NationStates Jolt Archive

Just wondering.

A semi-federal libertarian republic

A large government that keeps check on criminals and terrorists and punishes hardly those who don't work for common cause.

"Myrthocracy" isn't an option. :(

I used to be a total anarchist, but I've revised my position a bit. Government is needed, but it should only exist to execute the laws made by the people. Everything else should be done by the people themselves.

A totalitarian dictatorship with me in charge...otherwise, a libertarian confederate republic.

(I admit I got this from another poster who posted this a while ago)


Ain't no government like no government :)

I used to be a total anarchist, but I've revised my position a bit. Government is needed, but it should only exist to execute the laws made by the people. Everything else should be done by the people themselves.
Wow, that's ironic... I used to believe exactly what you believe, but now I'm an anarchist. :p Two ships passing in the night, I suppose.

I have to ask, though, just for the sake of conversation: if government is needed, then how did we survive the 99% of human history in which there was no government?

I have to ask, though, just for the sake of conversation: if government is needed, then how did we survive the 99% of human history in which there was no government?

Even though I am a fellow Anarchist, I feel I must ask. When, in your opinion, is the start of human history?

I have to ask, though, just for the sake of conversation: if government is needed, then how did we survive the 99% of human history in which there was no government?

Dumb luck? :p

*shrugs*

Wow, that's ironic... I used to believe exactly what you believe, but now I'm an anarchist. :p Two ships passing in the night, I suppose.

I have to ask, though, just for the sake of conversation: if government is needed, then how did we survive the 99% of human history in which there was no government?1) There was government in the form of limited oligarchies (clan elders).

2) People lived alone and did not need to rely on others. Nowadays, we live in an interdependant society.

3) For all of "civilization" we've had some form of government.

4) Those without government did not usually survive, being crushed by enemy clans with government.

Does that answer your question?

Wow, that's ironic... I used to believe exactly what you believe, but now I'm an anarchist. :p Two ships passing in the night, I suppose.

I have to ask, though, just for the sake of conversation: if government is needed, then how did we survive the 99% of human history in which there was no government?

There may not have been a government, but there was always someone in charge of the people, whether is was a PM, or a King, or a chief, or the head of the cave men. The fact that this goes back to prehistoric times goes to show that there always needs to be someone in charge. A democratic government, which is what i think the pollster was talking about, is the worst type on paper, but the only one that works. The fact that the people get to choose who they want forces the government to stop doing as many stupid things as they normally would.

I chose a small government with a free market. The government should be there as a safety net, but not to the extent that they rule the buisnesses. The government 9 times out of 10 drives up the price of goods when they are trying to keep it down. Just let the buissnesses compete and let the government worry about the people.

I chose a small government with a free market. The government should be there as a safety net, but not to the extent that they rule the buisnesses. The government 9 times out of 10 drives up the price of goods when they are trying to keep it down. Just let the buissnesses compete and let the government worry about the people.

coughutopianthinkingcough

I voted large government, only because I did not know what dictatorship would entail(most dictators were not people who should have held the position). Anyway my view on government is that it should be the pinnacle of human achievement and be in charge of making sure that society in the long run is successful(education, law, order, defense, technological development). As well I do not like democracy because I think that people are stupid and should not decide most things for themselves.

A Corporate empire that is ruled by a sovreign Emperor who controls the economy through a massive corporation that is owned partially by the various nobility (think CHOAM in Dune)

i voted big govt looking out for the interests of the people

but in reality my ideal would be virtually no govt, most policy decided at local level through direct democracy, and an end to capitalism.... but for some reason there wasn't a poll option for that :p
go anarcho-communists!

Non-interventionnist, but with free trade! (NON isolationnist)
A small army (less than 1% of the population).
Pseudo-Libertarian: the basic public services are state-owned, but all the rest is in the private sector.
True multipartism (not limited to 2 parties) with easy access to politics, and laws that limit electoral expenses.
Information Access Act.
Non-restrictive medicare.
Private hospitals, but public emergency rooms.

civic republicanism:
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=427660

essentially, government based on a society which respects freedom, but recognizes it as a duty, not a right.

Jesus Christ... you people know nothing about prehistory.

White Power NS/RS Totalitarian dictatorship would be very nice. :)

To bad right now its a ZOG Dictatorship. :gundge:

I have to ask, though, just for the sake of conversation: if government is needed, then how did we survive the 99% of human history in which there was no government?

You may not need a government to survive...

I mean, sure, society could be chaotic and we can run around in droves, stealing, pillaging and plundering to obtain what we need to survive. We can even form animal-skin clad barbaric tribes, armed with clubs and spears, and fight for ourselves. We would't have literature, science, mathematics, or any other academic means of maintaining a knowledge of the world around us. But we would be free of any orderly social system! I mean, who cares that anarchism would eventually lead to oppressive governments and little freedom... :rolleyes:

Or, we can see the 1% of history where we do have forms of government, recognize that we are much better off with enlightened political systems such as democracy, that ensure the general well-being and protection of way more people, and realize that reverting back to pre-civilized ways would be ludicrous.

:D

You may not need a government to survive...

I mean, sure, society could be chaotic and we can run around in droves, stealing, pillaging and plundering to obtain what we need to survive. We can even form animal-skin clad barbaric tribes, armed with clubs and spears, and fight for ourselves. We would't have literature, science, mathematics, or any other academic means of maintaining a knowledge of the world around us. But we would be free of any orderly social system! I mean, who cares that anarchism would eventually lead to oppressive governments and little freedom... :rolleyes:

Ooh, ooh. Proof please.

That anarchism leads to oppressive governments, I mean.

Maybe you should actually learn what anarchism is :)

Or, we can see the 1% of history where we do have forms of government, recognize that we are much better off with enlightened political systems such as democracy, that ensure the general well-being and protection of way more people, and realize that reverting back to pre-civilized ways would be ludicrous.
:D

The original point wasn't that the first 99% (or whatever spurious figure is generated) was better, but that government wasn't existant.

I'd prefer government power at local level to be controlled by direct democracy, you can say it doesn't work but it's all in operation with more success thnt can be expected from any democratic system, as it stands.

The national government would actually obey the wishes of the people, if the majority didn't want a big hike in tax or the majority proclaimed loudly "No" to something then it wouldn't be enacted. Private business would have responsibilities, sure they'd be out to make money but not when it's driving people into poverty and polluting the local environment.

It would be a government that was staffed by people who actually did their job, people quite different than the current brand of politican we're seeing and actually rather satisfied with even though we're aware they're inefficient, corrupt and ego-centric.

In short, it would be a government directed by those at the ground floor through layers, one where voters actually got a real say in their local politics.

Government
# The act or process of governing, especially the control and administration of public policy in a political unit.
# The office, function, or authority of a governing individual or body.
# Exercise of authority in a political unit; rule.
# The agency or apparatus through which a governing individual or body functions and exercises authority.
# A governing body or organization, as:

1. The ruling political party or coalition of political parties in a parliamentary system.
2. The cabinet in a parliamentary system.
3. The persons who make up a governing body.

# A system or policy by which a political unit is governed.
# Administration or management of an organization, business, or institution.
# Political science.

ANARCHY - n.

1 absence of hierarchy, power and authority
2. absence of any form of political authority or government
3. political disorder and confusion
4. absence of any cohesive principle, such as a common standard or purpose
5. without rules or laws (syn: anomie, anomy)
6. self-government

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Anarchy

By these definitions, anarchy is not merely the lack of national government, but absolute lack of any authority. No tribal chiefs, no Alpha Male, no Laird, no Man On The Hill Who Lives In A Castle And Owns These Villages. It is the OPPOSITE of Order, not simply the lack of it.
For anarchy to become, there must be not only a lack of stability, but also a deliberately DESTABILISING FORCE. Thus, in total anarchy, it's more like sitting/walking naked in a desert with no end in sight. The pinnacle of Self-Government, with no outside stabilising influence.

I wish there was an option for two of the above choices...government should be able to keep corporations in line but also protect individual rights and stay the hell out of the bedroom.

The ideal government should have a written Constitution protecting free speech, freedom of assembly, the rights of victims as well as the accused, and protect the rights to education and necessary health care.

The ideal government would have a single parliamentary body elected by proportional representation, campaign spending limits would be imposed as well as limits on soft money.

The ideal government would have provisions allowing for a draft that can only be authorized in rare circumstances with a lot of approval. It would be as easy to amend the Constitution as it would be to authorize a draft; Parliament alone wouldn't be able to do it.

The ideal government would recognize civil contracts between people that give pretty much the same rights as marriage, but unlike marriage, they can be terminated easily and can be authorized for multiple people at the same time. Likewise, marriage would pretty much be relegated to religious ceremonies that can make their own rules.

The ideal government would allow towns to make their own laws concerning morality in public but would be forbidden to legislate morality in private (i.e. a city can ban public nudity but can't make sodomy laws.)

The ideal government would admit when it's screwed up and release prisoners who have been proven innocent. It would also compensate them for lost time.

OK, enough sounding like a middle-school part-by-part essay on the ideal government. I can give you more in an hour when i get off work.

ANARCHY - n.

1 absence of hierarchy, power and authority
2. absence of any form of political authority or government
3. political disorder and confusion
4. absence of any cohesive principle, such as a common standard or purpose
5. without rules or laws (syn: anomie, anomy)
6. self-government

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Anarchy

Interesting source your are using.

Would I be right in assuming that the wiktionary is similar to wikipedia?

So that anyone can contribute to it? Hardly an authoritive source now, is it?

By these definitions, anarchy is not merely the lack of national government, but absolute lack of any authority. No tribal chiefs, no Alpha Male, no Laird, no Man On The Hill Who Lives In A Castle And Owns These Villages. It is the OPPOSITE of Order, not simply the lack of it.
For anarchy to become, there must be not only a lack of stability, but also a deliberately DESTABILISING FORCE. Thus, in total anarchy, it's more like sitting/walking naked in a desert with no end in sight. The pinnacle of Self-Government, with no outside stabilising influence.

:rolleyes:

I'm amazed that a modern political theory which has been around for around 200 years, which attracted some of the greatest minds of the day can be so easily dismissed with a (dodgy) dictionary entry and a few (hysterical) lines of commentary.

Meh, I'll just call strawman.

Ooh, ooh. Proof please.

That anarchism leads to oppressive governments, I mean.

Maybe you should actually learn what anarchism is

I cannot "prove" that anarchism leads to oppressive governments, but if you follow me on a series of logical steps, hopefully I can further illustrate my assertion.

Let's start with the basics. Some humans are overly-ambitious, and greedy and will do anything to attain wealth, power, etc. Proof? Just look at modern day society (unless you consider society to be that which corrupts humans--I'll get to that later). Look at dictators who care little for their people, at CEOs who are obsessed with attaining wealth (which I am not neccessarily opposed to--but nevertheless many want wealth and power).

Now, let's consider society with the absense of any form of government whatsoever (this includes anything from dictatorships to tribes--because even tribes have leaders). Essentially what you are left with is either a huge commune of unselfish humans, or a chaotic mess where anyone with the "biggest stick" so to speak, is at the liberty to oppress and subjugate others.

Before, I continue with what I believe would happen, let's take a journey into the realm of human history. When have a group of individuals EVER lived without any hierarchical structure, where everyone is equal, where wealth, power, etc. is evenly distributed, and where natural human tendencies are controlled to the point where there is no discord. Never. And there never will be. So, going back to the idea that society corrupts (especially one led by some sort of government), may be true, but history has shown that even without a formal government corruption has also occured.

I don't deny that people have been able to live without government. I do deny that people were living BETTER than they are now, without any form of government.

The original point wasn't that the first 99% (or whatever spurious figure is generated) was better, but that government wasn't existant.

I realize this. But, I was assuming that if you were to maintain advocate anarchism, it would be based on your belief that no government is BETTER than a government. Is that true?

Pre- Sex Pistols anarchists were more than a kick-ass outfit with a brain the size of a pea.

I mean... there used to be a REAL Anarchist party in the UK.

I cannot "prove" that anarchism leads to oppressive governments, but if you follow me on a series of logical steps, hopefully I can further illustrate my assertion.

Let's start with the basics. Some humans are overly-ambitious, and greedy and will do anything to attain wealth, power, etc. Proof? Just look at modern day society (unless you consider society to be that which corrupts humans--I'll get to that later). Look at dictators who care little for their people, at CEOs who are obsessed with attaining wealth (which I am not neccessarily opposed to--but nevertheless many want wealth and power).

Now, let's consider society with the absense of any form of government whatsoever (this includes anything from dictatorships to tribes--because even tribes have leaders).

Here is where your idea falls down. Anarchists do advocate a form of government. One where everyone participates and represents themselves. They just want to get rid of the nation state, hierarchy imposed by coercion, fraud and violence and similar things.

Essentially what you are left with is either a huge commune of unselfish humans, or a chaotic mess where anyone with the "biggest stick" so to speak, is at the liberty to oppress and subjugate others.

Before, I continue with what I believe would happen, let's take a journey into the realm of human history. When have a group of individuals EVER lived without any hierarchical structure, where everyone is equal, where wealth, power, etc. is evenly distributed, and where natural human tendencies are controlled to the point where there is no discord.

I'm not denying that these tendancies don't exist, but do you have any proof that we are inherently controled by them.

Even if this is the case, it does not signal the death of Anarchism.

Never. And there never will be.

There have been, many times. In fact it is happening already. Just not on a wide scale.

And to say "there never will be" requires some sort of prophetic vision, does it not?

So, going back to the idea that society corrupts (especially one led by some sort of government), may be true, but history has shown that even without a formal government corruption has also occured.

Such as when?

Various anarchist experiments were crushed by external forces, not internal contradictions.

I don't deny that people have been able to live without government. I do deny that people were living BETTER than they are now, without any form of government.



I realize this. But, I was assuming that if you were to maintain advocate anarchism, it would be based on your belief that no government is BETTER than a government. Is that true?

Yep.

Previous cultures with no formal governments are occasionally trotted out by anarchists as proof that it is possible. Not that those previous cultures automatically had it better then we do now.

Only the primitivists really want to turn the clock back to then.

Pre- Sex Pistols anarchists were more than a kick-ass outfit with a brain the size of a pea.


Yep, describes William Godwin to a tee :p

I voted "unsure".

Because I am.

People need orderly society in order to survive. That includes a strong government with powerful rules. The idea that people could get by without a government with any strength is idealistic and most likely would not work. Many people seek power and without a strong government with rules regulating how much power they can have, these people will overpower the government and install one designed to aid them and only them. This is not paranoia, this is cynicism and the human race overall has major problems.

There no doubt needs to be advocates and advisers commenting on the needs and desires of the people, but a government where those who fail to serve the people get pension rather than death penalty is bound to fail.

The big threats to all government and perhaps even to all human progress are stupidity and corruption. It is annoyingly true.

White Power NS/RS Totalitarian dictatorship would be very nice. :)

To bad right now its a ZOG Dictatorship. :gundge:

I wouldn't vote on this due to the wording. Totalitarian could be committing mass genocide against everybody related to you, in certain cases. Which is why I'm for benevolent dictorships. ;)

I think the Professor de laPaz from Robert Heinlein's Moon is a Harsh Mistress best sums up my feelings on government. Ideally, he wishes for a free society composed of self suffient and responsible anarchists, but realises that this is a flawed dream and can never be. Thus, he sees the existence of government as a neccesary and tolerable evil. Hence, ideally, I would call myself an anarchist, but, since that can never truly be, (and Bog knows I would never trust the country I currently live in to rule themselves responsibly) I call myself a Democratic Socialist.

For me, a semi-collectivist direct democracy with no government to be spoken of except that which is administered by the classless society.

Let the free market entirely regulate itself as proposed by extreme forms of libertarianism and anarcho-capitalism. People only think they need government in its current massive sense. Corporations could manage things just fine if given the chance.

Non-party democracy. Let the representatives speak for themselves, instead of toeing the party line.

Corporations could manage things just fine if given the chance.

Like they did in the Industrial Revolution and early 20th century? :confused: Thanks but no thanks.

Corporations in and of themselves are money making machines. That is their only goal. When not held in check they can be utterly unscrupulous - doing anything and everything to gain money. A proper, if limited, check is needed to prevent the horrible conditions of the late 1800's early 1900's.

As far as anarchy, since someone stated that a dictionary definition is insufficient, can you please explain it more thouroughly and without the deficiency you seem to think the dictionary gave it?

Because at best, anarchy is a utopian belief that is completely unrealistic - on many levels.

That aside, my perfect government would be pretty much what the U.S. has already.

As far as anarchy, since someone stated that a dictionary definition is insufficient, can you please explain it more thouroughly and without the deficiency you seem to think the dictionary gave it?

In a single post, no.

It is a broad school of thought with many sub categories (Anarcho-Communism, Mutualism, blah blah blah)

There a great many website available with a good treatment of Anarchism. But the Infoshop FAQ is probably the best starting place.

Clicky! (http://www.infoshop.org/faq/)

But the reason why I object to the dictionary being used is that whilst the dictionary maybe useful to get the spelling or the jist of the word, it is an extremely basic starting point and not particuarly accurate. I mean, there is a reason we have encyclopedias and specialist books. ;)

Because at best, anarchy is a utopian belief that is completely unrealistic - on many levels.

How is it utopian?

On what levels is it unrealistic?

ideal democratic totalitarian, people decide everything with unlimited power. a limitless direct democracy is what i mean, but that's just ideal. i'd probably have to say some form of fascism without the merging of companies and state, just complete control of companies under state. so in another way of saying that, a version of stalinism.

This should be re-built into a poll where you can check the boxes for wanting different components present in a government.


Well, If I were to take two of the current choices and split the difference, I would say I want a medium/medium-large sized government which provides safety for the people and keep corporations in check, but also stay out of the bedroom and "morality" legislation.

A government that provides a safety net, while at the same time staying completely out of "moral" issues. TOTAL social freedom is what I'm talking about.

It's like this: Walking nude in the center of a city never hurt anybody.

A government that provides a safety net, while at the same time staying completely out of "moral" issues. TOTAL social freedom is what I'm talking about.

It's like this: Walking nude in the center of a city never hurt anybody.



Yeah! :cool:


I hope you're not being sarcastic, though :p :D

I do not like your ideas then. After all to allow that much freedom would be offensive, and when you offend people that greatly they will take action to stop it. The mark of a great society is not the freedom that it gives but instead the progress(actual progress not simply progress of freedom) made by that society. After all, nudity as a freedom is a bit foolish as too many people would oppose it.

Yeah! :cool:


I hope you're not being sarcastic, though :p :D

Not in the least.

*points to Political Compass in sig*

No government! Libertarian Socialism all the way!


Libertarian as NOT in American "Libertarianism", Libertarian as what the anarchists called theirselves back before the cappies hijacked it, social and politcally libertarian.

And, since of my Marxist ideals, the state and the government are not the same thing.

The smallest government possible. I'm a liberatian socialist.