for the power hungry and greedy leaders who have entrenched themselves into a lavish life. The staying power, however, is wearing thin. The freedoms once granted by those that set up the government have been defiled and reduced to talking points and punchlines within the power elite. My fear is that no government model has the ability to reign undertered without eventually breaking down and falling to be trampled upon by the very leaders entrusted to sustain her.

The more I learn, the more saddened, yet angry and exhausted, yet energized, I become. Like government, I know this thread will soon slip into the archives, but I thank all of you that have and will visit and add to this roundtable discussion.



posted on Oct, 14 2008 @ 07:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by wheresthetruth
reply to post by Amaterasu
 


First, lets get the easy one out of the way. Health and wellbeing. You point out that by employing automation to handle the labor-intensive jobs, you free up people to pursue a more blissful life. I think you are putting too much faith in modern man's desire to self-motivate. There are far too many people that prefer a sedentary lifestyle and without encouragement or demand that they actually make a physical effort to "do something", you are likely to find a large percentage of people completely incapable of generating enough energy to think clearly or physically live their life.


And I think that these behaviors arise out of an inability to "do something" that IS their bliss. I can assure you that I am closer to the "couch potato" than I would be if doing what I LOVE to do was affordable and immediately available. Also, since virtually all of us have been raised with the concept that we must do what is "necessary" and not what we want to do, few are motivated to do anything beyond what they absolutely have to do.

Take a child and teach him/her that life means doing what (s)he wants to do, nay...is CALLED to do...and that child will immerse themselves in a life of doing. It may change over the years - who of us can say we still LOVE to play with dolls, eh? (I could spend hour upon hour doing that as a young girl - not so much, anymore...)

And sure, there will be some few who sit on the sofa and watch entertainment all day, every day, but who cares? It's not like the doers are "supporting" the "don'ters." If watching TV (or HV - holovision) is one's bliss...

But I can assure you, there will be PLENTY of doers. Many, many, many.


Granted, every society imaginable has a measure of individuals without any form of motivation and there are always those with addictions or genetic disorders, but there is a limit to those when labor directly influences lifestyle.


I think I addressed the above... I personally have heard "couch potatoes" wistfully say things on the order of, "I wish I could go sky-diving," or "I wish I had a decent computer - then I could write a program to...," or any number of similar comments. The reason they settle for settling is because the scarcity paradigm keeps them from their bliss.


Next, we have the controversial point. Can the machines be secured against villainous activities? Can they be directed to cause harm? With all of the modern technology that we have now and on the horizon tracing its roots back to sci-fi, it is not a truly far stretch to consider that some of the worst expectations played out on page and screen could become a reality. I dont think it is remotely possible that there will be an infectious cloud that will cause trucks to turn on humans, but a robot can be programmed to do just about anything.


I see where you are going with this, and yes, if one is a malicious sort - lacking empathy like the ancient families who are in control now - one could indeed do such a thing. However, if it is practice that all code used for these things must be transparent, if we never accept opaque code (and why should the code be opaque; since there is no reason for something to be proprietary...?), and many review the code before implementation, I think this could be avoided.

My vision suggests that in a generation or two, no one will even be having much in the way of malicious thought. There will be little reason.

Think about it. What percentage of crime is over money? What percentage of crime is out of a frustration of personal power (rape would fall into this category)? I say between these two, you have covered nigh 100%. And if we can eliminate virtually all motivation for these crimes, we will eliminate virtually all our issues as a society.


They can also be controlled to do anything the handler wants and they operate in nano-seconds, or hundreds of times faster than human reaction. Couple that with Smart AI technology that learns from its mistakes, generates theory based on random analogy, can perform complex calculations thousands of times faster and more difficult than human couterparts and has an absolute lack of consciousness and you have before you a recipe for disaster.


I admit that the individuals twisted by the scarcity paradigm will be an issue in the first generations, and this is why laws cannot be abandoned initially. This is why the beginning would be fragile, and we must be vigilant.

But as the individuals either discover their own power - the power over their own lives - or die out, the fear of this sort of behavior will diminish. When LOVE and respect are inherent in the paradigm, rarely will the psyche be so twisted.


I work in and around robotic technology everyday. It is a given safety feature that they must be completely shutdown before entering a workspace within range of those massive, all-steel arms. An example of what happens is when a maintenance tech went in without shutting one down and with no prompt or short circuit, the arm swung around and shattered his jaw, losing all of the teeth on one side of his mouth and requiring a complete rebuild. To this day, there is not a concrete reason why the bot performed the maneuver.


I understand that in plebeian-land there is a ways to go in development. But I also believe these things can and will be solved. And even with this, I cannot justify abandoning the idea because once in a while it might glitch. If you remove war, vehicle accidents, and crime, but add a glitch now and then... You STILL will have, statistically, NO problems.

And in the world I see, no one would be that close to the working machines. All maintenance would be done by other machines. (Though I suppose that someone's bliss might be doing the maintenance, but I also think that they will understand the risks - it is not society's job to eliminate risk.)


I agree that automation aids society, but I have to disagree with it as a principle form of society.


And I say that if the NWO doesn't spray us with weaponized anthrax (or whatever else they have up their collective sleeve for us), this WILL eventually evolve. I also believe that we can hasten its arrival.

In fact, because of the NWO, I think it is IMPERATIVE that we hasten its arrival.

And so, I am unsure what the issue is in using technology to do all the work we do not want to do.

[edit on 10/14/2008 by Amaterasu]

[edit on 10/14/2008 by Amaterasu]



posted on Oct, 14 2008 @ 07:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bunch
I will propose a system of government similar to what the military has.

You get folks spread around doing different types of jobs for the benefit of the community, in support of the community and to advance the community, short and simple.

During the school years a kid could develop his own idea of what he wants to become and is he has the aptitude for it, then he is placed in a position that he could fill.

The decisions are made by the elders and the biggest decidions are made by a council, something like the Chief of Staff but with more members and representative of each segment of the communnity.

At some age the elders would be replaced by those who are coming up the ranks and this kind of pipeline can be sustain the same way the military does.

You increase your personal gains, by the more rank or by the contribution you make to the community that way you encourage people to be innovative and to progress.

Anyways my two cents.


And I think this sounds rather lacking in any freedom, bliss, and feels more like slavery.

My inflated 2$.



posted on Oct, 15 2008 @ 12:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by wheresthetruth
reply to post by Bunch
 


Wouldnt your proposal be a form of Communism? The only real difference between your idea and Communism is the difference in class/status (you offer reward of rank). Unless I am reading your post wrong.
How would ranking work? The higher your status, the more deserving you become? In the military, rank equates to your seniority, experience, professionalism, obedience, pay rate, and power. The highest ranking is in charge, while the lowest ranking is the obedient worker. In that respect, it seems to be also influenced by Authoritarian rule. Authoritarian rule is denoted by a single entity, which could be a dictator or a ruling cabinet.

Am I understanding your concept?


Im talking more about the community aspect of it, in the miltary that I served at least I have freedoms, I get paid, I get vacations, I get time to spend with my family. I can change jobs, I have the opportunity to do with my career what ever I want.

Granted I have to obey some rules, but what society wouldn't need rules?

As far as who would lead it, I would say just like the military those that have the experience, knowledge and leadership skills would be the ones to govern the community, not becasue you are an Coronel means that you are ready to lead,sometimes it means that you have done the time so of course there would have to be a commitee of sort that would decide who would lead, or at best throw in a democratic system where the community elects the leader.

All this I say but I'm pretty clear that it would not work in any current society that we have in this world, this could very well work when a civilization in starting from scratch. Where gree and thirst for power hasn't corrupted the minds of the members of the particular civilization.

Thats how the tribes did it and continue to do, I guess in some ways we are more backwards than them.



posted on Oct, 15 2008 @ 12:49 AM
link   
reply to post by Amaterasu
 


Not really,

Im not envisioning that at all, remember I currently served in the military, do you think I would have a career in a place that would make me feel like that?

There is a lot of good things about the military structure and I have given some serious thought when it comes as to how a civilization, an untainted one, could achive such great accomplishment under this type of community structure. In the military is called force structure and it works perfectly.

The military is self sustaining, we complete a mission, we operate to complete the mission and we support those that are operating to complete the mission.

Now put that concept at work in a civilization of 6 billion citizens? Just imagine how many things would be accomplish, no money, no greed, no thirst for power, instead everyone working for the community and the community goals.

Space travel, free energy, quality of life, scientific achievements, cure for diseases all within the reach of the community.

Of course this is only a dream of mine, but I truly think that if we ever see an extraterrestial species that would be the way that they could have achieved all those things.



posted on Oct, 15 2008 @ 01:51 AM
link   
Check out the countries in which people are most happy, most prosperous, have the lowest crime rates. Switzerland comes to mind.

On a higher level of intellectual and spiritual development, Libertarianism is the best choice. But not yet. People are not ready for it yet, too weak for it.



posted on Oct, 15 2008 @ 08:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bunch
reply to post by Amaterasu
 


Not really,

Im not envisioning that at all, remember I currently served in the military, do you think I would have a career in a place that would make me feel like that?


Ah, but can you say that that "size" that fits you so well would fit everyone? What if I would rather sleep till noon, and go paint pictures of the sea? What if I don't want to be regimented?


There is a lot of good things about the military structure and I have given some serious thought when it comes as to how a civilization, an untainted one, could achive such great accomplishment under this type of community structure. In the military is called force structure and it works perfectly.


Only because those within it accept the orders from above. If an order happens to be outrageous or against all principles of those beneath, it will NOT work so efficiently. And you offer this with a presumption of a lack of "taint." From where I sit, any system that gives power to one over others WILL become tainted.

Especially in a money-driven system. A scarcity paradigm. (The two go hand in hand, for in an abundance paradigm, money is rather moot.) Greed, a behavior which manifests only out of a scarcity paradigm, will raise its ugly head.


The military is self sustaining, we complete a mission, we operate to complete the mission and we support those that are operating to complete the mission.


And what becomes of a military that loses funding? "Self-sustaining" is something I doubt. It will work so long as its parts agree to function under command of one or a few, and it requires money to function.


Now put that concept at work in a civilization of 6 billion citizens?


And you have a global dictatorship. I must do this job I hate because that is what I have been assigned. Because I was ordered to.


Just imagine how many things would be accomplish, no money, no greed, no thirst for power, instead everyone working for the community and the community goals.


No money??? No thirst for power??? How do you propose to function without money? And someone gets to decide what the others will do - which is power - which leads to people wanting it, thirsting for it.

Please explain how you will remove money and power from a military system.

And what if I want to work for my OWN goals? What if I don't WANT to go weed the community garden, but would rather take a day hike?


Space travel, free energy, quality of life, scientific achievements, cure for diseases all within the reach of the community.


Once you have these, and robots to do all the work no one wants to do, you don't need a "military structure." You don't need structure at all. Everyone may do as they please, with no money, following their bliss. Greed would be gone, money would be gone, abundance would be the paradigm.


Of course this is only a dream of mine, but I truly think that if we ever see an extraterrestial species that would be the way that they could have achieved all those things.


In the end there you sound like you are dreaming the same dream as I am, but with some structure imposed. I say to you, keep that dream, but instead of anyone telling anyone else what to do, remove the structure completely, and let things get done by those whose bliss it is to make the things happen.



posted on Oct, 18 2008 @ 03:14 AM
link   
None.

You said best.



new topics




 
2
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join