NationStates Jolt Archive

honestly, im still not sold on it.

I can see the appeal, I can see the advantages, but really, whose bright idea was it to put a largly uneducated mass in charge of descisions they cant possibly understand the consequences of?

honestly, im still not sold on it.

I can see the appeal, I can see the advantages, but really, whose bright idea was it to put a largly uneducated mass in charge of descisions they cant possibly understand the consequences of?
You would feel that way, confessed member of THEM, that you are!

Anyways, the point of Democracy is that at a certain point the idiots balance each other out. You use the rampant idiocy of Group A to counter the complete stupidity of Group B.

im less optimistic than when we started

im less optimistic than when we started
Is that as a result of moi? Or because of the idiots balancing each other out?

Is that as a result of moi? Or because of the idiots balancing each other out?

more because of the idiots... it makes sence...

so we are just doomed to idiocy...

What we need is a truly technocratic meritocracy....

dont even ask how it would work, im not that far, i just came up with the name

You know why you should like Democracy?
Becuase so far, no one has come up with a better system that works.

Im talking to YOU Communists, and especially Anarchists.

whose bright idea was it to put a largly uneducated mass in charge of descisions they cant possibly understand the consequences of?

well, it's either that or leave it up to an elite and hope that they don't decide to use their power to benefit themselves and their cronies at the expense of the rest of us - you know, like has happened every time it's been tried before.

and its not like the elites can ever truly understand all of the consequences of their decisions either.

honestly, im still not sold on it.

I can see the appeal, I can see the advantages, but really, whose bright idea was it to put a largly uneducated mass in charge of descisions they cant possibly understand the consequences of?
Thats why the current system doesn't do that, instead the people elect representitives. A pure democracy would not work, nor would it protect civil rights. It may protect them better then other systems however a republic is much better at it.

You know why you should like Democracy?
Becuase so far, no one has come up with a better system that works.

Im talking to YOU Communists, and especially Anarchists.

bah, so called democracies don't have a clue about democracy - anarchists are the true democrats.

Thats why the current system doesn't do that, instead the people elect representitives.
Exactly.
Let's look at the U.S.... you have the choice between two (for argument's sake) people for whom you can vote for every four years or so then you sit back and watch that person make horrible msitakes and idiotic decisions. If you DO try to give yourself a voice through peaceful protest you will be met with violent police action. Or, perhaps through more creative, artistic methods you will be bought and sold by large coporations. Furthermore, in a 'democratic' country like the States, it should be the government's job to educate the people so that they aren't so idiotic...

but alas, the U.S. gov't. prefers to hide behind lies than to educate because they worry about approval and re-election.

honestly, im still not sold on it.

I can see the appeal, I can see the advantages, but really, whose bright idea was it to put a largly uneducated mass in charge of descisions they cant possibly understand the consequences of?

I agree as well. Although I consider myself an anarchist, I prefer aristrocracies over democracies. Rule by a few is ideally better than rule by many. An aristocracy is easier to abuse, but it can make more sense: voting is something you earn. You don't need to be elitist about it - you just need to know a little something about what you're voting on. Scientists should decide what government research gets more money. Politicians and sociologists should vote on who fills government positions. If you never leave the house and don't know anything about anything, then why bother submitting your opinion?

One thing to keep in mind: America is not a democracy. We're a democratic republic - a mixed system. In my opinion, America has two great qualities. A mixed political system is one. The other is the seperation of Church and State, but that's starting to break down.

Democracy is the worst system in the world. That is, except for all the others.

I don't think I would want to live in a non-democracy. I certainly would not decide to live in a land where people were shot and killed for disagreeing with the government, or God help us, for not agreeing with the government vigorously enough. So while governments need to be at least a little complicated and hampered a little bit, the U.S. went a little overkill on hampering the government, and now either the government does nothing or goes above the law to accomplish things.

bah, so called democracies don't have a clue about democracy - anarchists are the true democrats.

anarchy cant work cuz people would be killing each other which would bring you back to a situation such as iraq.

Democracy is the worst system in the world. That is, except for all the others.

I don't think I would want to live in a non-democracy. I certainly would not decide to live in a land where people were shot and killed for disagreeing with the government, or God help us, for not agreeing with the government vigorously enough. So while governments need to be at least a little complicated and hampered a little bit, the U.S. went a little overkill on hampering the government, and now either the government does nothing or goes above the law to accomplish things.

Um, I don't really think there's anything about democracy that prevents a government from doing what it wants. A country without democracy isn't necessarily evil or oppressed.

anarchy cant work cuz people would be killing each other which would bring you back to a situation such as iraq.

seems to me that at least two states are present in iraq currently... i see no anarchism there at all. but this isn't the place to discuss anarchism and the violent nature of state societies, unless t-d doesn't mind it. but we have plenty of other threads devoted to it floating around. check out the one in the archive.

anarchy cant work cuz people would be killing each other which would bring you back to a situation such as iraq.
Because no one kills anyone in a Democracy right?

Anarchy is just a temporary lack of government. there is nothing good about anarchy

Anarchy is just a temporary lack of government. there is nothing good about anarchy

Noam Chomsky gives an almost hour long Q & A about anarchy that everyone should listen to

ESPECIALLY stupid people who think it is necessary to try and point out how anarchy can't work. Lets be honest, democracy doesnt work either, and at least in an anarchy, the responsability is on the people to make it work therefore if they do not become educated in certain things, they will not succeed/survive.

I'm not saying that anarchy won't work...it will just evolve into Feudalism.

well, it's either that or leave it up to an elite and hope that they don't decide to use their power to benefit themselves and their cronies at the expense of the rest of us - you know, like has happened every time it's been tried before.

and its not like the elites can ever truly understand all of the consequences of their decisions either.

not necessarily the elite, but those who are educated to see the concequences.

Ya, I'm still trying to bang out a real theory, if i do i will try and post a version of it for people to flame.

You know why you should like Democracy?
Becuase so far, no one has come up with a better system that works.

Im talking to YOU Communists, and especially Anarchists.

Sadly, it's sort of right.
The only other option people concider now are Anarchy and Communism. Fascism got a bad name because of people using it for their own stupid points.

Bah, Democracy is and always was a failure. Because just like practical Communism, Democracy CANNOT function the way it is intended. It is inherently flawed and open to abuse and corruption.

But frankly, I'd rather this failure than some of the more totalitarian, tryannical failures that we've seen throughout history. I'd rather have my constrained freedom than have a system that doesn't even TRY to give me the illusion of freedom.

I'm all for Democracy until we find something better. We're still working on that.

Government would be easy if people were perfect. We could have a communist dictatorship and easily go along being the best nation on earth. We'd all go to work, work hard for our brothers and sisters who can't, come home to our modest houses after using public transportation, and go out for a night life of dealing drugs to escape the incredible drugery that America would feel.

That is why we play on the incredible amounts of evil and flaw in mankind. It is a brilliant system. The Republic aspect of our government is getting a little dated, I kinda wish we'd have more say in the issues ourselves. However, democracy plays that no one will ever have so severe a majority that the other will be broken. Our American government is based that every person should be educated enough to vote by age 18 unless unable to by mental dissability. In our school system, all the information IS there, we're just too stupid to pick it up. Our system is so incredible because it makes it so beaurocratic that nearly nothing gets through, good or bad. Only things that we REALLY REALLY want passed have any chance of success.

Capitalism is the same way. And seriously, in an anarchy, it is the LACK of a government, and unless everyone did not get the (in my opinion) incredibly brilliant idea to band together into warlord factions and take over large masses of people, then it would work just splendid. Oh, and no other nations could be allowed to invade either. And no one could stop corperations from child labor and safety conditions. And there'd be no money. And civil rights wouldn't exist. And you would live in constant fear of raiders and...well wolves.

Hrm.

-R. S. of UC

Capitalism is the same way. And seriously, in an anarchy, it is the LACK of a government, and unless everyone did not get the (in my opinion) incredibly brilliant idea to band together into warlord factions and take over large masses of people, then it would work just splendid. Oh, and no other nations could be allowed to invade either. And no one could stop corperations from child labor and safety conditions. And there'd be no money. And civil rights wouldn't exist. And you would live in constant fear of raiders and...well wolves.

Hrm.

-R. S. of UC

its unfair to judge the anarchist system by democratic standards.

Hey... know what I'd do in a complete anarchy?

Well I'll get some friends with me and we'll pick some street. Every now and then we're gonna walk through all the houses in the street and take the people's property from them. You know, because we can, and more property rocks. Who's gonna stop us anyway?
Oh, I guess that at some stage we'll feel like taking some more streets. Hell, we've got some cool property, we'll recruit people to our gang and take over the city!
Anarchy makes dictatorship as easy as one two three, as they say on TV shop America.
In a complete anarchy, I'd be the best dictator around!

Hey... know what I'd do in a complete anarchy?

Well I'll get some friends with me and we'll pick some street. Every now and then we're gonna walk through all the houses in the street and take the people's property from them. You know, because we can, and more property rocks. Who's gonna stop us anyway?
Oh, I guess that at some stage we'll feel like taking some more streets. Hell, we've got some cool property, we'll recruit people to our gang and take over the city!
Anarchy makes dictatorship as easy as one two three, as they say on TV shop America.
In a complete anarchy, I'd be the best dictator around!

omg, i cant believe it

with your well educated words you have compleatly destroyed the anarchist movement

there is no way someone could be an anarchist now, with such great proof being thrown in thir face.

omg, i cant believe it

with your well educated words you have compleatly destroyed the anarchist movement

there is no way someone could be an anarchist now, with such great proof being thrown in thir face.

And that's because anarchy is too much freedom. You can't expect all people to respect everyone.

And that's because anarchy is too much freedom. You can't expect all people to respect everyone.

im glad you dont get sarcasm... its funnier that way, but a little more pathetic


Please, before you speak try to get a little informed. You dont understand anarchist philosophy, so dont comment on it.

You are ignorant and it is not even worth my time to try and disprove you

Remember you can't have a machine thawt runs forever and since government is a machine it wont run for ever.

What I am trying to say is, given any government there will be some situation that will make it fail. The big factor is that there needs to be a lot of coincidences for it to work. If someone puts energy and effort back into the government then it can slide over the problem and continue working for example.

After you raid someones house, a group of people decide to burn down your house after barricading the doors. You die a tragic death. And they walk back home. Crisis averted.

Democracy fails basically when people lie. I lie, get elected, and then do what I please at least for 4 years. but someone can really screw the world by then. If you really want to fix the electorial system make every candidate wear polygraphs.

im glad you dont get sarcasm... its funnier that way, but a little more pathetic


Please, before you speak try to get a little informed. You dont understand anarchist philosophy, so dont comment on it.

You are ignorant and it is not even worth my time to try and disprove you

Dear...I was kidding.
I mean, I can't even try to take anything from what I wrote above seriously.

I don't understand "Anarchist philosophy". Oh, enlighten me then.

Dear...I was kidding.
I mean, I can't even try to take anything from what I wrote above seriously.

I don't understand "Anarchist philosophy". Oh, enlighten me then.

lol

anarchist philosophy is almost a hypocritical term

each anarchist believes it should work in a differant way, from those who have very communal and communist ideals, to seclusionists, to capatilists.

Its basically just based on personal responsability, imho, rather than big brother knows best...

lol

anarchist philosophy is almost a hypocritical term

each anarchist believes it should work in a differant way, from those who have very communal and communist ideals, to seclusionists, to capatilists.

Its basically just based on personal responsability, imho, rather than big brother knows best...

One can figure that part out from the term "Anarchy" I guess... At least the one that is me.
I was wondering what's YOUR idea about anarchy.

Personal responsibility?

In that case, just like every other damn system, it works only in theory.

One can figure that part out from the term "Anarchy" I guess... At least the one that is me.
I was wondering what's YOUR idea about anarchy.

see, i dont know yet. I'm not ready to commit myself to any real solid philosophy, because i am convinced that nothing yet will work properly.

Im more in favor of "every man for themselves" or small "communal groups". I'm a raging capitilist, though i understand that there are some necessities of life that cannot be bought or sold, those should be controled by the people and distributed equally.

Some kind of centralized "nerve centre" needs to be set up if any large scale system is established, and to me that is where anarchy falls appart. On small scales it works quite nicely, in fact people live their everyday lives as if they were in an anarchy. Hardly ever does the rule of law affect the descisions we make (unless you are really brainwashed).

Hmm....

Well, there is total anarchy, in which, basically, there is no government. Within all the chaos, though, a group of people group up and take over. The one person kills his helpers, and crowns himself king. Eventually, people get pissed and revolt. They establish a capitalist democratic republic because people want to rule themselves, but they saw the error of anarchy. Eventually (a LONG time from then), people decide that the government needs to be a big brother and regulate everything, so a socialist democratic republic is set up. From there, a group of people decide, "You know what? Socialism is not good enough." They revolt and institute dictatorial communism. After awhile, people get pissed that the govenment controlles every aspect of their lives, so they revolt. Then, there is total anarchy, in which, basically, there is no government. Within all the chaos, though, a group of people group up and take over. The one person kills his helpers, and crowns himself king. Eventually, people get pissed and revolt. They establish a capitalist democratic republic because people want to rule themselves, but they saw the error of anarchy. Eventually (a LONG time from then), people decide that the government needs to be a big brother and regulate everything, so a socialist democratic republic is set up. From there, a group of people decide, "You know what? Socialism is not good enough." They revolt and institute dictatorial communism. After awhile, people get pissed that the govenment controlles every aspect of their lives, so they revolt. Then, there is total anarchy, in which there..........


I think you get my point.

Hmm....

Well, there is total anarchy, in which, basically, there is no government. Within all the chaos, though, a group of people group up and take over. The one person kills his helpers, and crowns himself king. Eventually, people get pissed and revolt. They establish a capitalist democratic republic because people want to rule themselves, but they saw the error of anarchy. Eventually (a LONG time from then), people decide that the government needs to be a big brother and regulate everything, so a socialist democratic republic is set up. From there, a group of people decide, "You know what? Socialism is not good enough." They revolt and institute dictatorial communism. After awhile, people get pissed that the govenment controlles every aspect of their lives, so they revolt. Then, there is total anarchy, in which, basically, there is no government. Within all the chaos, though, a group of people group up and take over. The one person kills his helpers, and crowns himself king. Eventually, people get pissed and revolt. They establish a capitalist democratic republic because people want to rule themselves, but they saw the error of anarchy. Eventually (a LONG time from then), people decide that the government needs to be a big brother and regulate everything, so a socialist democratic republic is set up. From there, a group of people decide, "You know what? Socialism is not good enough." They revolt and institute dictatorial communism. After awhile, people get pissed that the govenment controlles every aspect of their lives, so they revolt. Then, there is total anarchy, in which there..........


I think you get my point.


i like over-simplification

I agree as well. Although I consider myself an anarchist, I prefer aristrocracies over democracies. Rule by a few is ideally better than rule by many.
But with the many you can balance out the stupidity better. With a dozen guys running everything all the time, the stupidity doesn't cancel itself out and runs the country.

An aristocracy is easier to abuse, but it can make more sense: voting is something you earn.
By being born into it?
I believe you are thinking of a meritocracy.

Scientists should decide what government research gets more money.
Their own.

Politicians and sociologists should vote on who fills government positions.
Themselves.

If you never leave the house and don't know anything about anything, then why bother submitting your opinion?
To keep things interesting!
Look at these boards, if we only allowed those that knew what they were talking about a voice in the world, that voice wouldn't scream quite as loud.

One thing to keep in mind: America is not a democracy. We're a democratic republic - a mixed system. In my opinion, America has two great qualities. A mixed political system is one. The other is the seperation of Church and State, but that's starting to break down.
The liquid epoxy of Seperatation that holds the government together has passed from under the money back guarantee of Liberty, and soon the ceiling fan of Revolution will fall upon the head of a guy named Matt and cause him to get the concussion of Anarchy.

democracy is gd coz then america doesn't invade yo

Um, I don't really think there's anything about democracy that prevents a government from doing what it wants. A country without democracy isn't necessarily evil or oppressed.

Democracy works the way it is set up, and if it is set up with a reasonable amount of rules about what laws can be made, then either the government has to break the rules to oppress the people or they are unable to, which is the whole idea behind rules. If a government starts breaking the rules, then it needs to be removed. This is the same for any government. In China, for centuries the head of state was the emperor, and the idea behind the social order in China was that if the emperor stopped serving the people's needs, the people were encouraged, if not obligated, to overthrow the emperor. They did so around the turn of the 20th century, when an empress spent the Chinese military budget on marble boats for herself.

The point of this whole argument is that any system can break the rules. When they do so, they need to be removed, plain and simple. However, within the rules of a social order, democracies have a better track record as far as human rights and going to war are concerned.

voting is something you earn.


By being born into it?
I believe you are thinking of a meritocracy.
He could be using the original definition of Aristocracy, which as far as I remember is Rule by the Best rather the Rule by those who are lucky.

Yes, democracy is rather rubbish, I suppose.

Look at the British Empire! When did it begin to decline? When we gave more people the vote!

He could be using the original definition of Aristocracy, which as far as I remember is Rule by the Best rather the Rule by those who are lucky.
I wasn't being snippy. I was pointing out a better term for it, being a Meritocracy brings to mind the idea I think Arcadian was going for. Artistocracy reminds me of fat people sitting around in yachts saying:
"Come on, old sport, the government is grand!"

Though, the problem with Meritocracy becomes: "Who is defining Merit?"

I wasn't being snippy. I was pointing out a better term for it, being a Meritocracy brings to mind the idea I think Arcadian was going for. Artistocracy reminds me of fat people sitting around in yachts saying:
"Come on, old sport, the government is grand!"

Though, the problem with Meritocracy becomes: "Who is defining Merit?"
I thgink it was a case of me being pedantic rather then you being snippy. I don't think my definition has been used in around two thousand years.