NationStates Jolt Archive

How would the world be? Also flip the situation around, how do you think the world would be if conservatism was the only method all governments on earth utilized and that's how all the people thought?

Either way you end up with a semi-fascist dictatorship. The only security the common man has, is to have those two ideologies competing against each other, so that the ones not in a 'protected class' get some of the crumbs, instead of nothing.

People would split up into various political factions and it would be similar to the way it is today.

Look at most of the debaters on this message board. Most of these arguments are between various types of liberal capitalists. Almost everyone here whether they claim to be liberal or conservative, supports civil liberties like freedom of speech, etc. and also varying degrees of market freedom.

There wouldn't be many wars, so the planet Earth would get rather boring... Aliens would simply pass on without giving two hoots.

Either way you end up with a semi-fascist dictatorship. The only security the common man has, is to have those two ideologies competing against each other, so that the ones not in a 'protected class' get some of the crumbs, instead of nothing.
Indeed

A world without conservatism or liberalism. I might know a moment's peace. Only a moment, until human beings find something else to fight over...

"My Little Pony!"

"Care Bears!"

"My Little Pony!"

"Care Bears!"

A world without currency, perhaps.

Would that not be awesome?

A world without currency, perhaps.

Would that not be awesome?

that depends entirely on how skilled you are as a hunter-gatherer, and how popular you are with other skilled hunter-gatherers.

No Currency=No Industry, no Industry=no widespread technology, no civilization, no trade network. You can do it on small-to-tiny scale only, you wouldn't have a power grid, computers to visit websites like this one, cars, houses, or good metal tools for farming... oh, and you wouldn't have higher than subsitence agriculture. Subsistence Agriculture societies have a life expectancy of around 35 to 45 years in peaceful times, no medicine either.

VERY few people who advocate that sort of thing can actually walk-the-talk.

Someone obviously hasn't heard of Gift Economies, Mutual Aid, or read anything like This anarchist essay against primitivism (http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/andrew/primitivism.html) Most anarchists favour the abolition of currency.

It really depends on how you define "liberalism". The term is so overused today, you can define it any way you want.

But probably, what would happen would be that the liberals would split into two factions: extremists and moderates. Then if, say, extremists were outlawed the moderates would split into radical moderates and centrist moderates. Then if radical moderates were outlawed the centrists would split into conservative centrists and liberal centrists. And so on…

If liberalism was the only ideology enforced by brainwashing and constant war like in 1984, the nation would become a (liberal) police state. And a liberal police state is just as bad as a conservative police state.

Someone obviously hasn't heard of Gift Economies, Mutual Aid, or read anything like This anarchist essay against primitivism (http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/andrew/primitivism.html) Most anarchists favour the abolition of currency.

Like Communism, Anarchism is a wonderful-sounding ideal, that when put into practice, becomes the law of the jungle, where the Strong rule, and everyone else is ground into the dirt.
"If Men were Angels, we would not need Government, and if Government were Angels, we would not need to restrain it." I don't remember who said that, but it's solidly in evidence throughout history.

Like Communism, Anarchism is a wonderful-sounding ideal, that when put into practice, becomes the law of the jungle, where the Strong rule, and everyone else is ground into the dirt.
"If Men were Angels, we would not need Government, and if Government were Angels, we would not need to restrain it." I don't remember who said that, but it's solidly in evidence throughout history.
James Madison.

As far as I remember, the anarchy briefly practiced (http://question-everything.mahost.org/History/SpanishCivilWar.html) during the Spanish Civil war was not one of the strong oppressing the weak. Neither was the Paris Commune, although some would call it a left-Republican uprising (http://question-everything.mahost.org/History/ParisCommune.html) rather than an example of true anarchy. In both cases it nonetheless displays what a conscious public is capable of.

A world without currency, perhaps.

Would that not be awesome?

Yes. That would not be awesome.

The only government that ever functioned without currency was that of the Spartans. Needless to say, I'm not keen on a world like that.

As far as I remember, the anarchy briefly practiced (http://question-everything.mahost.org/History/SpanishCivilWar.html) during the Spanish Civil war was not one of the strong oppressing the weak. Neither was the Paris Commune, although some would call it a left-Republican uprising (http://question-everything.mahost.org/History/ParisCommune.html) rather than an example of true anarchy. In both cases it nonetheless displays what a conscious public is capable of.

What? Not being able to survive for more than a few months? ;)

As far as I remember, the anarchy briefly practiced (http://question-everything.mahost.org/History/SpanishCivilWar.html) during the Spanish Civil war was not one of the strong oppressing the weak. Neither was the Paris Commune, although some would call it a left-Republican uprising (http://question-everything.mahost.org/History/ParisCommune.html) rather than an example of true anarchy. In both cases it nonetheless displays what a conscious public is capable of.

Do you remember what happened to the Paris Commune? (Hint: it begins with "T" and ends with "Error") "Strong" doesn't necessarily mean physically-it can be as simple as having the most ruthless gang. (Robespierre and the Comittee)

The Spanish Anarchists managed to lose the war before they could be corrupted by success.

Do you remember what happened to the Paris Commune? (Hint: it begins with "T" and ends with "Error") "Strong" doesn't necessarily mean physically-it can be as simple as having the most ruthless gang. (Robespierre and the Comittee)

The Spanish Anarchists managed to lose the war before they could be corrupted by success.

What I find funny is that both were beaten by the Germans... yet Marx & Engles were German. :D