Wow... that really explained a lot of things to me... I knew the generals about different forms of government but that really fully explained it to me.

Very good video. This is very educational and helped deepen my understanding of government.

Thanks for the video and site.

I have seen the video before, and I found it to be quite educational.

In reply to the topic "What kind of government do you want?":

Personally I prefer to model government based on nature/universe/multiverse.

Within the multiverse there are many universes with different rules.
So it would make sense to within a multipolity to have many polities with different rules.

The universe we live in has a thing called atoms, which can be likened to groups of people.
Atoms become radioactive after they reach a significantly large number.
For instance a Uranium group with 238 members, 92 of which are positive(actively producing export) and 146 neutral entities is likely to decay into at least to smaller groups(atoms).

An implementation of stable atoms/groups within society as well as other policies however can be kept to the district of a certain polity based on its preference.

Just as there is a system of federal, provincial, municipal, county law, there can be various levels of polity. I however would add the additional ability that a local group can over-ride the laws of the higher(federal/municipal). In this way there is more freedom.

An interesting effect is that now one could have a municipal-polity that decides to legalize marijuana within the bounds of that municipality -- so anyone that can move into that municipality can take advantage of that freedom (while still allowing other municipalities to do as they wish).

AN ANARCHO-INDIVIDUALIST "GOVERNMENT" WILL BE THE PERFECT ORDER FOR MANKIND.

A UTTOPIAN WORLD...




--------------------------------------

[edit on 7-5-2009 by METAK RAMAH]

I want a govt that is a political regime under which the power of government is not limited by law. A political society with a dictatorial, or authoritarian, system of government that lacks a true constitution--i.e., a constitution which effectively limits and disperses governmental power. Within the government or within the political party or religious organization which completely controls the government, there is one all-powerful or virtually all-powerful center of political power--one central office or organ of government, party, or religious establishment in which all or virtually all political power is lodged. Other power centers may or may not exist. If they do exist, they are relatively weak or impotent, lacking sufficient power to effectively check and restrain exercise of political power by the single central power center.

USSA the land of the opressed and the home of the Sheep

As an Anarch-Syndicalist I'd go with Thomas Paine "That government governs best which governs least." Essentially, that any restriction on individual autonomy should require a heavy burden of proof. That monolithic power structures, political, financial, or religious, are essentially fascist and anti-human. I don't think one could construct a perfect model, you'd have to anticipate the needs of people who haven't been born yet, and such a system would have to be mutable, to meet the changing needs of a developing civilization. However, we can draw some rough outlines and basic principles. My ideal world would be something like a socialist direct democracy of sorts.

That is actually a good question.

To be honest, I don't think people really know what they want. For example, when Obama went to Europe, there were riots. The majority of the protesters were anarchists. I can guarantee you, if someone asked them exactly what they wanted from their government, they'd get a scratching head in reply.

Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth
That is actually a good question.

To be honest, I don't think people really know what they want. For example, when Obama went to Europe, there were riots. The majority of the protesters were anarchists. I can guarantee you, if someone asked them exactly what they wanted from their government, they'd get a scratching head in reply.

I don't speak for anyone else, and i wouldn't want anyone to speak for me, but there are many books and articles by Anarchists with programs of action, goals, etc, some of them to a totally unrealistic degree of detail and precision, like I said, we can't possibly anticipate the needs of our grandchildren. Of course there are varying Anarchist schools of thought, I myself I am essentially an Anarchosyndicalist. If you want a good exploration of Anarchism in a modern context check out "Anarchism" by MIT professor Noam Chomsky.

An informative video.

I don't think things are so linear though, before the revolutionary war the British American colonies were ruled by a democracy / oligarchy(as we have a monarchy of sorts) and the revolutionary wars could be described as a period of anarchy which was followed by a period of oligarchy that could be said to have used democratic processes in the choosing of the initial laws followed by a republic based on those now chosen laws. I apologise for my oversimplification of the revolutionary war however.

So anarchy doesn't always lead to oligarchy and I cant help but question who gets the right decide to laws on which a republic is formed, don't those who choose have power of the rights of the people through time if only indirectly?