NationStates Jolt Archive

Now before i start, i would just like to say that i have spent a lot of time thinking about this, and i have a very informed opinion of many different govermental philosophies.

ok here we go. after years of study i have come to the conclusion that no govermental philosophy is good enough to withstand the stupidity of humanity. in the end democracy will fall and another dark age will come about. its inevitable. consider this:

theocracy: no room to grow and change to the times. very oppressive.
monarcy: the same thing, and you also have power hungry nobels too.
dictatorship: military regime, millions die, highly oppressive, no clear path.
communism: will never work. people need power and money. its human nature. people dont care about oneanother.
anarhism: same thing, people need rules.
democracy: seems to be the best choice we have, but it will never win in
the end. politicions are power hungry, money corrupts, and special intrest groups keep anything from happening.

so you see, there is no clear and best way to govern humanity, and eventually our own stupidity will come back tro haunt us, and history will repeat itsself with another dark age.

well, thats my opinion at least, what do you think?

democracy is no good most people are stupid. A dictatorship with a good, smart person in charge is the best goverment, but its next to impossible to find.

I agree. We can be cynics together. The human race is doomed.

Region of Zen solved all of these problem by practicing the Art of Radical Zen. :fluffle:

a compasionate dictator who listens to his/her people. Just like stalin.

Personally I think that a democracy built around the ideas of Ancient Rome would work quite well.

Having a small body of people working as head of state.

It would work as a mixture of benevalent dictatorship and democracy.

a compasionate dictator who listens to his/her people. Just like stalin.
Yeah,but stalin killed hundreds of his own people before his reign was over.

Clearly the only way is through a pious caliph who governs by sharia. Just ask osama. He knows.

Yeah,but stalin killed hundreds of his own people before his reign was over.
Hundreds? I think millions comes a bit closer. But at least he listened to them before he had them executed. :D
Anyway. The best way to govern is to put me in charge and worship me as a god.

Now before i start, i would just like to say that i have spent a lot of time thinking about this, and i have a very informed opinion of many different govermental philosophies.

ok here we go. after years of study i have come to the conclusion that no govermental philosophy is good enough to withstand the stupidity of humanity. in the end democracy will fall and another dark age will come about. its inevitable. consider this:

theocracy: no room to grow and change to the times. very oppressive.
monarcy: the same thing, and you also have power hungry nobels too.
dictatorship: military regime, millions die, highly oppressive, no clear path.
communism: will never work. people need power and money. its human nature. people dont care about oneanother.
anarhism: same thing, people need rules.
democracy: seems to be the best choice we have, but it will never win in
the end. politicions are power hungry, money corrupts, and special intrest groups keep anything from happening.

so you see, there is no clear and best way to govern humanity, and eventually our own stupidity will come back tro haunt us, and history will repeat itsself with another dark age.

well, thats my opinion at least, what do you think?



I agree with your analysis on the types of government and the stupidity that we are all subjected to once in a while. But looking back on history and the types of governments that have risen and fallen, does it not seem like we are still making more steps forward than taking steps back?

The first democratic governments were theoretically sound but in ancient Greece, slaves still existed. In ancient Rome, women were still not allowed to own property or inherit property, slaves were sold and bought like livestock, even children were not recognized as people until the age of majority. Our democracy, with it's gaping inadequacies are still above that.

And since history is cyclical, we will probably go back to a dark age but I believe that whatever people rise from it will be just as idealistic, full of hope and perhaps, smarter than the last time.

My friends, this is what mankind faces today. It is obvious, with our global corporization, that democracy might not work the way we want it to. As you said, Communism cannot work, because people are naturally greedy. Theocracy, monarchy, fascism, all of them do not allow the constant change that time gives us. So what is the solution? My friends, I believe that it is the combination of two styles of government. Socialism and democracy. Let the people be free and able to decide their policy-makers, and severly limit the power the corporations have on our world's democracys (on a side note, it is capitalism that corrupts democracy). That is the only reason democracy does not work in the U.S. There is not enough power in the hands of the people economically.

Personally I think that a democracy built around the ideas of Ancient Rome would work quite well.

Having a small body of people working as head of state.

It would work as a mixture of benevalent dictatorship and democracy.
Or it would work just as a smaller/less powerful government, which is part of republican and libertarian political ideals (note the lowercase r and l)

no single correct way, just a spectrum, that is best represented with something a little bit to the right of the US on one end and Germany on the other.

Now before i start, i would just like to say that i have spent a lot of time thinking about this, and i have a very informed opinion of many different govermental philosophies.

ok here we go. after years of study i have come to the conclusion that no govermental philosophy is good enough to withstand the stupidity of humanity. in the end democracy will fall and another dark age will come about. its inevitable. consider this:

theocracy: no room to grow and change to the times. very oppressive.
monarcy: the same thing, and you also have power hungry nobels too.
dictatorship: military regime, millions die, highly oppressive, no clear path.
communism: will never work. people need power and money. its human nature. people dont care about oneanother.
anarhism: same thing, people need rules.
democracy: seems to be the best choice we have, but it will never win in
the end. politicions are power hungry, money corrupts, and special intrest groups keep anything from happening.

so you see, there is no clear and best way to govern humanity, and eventually our own stupidity will come back tro haunt us, and history will repeat itsself with another dark age.

well, thats my opinion at least, what do you think?

I agree that democracy seems the best choice in the current world. However, theocracy as I interpret it seems better. If you by my interpretation of scripture and definition of theocracy it could work. Problem is, it won't work on earth under the present circumstances for the same reasons that democracy won't work.

Governments are not perfect not because of their ideals but because of their people. So we have to factor in that we live in a fallen world and choose the government that best suits the fact that everyone will at one time make mistakes. This seems to support the idea that the more people that make the decisions the less likely a mistake is made due to our depravity. Democracy is the best choice we have because of our own nature.....rise or fall it is the only shot we have

Self-government, that is the only correct way to govern humanity

What about a benevolent anarchist dictatorship with no war?
I'll volunteer

What about a benevolent anarchist dictatorship with no war?
I'll volunteer
What's an anarchist dictatorship?

Is there any correct way to govern humanity?

Riding crop, horse hobbles, and a little KY.

Anarchist dictatorship: The people do as they please unless the dictator doesn't like it. Then the dictator decides the punishment. No rules, I'm just right. Hee hee.

Now before i start, i would just like to say that i have spent a lot of time thinking about this, and i have a very informed opinion of many different govermental philosophies.

ok here we go. after years of study i have come to the conclusion that no govermental philosophy is good enough to withstand the stupidity of humanity. in the end democracy will fall and another dark age will come about. its inevitable. consider this:

Dark Age occurs because God has not been listened to anymore. Man decides he doesn't need him. This causes enlightment to cease for the majority of mankind. Few inventions that don't cause war are developed.

theocracy: no room to grow and change to the times. very oppressive.

Depends on the type of religion. One could have a Athesist Theocracy. In fact Hitler did. But there can be room to grow and change. The problem is second generation screws it up if kids stupid or corrupt.

monarcy: the same thing, and you also have power hungry nobels too.

Don't always have power hungry nobles. Scotland was just fine under monarchy. Sadly they were conquered by the Brits.

dictatorship: military regime, millions die, highly oppressive, no clear path.

Millions don't always die unless you mean war. But absolute power corrupts absolutely.

communism: will never work. people need power and money. its human nature. people dont care about one another.

Its supposed to be everybody treated equal, but problem people stop doing that. Not enough people care about each other you mean.


anarchism: same thing, people need rules.

Never understood that belief.

democracy: seems to be the best choice we have, but it will never win in
the end. politicions are power hungry, money corrupts, and special intrest groups keep anything from happening.

Best choice no. Choice we are stuck with for now, yes. Special interest don't keep things from happening, but make wrong stuff happen. Problem is certain groups like repubnlicans andemnocrats are getting partnered with bad groups like Conservatives and neo-cons in Republican party. One says tax cuts alwauys good but other says we need fiscial responsiblity. As if the party sucks because no fiscial responsiblity.

so you see, there is no clear and best way to govern humanity, and eventually our own stupidity will come back to haunt us, and history will repeat itsself with another dark age.

well, thats my opinion at least, what do you think?
Actually unbelief in god makes Dark Ages so we need to stop too much atheism but keep one religion from taking over like Bush wants.

Why do people need to be govern in the first place, don't you know what to do or do you have to be guided like sheep?

Why do people need to be govern in the first place, don't you know what to do or do you have to be guided like sheep?
Okay if someone doesn't know how tro play a game... how likely are they to play it right?

It is not about sheep but confusion. Too much confusion without some guidance on subjects.

Or are you trying to be insulting.

Okay if someone doesn't know how tro play a game... how likely are they to play it right?

It is not about sheep but confusion. Too much confusion without some guidance on subjects.

Or are you trying to be insulting.

Life contrary to common opinion is not a game, and who is to say who should guide others....so far as I have seen humanity has not chosen its guides very well....it tend to reward the worse of them and destroy the best

Depends on the type of religion. One could have a Athesist Theocracy. In fact Hitler did. But there can be room to grow and change. The problem is second generation screws it up if kids stupid or corrupt.

Actually unbelief in god makes Dark Ages so we need to stop too much atheism but keep one religion from taking over like Bush wants.
Atheist Theocracy? WTF? Atheims = without god. Theocracy = rule by god (since he doesn't really ever show up here on earth, his faithfull servants take up the slack.)

Atheism doesn't make Dark Ages. Trusting too much in religion and too little in science and learning does.

Atheist Theocracy? WTF? Atheims = without god. Theocracy = rule by god (since he doesn't really ever show up here on earth, his faithfull servants take up the slack.)

Atheism doesn't make Dark Ages. Trusting too much in religion and too little in science and learning does.

Yes, I thought It was a theocracy ...The Roman Church that brought about the conditions that lead to the Dark Ages

Bastard sword, are you personally capale of governing yourself?

Dark Age occurs because God has not been listened to anymore.

And here I thought the dark age was brought about by the Bubonic Plague.

The correct way to govern Humanity is to not have it governed by a Human.
An A.I with a neural link to every man,woman and child would be a much better choice, it would be able to percive, and understand everyones problems perfectly and have to processing power to deal with them rapidly.
The A.I itself would not feelings, but would understand them through knowlegde gained from neural links. With no feelings theres no coruption, ambition or anything that could have a negative effect.
(If anyone here has played Deus Ex you know what Im getting at)

Dark Age occurs because God has not been listened to anymore. Man decides he doesn't need him.

Well that doesn't make sense. Let's look at the European Dark Ages. Beginning with the fall of the western Roman Empire in 410 and going to about 1100. No problemo if we agree on the dates.

Fine.

During that time was a great peak of Catholic power. Men had to listen to God or they'd be hung. Protestants didn't exist yet, so if you were Christian, you were Catholic. Period. Life sucked ass.

During that same time period, Muslims were acheiving great advances in mathematical sciences, medicine, and engineering. It has been argued by some that Muslims are godless heathens who bow to a moon god.

Again, during that same time period, Asia was making great leaps and bounds in literature, medicine, and engineering and Asia was basically atheistic.

So it looks to me like self-righteous, greedy Popes being in power is what causes a Dark Age.

The correct way to govern Humanity is to not have it governed by a Human.
An A.I with a neural link to every man,woman and child would be a much better choice, it would be able to percive, and understand everyones problems perfectly and have to processing power to deal with them rapidly.
The A.I itself would not feelings, but would understand them through knowlegde gained from neural links. With no feelings theres no coruption, ambition or anything that could have a negative effect.
(If anyone here has played Deus Ex you know what Im getting at)

M4g| R 73h $u><><0rz!!!!!!!!1111

The best way is by representative democracy, like we have in most of Europe and North America today. But we need society to have the correct philosophical base for it to work, or else it will begin to collapse like it is doing today. The outward form is not enough.

The sort of base that we need supports individual rights and dignity of a human being, but not so much to where "anything goes." We must recognize that people are not perfect and correct for it.

I suggest Francis Schaeffer's How Should We Then Live? for further reading. While this covers more than political philosophy, it does it fine job of explaining why democracy emerged from the Protestant Reformation the way it did.

The correct way to govern humanity is.... I rule.
Period.

I say we vouch for another option.
How about becoming a TRUE democracy? A TRUE government run by the people where we don't vote for politicians but on issues, and we do away with such notions as the electoral college.
LoL, scary thought sometimes, I'm sure. But if you put more money in education, soon it should work itself out... lol.
Silly rednecks.

I prefer anarchism, myself.

I say we vouch for another option.
How about becoming a TRUE democracy? A TRUE government run by the people where we don't vote for politicians but on issues, and we do away with such notions as the electoral college.
LoL, scary thought sometimes, I'm sure. But if you put more money in education, soon it should work itself out... lol.
Silly rednecks.

So a simple majority rules on everything? Sounds good in theory, but not in practice. A dictatorship or 51% is still a dictatorship. There must be something to protect the minority from the majority. Let's say, for example, that the majority of the population votes to do away with search and siezure rules. Now what?

Libertarian Socialist Democratic Federalist States working together, each city/area has a body of governors, they enforce laws in a city/area, but also the states elect representatives to decide laws: which are then voted on by the population in referendym - that all 'states' must enforce. The people in each state can create their own laws, as long as these don't contravene the 'national' laws, as long as these are voted for in a referendum in which there is 80% attendance and 60% majority.

Minimal government inteference in people's private lives, complete equality under law. FULL seperation of church and state. Church whilst having to act under the law, can do what ever the hell it chooses, as can any other religious bodies.

Free education, health-care etc. funded by progressive taxation, those most able to pay, pay the most, but everyone must see what their tax pays for.
Control on corporations, minimum wage etc, in my opinion should be run on a strictly not for profit basis.

Yeah,but stalin killed hundreds of his own people before his reign was over.
Hundreds?! Try 40 million!

I prefer anarchism, myself.
Sure, doesn't everyone love chaos? Like a great man once said, "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the rest." A brilliant paradox.

Sure, doesn't everyone love chaos? Like a great man once said, "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the rest." A brilliant paradox.

Anarchy is a society without élites, not chaos. You're thinking of anomie.

Now before i start, i would just like to say that i have spent a lot of time thinking about this, and i have a very informed opinion of many different govermental philosophies.

Actually, you must not. Based on the comments below, you clearly have no understanding of anarchism, at least.

after years of study i have come to the conclusion that no govermental philosophy is good enough to withstand the stupidity of humanity. in the end democracy will fall and another dark age will come about. its inevitable.

Well, if what you mean is that there is no "final" answer such that by adopting certain governing institutions we would ensure peace, happiness, and security without further effort... then I would agree. Politics always requires work, and no "system" can automatically prevent its own corruption. But its corruption and fall is by no means "inevitable."


theocracy: no room to grow and change to the times. very oppressive.

I would tend to agree, but it is at least theoretically possible to have a "liberal" religion. There is nothing inherently conservative about religious belief.

monarcy: the same thing, and you also have power hungry nobels too.

Yeah, sure. There have been some good rulers in history... the problem is it only takes one bad egg to ruin everything. Very unstable.

dictatorship: military regime, millions die, highly oppressive, no clear path.

Again, we might have to admit to one or two truly benevolent and loved dictators in history... but, generally speaking, I agree that this never works out.

communism: will never work. people need power and money. its human nature. people dont care about oneanother.

First of all, with your vast knowledge of political philosophy, you should know by now that one must usually specify what you mean by "communism," since you could mean any of the various political/economic systems adopted by the U.S.S.R., Cuba, or China... you might mean something relating directly to Marxism... or you might be referring to the simple notion of a collectivist economy (which is a question to a large degree separable from politics).

Secondly, people "need" neither power nor money, at least not as an aspect of "human nature." Just look at the Native American civilizations that existed for thousands of years with an essentially anarchist constitution. Of course, perhaps you mean that "modern" humans can never "go back." In that case you have an argument worth making, but I do not want to get caught up in it here. On the other hand, I would wholeheartedly agree that as a practical matter money is indispensable... but whether or not "communism" entails "no money" depends on which of those systems you meant.

anarhism: same thing, people need rules.

You are confused. Anarchists love rules. They hate rulers. Moreover, based on the history of the world thus far, anarchism has proven itself to be the system with the greatest internal longevity.

democracy: seems to be the best choice we have, but it will never win in the end. politicions are power hungry, money corrupts, and special intrest groups keep anything from happening.

Most modern anarchists understand anarchism in very democratic terms... and they suggest a system in which "politicians" as we know them would not exist. In general, however, you are correct... the mere appearance of formally democratic institutions is not sufficient to the maintenance of a healthy democracy. We need to engender truly democratic values (and virtues) in the population as well. Good government of any sort must always be actively defended lest it give way to corruption. No system is naturally immune.

Anarchy is a society without élites, not chaos. You're thinking of anomie.
Anarchy is the absence of government, correct? With the absence of government, there would (most likely) be chaos. Either that or some sort of twisted feudal society. Point is, a democratically elected government is the best way to govern.

Anarchy is the absence of government, correct?

No, anarchy is not the absence of government.

With the absence of government, there would (most likely) be chaos.

Correct, and no anarchist wants chaos. In fact, anarchists tend to think that the existing situation is pretty close to chaos, or at least that its ordering principles are in decay. There is a slogan: "Anarchy is order."

And here I thought the dark age was brought about by the Bubonic Plague.

The dark ages (~500-~1000) were caused by the collapse of the western Roman empire and eccentuated by too much blind belief in the Roman Catholic Church and a disengagement from scientific development.
The Black death (largest out break of bubonic plauge) occured in the mid 1300's and helped lay the foundations for the modern political, economic and social structure by eliminating large sections of the European population creating labor shortages and atendent realocation capitol and power.

____________________________________________________________________
Communism is NOT a form of government, it is an economic and social system based on equality and egalitarianism and the right of the workers to control the means of production the the fruits of their labor.
no nation on earth has ever been communist, and it is unknown if it can be made to work properly, in order for that to happen humans probaly have a little more evolving to do.
Anarchism isn't the absense of government or rules, rather it is the absense of the state, the goals of Anarchy and Communism are much the same, self rule by the people, in their own communities. The difference between the two lay in the need for a state in the interveneing period before an anachro-communist society, free of the misereys associated with life as we know it can be established.

In the mean time democratic socialism (as opposed to democratic capitalism) sounds prety good.

No, anarchy is not the absence of government.

Then what is it? Please enlighten me.

I'd say the correct type of government is libertarian. While I disagree with libertarians on a few issues- namely abortion and drug laws- I usually agree with them 90%.

Theoretically, a benevolent dictatorship would be perfect, but those don't exist for more than a few years, when they appear at all. I'd have to saw a mix between a libertarian republic and a constitutional monarchy with mild imperial ambitions (say, late-nineteenth century America + early twentieth century Britain).

I agree. We can be cynics together. The human race is doomed.

You are right. The human race has been doomed for at least 8k years.

Then what is it? Please enlighten me.

The term "anarchism," while referring to a diverse range of political theories, is used by theorists in general to denote a constitution based on some form of "self-rule," with no meaningful distinction between "ruling" and "ruled" classes.

The etymology of the term is often confused as meaning "no rules," when in fact it means "no rule" or "no rulers." It implies that society exists without the need for one class of people that makes and enforces rules, and another class that only obeys.

Historically, many Native American tribes used essentially anarchist constitutions for thousands of years, and anarchism has appeared to varying degrees and in various forms for limited periods throughout history.

The principle being "self-rule," most modern anarchists understand it to imply some form of democratic rule. It also encompasses, especially in some nineteenth-century theories, some notion of "rule of law" (again, no rulers), and for some it even includes a sort of scientific/administrative rule -- i.e. the reduction of politics to administrative and/or technical questions (under conditions of equality). Preferences vary among individual anarchists.