NationStates Jolt Archive

I don't really know what one would call my own political beliefs or my ideology.

But in short, my ideal society or utopia, if you will, would be this:

ALL industries and economic units would be privatised. That means the health services, education, energy, service sector, public transport, heavy industry and the police and military services.

The Government would still exist and be the ONLY unit/institution under it's own control, although it could operate in the manner of a corporation itself, if the practicalities of this could work.

The military services and police, although run by different coporations would be given a fixed term contract. During the time of that said contract, the Government would have executive decision making powers over the use of those two forces and thus in return for a annual commission fee, the corporation running the service would hand over operational powers to the Government.

Of course, other defence contractors and private security agencies can put in a bid for running those things for the Government, after the existing contract expires and if they can prove themselves more adept at running the service than the corporation already running the service.

Taxes would cease to exist as would all 'safety nets' like 'social security' and other programmes.

I don't think this would be called 'Anarcho-capitalism' for the Government still exists.

The ONLY reason for the Government in this type of society would be to ensure SAFETY and the RULE OF LAW.

All other social and economic responsibilities that Governments have today would cease to be the Governments responsibility in the future.

What would this political outlook be called, Minarchist?

And, what is YOUR ideology/belief system???

are you trying to start a war in NS?

NO!

I don't want to see this thread hijacked by name-calling and insults.

Just state your views!

And help me find the name of my own beliefs.

I don't really know what one would call my own political beliefs or my ideology.

But in short, my ideal society or utopia, if you will, would be this:

ALL industries and economic units would be privatised. That means the health services, education, energy, service sector, public transport, heavy industry and the police and military services.

The Government would still exist and be the ONLY unit/institution under it's own control, although it could operate in the manner of a corporation itself, if the practicalities of this could work.

The military services and police, although run by different coporations would be given a fixed term contract. During the time of that said contract, the Government would have executive decision making powers over the use of those two forces and thus in return for a annual commission fee, the corporation running the service would hand over operational powers to the Government.

Of course, other defence contractors and private security agencies can put in a bid for running those things for the Government, after the existing contract expires and if they can prove themselves more adept at running the service than the corporation already running the service.

Taxes would cease to exist as would all 'safety nets' like 'social security' and other programmes.

I don't think this would be called 'Anarcho-capitalism' for the Government still exists.

The ONLY reason for the Government in this type of society would be to ensure SAFETY and the RULE OF LAW.

All other social and economic responsibilities that Governments have today would cease to be the Governments responsibility in the future.

What would this political outlook be called, Minarchist?

And, what is YOUR ideology/belief system???

I believe "anarchosyndicalist" is the term you seek, although I personally would call this form of government "Fred."

I don't really know what one would call my own political beliefs or my ideology.

<snip>

What would this political outlook be called, Minarchist?



That, or anarcholibertarianism.

I believe "anarchosyndicalist" is the term you seek, although I personally would call this form of government "Fred."

No, it's minarchist.

Anarcho-syndicalism has no state, but puts control of the economy in the hands of worker-run institutions. It grew from the radical labor movement; Noam Chomsky is an adherent.

I have a phobia of any word with 'anarcho' in it:

Anarchosyndicalism is a form of leftis/communist anarchism, thus I reject it outright.

I forgot to mention that trade unions and striking would be illegal in my ideal society, for I always see 'workers movements' as a collectivist and socialist tendency.

Yeah, I thought Minarchist was what I am for.

A mini sized Government.

I do NOT believe that humans can function without any kind of authority from above.

Any moves towrds making all humans 'equal' is bad, for they tend to be disasters and reject the natural order that allows some humans to build themselves into something better than the person next to them.

I have a phobia of ny word with 'anarcho' in it:

Anarchosyndicalism is a form of leftis/communist anarchism, thus I reject it outright.

I forgot to mention that trade unions and striking would be illegal in my ideal society, for I always see 'workers movements' as a collectivist and socialist tendency.
Don't get hung up on "left/right" because that's largely peepee caacaa. Doesn't matter where the idea for the system came from, the basics are the same. And if you don't like "anarcho-," well, that's why I call it "Fred" ;)

I do see a left vs. right divide in MOST ideologies.

Some, like Third Positionism seek both ends of the side or none.

Your government could not enforce anything as its police and military are privatised and would act in their best interest. Maybe not right away, but eventually a strongman in either the police or military would form a junta. Or the Junta would be under some other corporation who buys the police/military. Even in the early stages it is effectively the same as anarchy; you may say philosophically it isn't because it has a government, but said government is impotent.

Just a couple of questions. Where would funding police and defense budgets, or funding for things like roads and other critical infrastructure come from if there are no taxes?

I hate how much of my money that the government steals, but I do understand that its nessisary for some things.

Decentralized democratic socialism, very strongly influenced by anarchism, Council Communism, and general libertarian socialist theory.

All the means of production would be owned and operated by the working class, in a manner as direct and democratic as possible while still retaining sufficient efficiency.

The police forces would be community-based and under the decentralized control of the worker's councils.

I made a post on Eutrusca's thread a while ago about making utopias on other planets that elaborated a bit more, and I don't particularly want to repeat it. See here: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10639752&postcount=9

Although I try to be the nicest nation you ever did run accross, my beliefs, may be somewhat mean.

All power is controlled absolutly by the Government. The Government, is headed by a Council of the Nine smartest and wisest people in the nation.

There is no such thing as Capitolisim. You work for the Government, and the Government pays your salery, which in turn, you give right back, because thy own everything, including the Retail sector. Now, The Eight People who run the Government, are heads of diffrent departments. Military Police, Military, Power, Water, Environment, Retail, Law, Foreign relations. And Helth and Education/research.

Each Department, has many people working in it, and the biggest decsions are handled by the Counil of Eight.

There is no normal Civilian Police, there is only the Military Police, who have permission to use capitol Punishment for offenders of minor offences. Anything Bigger than that, is automatic Immediate Death, After a Fair Trial. no Jail time, just getting dragged off to a seperate room, and promptly killed.

People may Question the Government all they want, may speak their mind, may not own weapons, must serve at least 2 years Military service before being considered a Legal Adult, and being allowed to own land, Drink, smoke, gamble, Marry, have children, or even travel out of state, with, or without their parents.

Science directed by The Medical Department, and the Military, with the Military getting top Dibs on all scientific breakthroughs.

This is my ideal utopia, and it sounds communistic.

Democratic-Socialist

I believe in unions, the welfare system, universal healthcare and education, pensions, medicaid, employment and unemployment insurance, minimum wage laws, child labor laws, etc.

I support same-sex marriages, believe prostitution and drugs should be legalized, that porn should stay legal. I believe the only limit freedom of speech should have is that people shouldn't be allowed to use it to incite violence. I believe in freedom of expression, freedom of the press, freedom of peaceful assembly, freedom of religion, but i believe in a complete separation of church and state.

I don't think the wealthy should be taxed more than anyone else, but i certainly don't believe they should be taxed less. I believe there should be environmental regulations put on companies, i believe in mostly free-trade, but that some restrictions may be necessary. I am against the death penalty, and am torn when it comes to affirmative action.

I believe in equality for all people when it comes to laws, rights, and freedoms, but that doesn't mean they should all get paid the same, or anything like that. I believe that some capitalism is necessary for a functioning society, but that it doesn't need to take the extreme form it sometimes does.

I absolutely don't believe in censorship, and i think it's the government's job to protect us from eachother, not ourselves.

I'm also a pacifist, but i don't think it's quite realistic to not have at least some semblance of a military. Even though you can control whether or not you attack someone, you can't control whether or not they attack you. I do believe in complete nuclear disarmament though and am against the illegal arms trade.

This is my ideal utopia, and it sounds communistic.

Kind of. More "benevolent ultra-statist", though.

How would you ensure that the wisest and smartest reached the Council of Eight? How would you prevent the Council of Eight from abusing its absolute power?

Edit: Considering the death penalty thing, I have to withdraw the "benevolent" part. More like "bloodthirsty but not paranoid ultra-statist."

Although I try to be the nicest nation you ever did run accross, my beliefs, may be somewhat mean.

All power is controlled absolutly by the Government. The Government, is headed by a Council of the Nine smartest and wisest people in the nation.

There is no such thing as Capitolisim. You work for the Government, and the Government pays your salery, which in turn, you give right back, because thy own everything, including the Retail sector. Now, The Eight People who run the Government, are heads of diffrent departments. Military Police, Military, Power, Water, Environment, Retail, Law, Foreign relations. And Helth and Education/research.

Each Department, has many people working in it, and the biggest decsions are handled by the Counil of Eight.

There is no normal Civilian Police, there is only the Military Police, who have permission to use capitol Punishment for offenders of minor offences. Anything Bigger than that, is automatic Immediate Death, After a Fair Trial. no Jail time, just getting dragged off to a seperate room, and promptly killed.

People may Question the Government all they want, may speak their mind, may not own weapons, must serve at least 2 years Military service before being considered a Legal Adult, and being allowed to own land, Drink, smoke, gamble, Marry, have children, or even travel out of state, with, or without their parents.

Science directed by The Medical Department, and the Military, with the Military getting top Dibs on all scientific breakthroughs.

This is my ideal utopia, and it sounds communistic.

Dystopia, and its absolutely terrible.

I am a democratic socialist:
-I believe that health care (hospitals, doctors, drugs), public transportation, utilities, the steel industry, the mining industry, child care, an insurance company, k-12 education, and other such things should be owned by the government.
-I believe that government control over business should be limited to essential primary and secondary industries, not retail or service.
-I believe in the distribution of social welfare to the disabled, widowed, elderly, single-parent families, mentally ill, and unemployed(under the condition that they see an officer who helps them seek employment: win-win situation).
-I believe that ALL humans have equal rights, including Aboriginals, immigrants, minorities, the elderly, GLBT persons, women, etc.
-I believe that anti-abortion, anti-gay marriage, and other such religious doctrines, regardless of my own beliefs, have no place in law.
-I believe in high minimum wage ($10.00/hour Canadian).
-I believe in lower tax burden for the poor and middle class.
-I believe in protectionism in international trade.
-I believe in a small military that only serves for peacekeeping.
-I believe that The War on Drugs is less important than having a War on Poverty. Hence, I believe in the legalization of marijuana...but nothing further.
-I believe strongly in democracy, by the people, of the people, for the people.
-I believe society is decaying as a result of capitalism alienating the family unit.
-I am strongly anti-communist, but also anti-capitalist.
For any other of my beliefs, you can ask me, but that's a "brief" summary.

Democratic-Socialist

I believe in unions, the welfare system, universal healthcare and education, pensions, medicaid, employment and unemployment insurance, minimum wage laws, child labor laws, etc.

I support same-sex marriages, believe prostitution and drugs should be legalized, that porn should stay legal. I believe the only limit freedom of speech should have is that people shouldn't be allowed to use it to incite violence. I believe in freedom of expression, freedom of the press, freedom of peaceful assembly, freedom of religion, but i believe in a complete separation of church and state.

I don't think the wealthy should be taxed more than anyone else, but i certainly don't believe they should be taxed less. I believe there should be environmental regulations put on companies, i believe in mostly free-trade, but that some restrictions may be necessary. I am against the death penalty, and am torn when it comes to affirmative action.

I believe in equality for all people when it comes to laws, rights, and freedoms, but that doesn't mean they should all get paid the same, or anything like that. I believe that some capitalism is necessary for a functioning society, but that it doesn't need to take the extreme form it sometimes does.

I absolutely don't believe in censorship, and i think it's the government's job to protect us from eachother, not ourselves.

I'm also a pacifist, but i don't think it's quite realistic to not have at least some semblance of a military. Even though you can control whether or not you attack someone, you can't control whether or not they attack you. I do believe in complete nuclear disarmament though and am against the illegal arms trade.

Wow, I'm not even going to post my utopia because ditto.

I do see a left vs. right divide in MOST ideologies.

Some, like Third Positionism seek both ends of the side or none.
What you see may not be what is. There is no such thing as a "government." There is no such thing as a "corporation." There is no such thing as "money." These are all social constructs, created by people, imaginary, with no objective reality to them. So call it what you will. We make up the words too ;)

I am a democratic socialist:
-I believe that health care (hospitals, doctors, drugs), public transportation, utilities, the steel industry, the mining industry, child care, an insurance company, k-12 education, and other such things should be owned by the government.
-I believe that government control over business should be limited to essential primary and secondary industries, not retail or service.
-I believe in the distribution of social welfare to the disabled, widowed, elderly, single-parent families, mentally ill, and unemployed(under the condition that they see an officer who helps them seek employment: win-win situation).
-I believe that ALL humans have equal rights, including Aboriginals, immigrants, minorities, the elderly, GLBT persons, women, etc.
-I believe that anti-abortion, anti-gay marriage, and other such religious doctrines, regardless of my own beliefs, have no place in law.
-I believe in high minimum wage ($10.00/hour Canadian).
-I believe in lower tax burden for the poor and middle class.
-I believe in protectionism in international trade.
-I believe in a small military that only serves for peacekeeping.
-I believe that The War on Drugs is less important than having a War on Poverty. Hence, I believe in the legalization of marijuana...but nothing further.
-I believe strongly in democracy, by the people, of the people, for the people.
-I believe society is decaying as a result of capitalism alienating the family unit.
-I am strongly anti-communist, but also anti-capitalist.
For any other of my beliefs, you can ask me, but that's a "brief" summary.

Why protectionism? And why should capitalism destroying the "family unit" be seen as a bad thing?

What you see may not be what is. There is no such thing as a "government." There is no such thing as a "corporation." There is no such thing as "money." These are all social constructs, created by people, imaginary, with no objective reality to them. So call it what you will. We make up the words too ;)

Another person using the "We invented it, ergo it doesn't exist" fallacy.

Capitalist Direct Democracy

"CDD"

I beleive in a strong capitlisticly motivated society, run by way of Direct Democracy. With very low taxes, those taxes would be used to fund, the military, law and order, and domestic things like government buidlings and public roads.

Sort of like a Switzerland meets Hong Kong meets the American military and road system.

Well, I suppose my own ideology would be Nihilistic Pragmatism

It's a system that argues that all ideologies, including this one are ill-equipped to handle the exigencies of running a state, and must be subject to constant revision if they are to even be employed as models, let alone rules to be adhered to. The only basis for determining what the results of a policy are likely to be are to observe them.

e.g. Free market economic models would advocate removing any minimum wage because businesses would suffer a stifling burden if forced to pay wages above those that the market supports. Evidence however indicates that when minimum wages are raised it leads to an increase in demand that spurs greater economic activity.

By the nihilistic pragmatist model you could not argue that it might be a scary world to live in if anyone is allowed to carry a concealed handgun. The policy would be introduced in a location after a survey to determine present levels of gun violence was completed. If, after intorducing concealed carry laws there is a benificial change in gun violence rates compared to other locations then the law is a success and can be spread elsewhere. If there is a negative one, then clearly concealed carry laws don't work and must be scrapped. Even at this stage, the effect of scrapping concealled carry laws would have to be studied in case there was a positive effect that had been missed the first time.

It's bad enough that free-market systems turn into a tyranny of the dollar, but ideologies turn into a tyranny of the dead idea.

Other examples
Taxes: High or Low?
Lower them until revenue falls. Then raise them until economic activity slows, then lower them a bit again. Do this every once in a while for fine tuning.

Healthcare?
Start with John Kerry's plan of re-insuring medical insurance companies to see if this brings rates down to an affordable level. Then increase funding to medicaid until insurance companies improve their service enough to lure people away from the revamped medicaid. When the insurance companies get sloppy again, improve medicaid.

In a nutshell. If it works, do it. If it doesn't work, stop coming up with bullshit excuses (such as "Bush's tax cuts might not have prevented a recession, but the recession would have been worse if he hadn't done it, and Clinton's tax hike might have preceded an economic boom, but it would have been bigger if he hadn't increased taxes") and try something else. Also, if you're going to say that the results of doing "what works" is something completly abominable like Nazi Germany successfully rebuilding its economy by killing Jews and Gays and Gypsies then it didn't work, did it you hypothetical dumbass who might not actually exist but has provided me with this bullshit line of reasoning enough that I'm already mad at whoever tries it here? You're taking a myopic view of things by pretending that this system is an end-justifies-the-means system when it clearly isn't.

Another person using the "We invented it, ergo it doesn't exist" fallacy.
How is this a fallacy?

Kind of. More "benevolent ultra-statist", though.

How would you ensure that the wisest and smartest reached the Council of Eight? How would you prevent the Council of Eight from abusing its absolute power?

As for ensuring the smartest reached the Council, Regular mandetory tests.

As for keeping the Council from abusing its power, there is no way to stop it. Yes, I know my system is flawed, but it comes from a Flawed Human being, and therefore cannot be perfect. But that is the price I pay to exist, to live.

How is this a fallacy?
Because there is a spoon, no matter how much crap movies say there isn't.

Because there is a spoon, no matter how much crap movies say there isn't.
There is a piece of metal, yes, or plastic or wood. "Spoon" is more of a function than a thing tho. And can you really show me a "government"? I'll bet it's just people ;)

There is a piece of metal, yes, or plastic or wood. "Spoon" is more of a function than a thing tho. And can you really show me a "government"? I'll bet it's just people ;)
Can you really show me a "person"? I bet it's just a sack of muscles and organs.

How is this a fallacy?

Just because we invent a social contruct doesn't mean it doesn't exist, any "thing" can be considered a social construct. Take a chair, a chair is an object that has existance separate from societies opinions, however to recognise a chair as a chair a person must have a referance definition for chair consisting of abstract qualities. Via this fallacy chairs do not exist, there are merely objects we believe are chairs. The problem with this thinking is that the "thing" exists simply because it meets the definition we provided. This is the same even with abstracts; time is only known of via the motion of objects, however, we invented the concept of time as a way of measuring rate of change, and therefore it exists.

Can you really show me a "person"? I bet it's just a sack of muscles and organs.

Yeah, anytime we recognise "things" its as an arrangement of qualities.

Can you really show me a "person"? I bet it's just a sack of muscles and organs.
Yep. "person" is just a shorter word for it.

Just because we invent a social contruct doesn't mean it doesn't exist, any "thing" can be considered a social construct. Take a chair, a chair is an object that has existance separate from societies opinions, however to recognise a chair as a chair a person must have a referance definition for chair consisting of abstract qualities. Via this fallacy chairs do not exist, there are merely objects we believe are chairs. The problem with this thinking is that the "thing" exists simply because it meets the definition we provided. This is the same even with abstracts; time is only known of via the motion of objects, however, we invented the concept of time as a way of measuring rate of change, and therefore it exists.
As far as I can tell, there are in fact changes that take place in the universe, so yep, time, as a fourth dimension, probably exists. That does not imply that any and all social consructs have an objective, physical existance, apart from an electrochemical state in a person's brain. There's a difference (I think, anyway :p )

Constructs have as much actuality as phenomena that occur spontaneously in nature, and since humans are by nature social their social inventions are all in some way natural to them.

As for the topic, I have no specific ideology as I am philosophically a moderate and would not seek ends as part of a set political dogma but rather what will produce the best possible results in a given circumstance. I suppose makes me a pragmatist, but not of the nihilistic variety since I do believe in one objective standard--happiness.

I'm not sure what such a government that built on Eudaimonism, moderation and pragmatism would look like, but it would likely require that its leaders, whether they be the one, few or many, be well educated in all conceivable human circumstances and modes of living and have the means at their disposal to bring about the necessary ends. In order to do that the leaders would have to be more than a few, would be drawn from the people at large (and thus would require a well-constructed and extensive education system) and would need to be at the forefront of their respective fields. The government also would need to be energetic and well-funded, which would require a strong and broad economy that allows happiness to be achievable by all.

In short, something like my Most Serene Republic of Tabriza. ;)

Constructs have as much actuality as phenomena that occur spontaneously in nature, and since humans are by nature social their social inventions are all in some way natural to them.
I agree with the second part but not the first, assuming that "actuality" = "objective existance." "Phenomena that occur spontaneously in nature" have a physical component lacking in a consruct. What we're arguing about here is metaphysics, which by definition is "beyond the realm of physics" and therefore without objective physical existance. QED

My utopia is pretty much the opposite of the OP's.

My nation reflects that pretty well - Socialist Democrats, I think it's labeled. Essentially, the government has free almost everything, with no currency but trust and loyalty.

Very easily toppled, but glorious while it lasts. The pinnacle of human kindness and compassion, working together toward the goal of itself without the blockage that currency and greed cause.

I've got somewhere around 550million people living there, so we're doing pretty well, and people are happy. Incredible political and social freedom, encouraging art and education.

I'm a baby-eating liberal long-haired hippie bastard left-wing anarchist commie.

... Or so I've been told. I like to think of myself as a dreamer, and I know I'm not the only one.

As far as I can tell, there are in fact changes that take place in the universe, so yep, time, as a fourth dimension, probably exists. That does not imply that any and all social consructs have an objective, physical existance, apart from an electrochemical state in a person's brain. There's a difference (I think, anyway :p )

I'm trying to say that abstracts have a reality about them without objective physical existance, see Tabriza's post above, esp first line.

I'm trying to say that abstracts have a reality about them without objective physical existance, see Tabriza's post above, esp first line.
And please see my post, #34 ;)

I guess what I'm trying to say is your arguing that social contructs don't really exist is the same as arguing definitions don't really exist.

I guess what I'm trying to say is your arguing that social contructs don't really exist is the same as arguing deffinitions don't really exist.
True, they don't because we also invented the language. Spoken word is just moving air (or other medium). Written word is just lines on paper (or a screen in this case). If we didn't invent language and definitions, why are there so many different ones?

I agree with the second part but not the first, assuming that "actuality" = "objective existance." "Phenomena that occur spontaneously in nature" have a physical component lacking in a consruct. What we're arguing about here is metaphysics, which by definition is "beyond the realm of physics" and therefore without objective physical existance. QED
By "actuality" I mean that it has been brought into being, made by some art or otherwise exists through the act of making or doing. This includes social arrangements that people create for themselves as much as it does to physical inventions, since there is activity or work there that takes it out of the realm of thought (potentiality) and makes it real.

True, they don't because we also invented the language. Spoken word is just moving air (or other medium). Written word is just lines on paper (or a screen in this case). If we didn't invent language and definitions, why are there so many different ones?
Language is innate to the species and all of them share fundamentally the same basis on naming and acting that establishes the subject and predicate. Different use of sounds and structures are a matter of people's palettes developing differently and are based on which pre-historic families and tribes (the roots of language phyla) interacted with whom, when and for how long.

No, it's minarchist.

Anarcho-syndicalism has no state, but puts control of the economy in the hands of worker-run institutions. It grew from the radical labor movement; Noam Chomsky is an adherent.

Minarchism bordering on anarchocapitalism. As he says, the state still exists, but it really doesn't perform any of the traditional state functions.

There is a piece of metal, yes, or plastic or wood. "Spoon" is more of a function than a thing tho. And can you really show me a "government"? I'll bet it's just people ;)

Can you show me "power"? I bet you can't, but break the law severely in front of a lot of other people and I bet it will be demonstrated to you, whether or not you perceive it.

It does most definitely exist objectively.

True, they don't because we also invented the language. Spoken word is just moving air (or other medium). Written word is just lines on paper (or a screen in this case). If we didn't invent language and definitions, why are there so many different ones?

You cant speak or type without definitions so if you don't believe in definitions.........stop posting!

I’m a common sense centrist or a sensible shoes centrist. I don’t believe in ideology over common sense. Some situations (like emergency services, education, and infrastructure) are best handled by the public sector; but I fully support free enterprise elsewhere to challenge our abilities and increase trade.

I believe in respecting cultural traditions and free speech, right up until they threaten the public safety (see hate groups). I don’t support the wanton raping of the environment and fleecing of the consumer for short-term profit, or like the idea of corporate shills posing as scientists. I also don’t support rabid environmentalists who also blatantly mislead the public and cling to unfounded dogma to make their talking points.

I support national sovereignty and the funding of a well trained and equipped military. I don’t support jingoistic propaganda, whose primary reason for existing is to keep me from looking into what a mess someone made of the country.

My position is to dismiss the lobbyists and campaign fund stuffers, and try to have some good governing for a change. I believe that the ideology of right and left has caused a ridiculous polarization of society. I think that if we are to make anything of ourselves we need to grow up and understand that both political camps have values that have valid applications, but that blanketing everything under the right or left is a societal recipe for disaster.

How can the Government possible afford the safety contractors without collecting any taxes?

Sorta like it is today, with less corporate influence on political campaigns and more international cooperation, free trade and open, unrestricted immigration.

Ideally a world in which everyone who chooses to can rise to greatness by working hard, and anyone who doesn't can live a simple, quiet life just as he or she wants it.

So I'd start with Sweden and go from there. :p

Idealy an anarchist, realistically an extreme liberatarian...

Basically I think that the government should be small, and should be concerned with only defence, law and order, and education... Law and order only in the case where private citizens can't deal with it... Defence only until our nation conquers all others :p

I hold a personal belief that the reason why the poor are oppressed is not due to a lack of restriction on bussiness, but instead on the ineptitude of government educational services, and restrictions which seem, in the end to only hurt small bussiness and provide loop holes for the corporations. Not to mention the fact that the police prefer to concern themselves with stopping drug traffic into suburban areas instead of stopping violent crime in lower class regions.

I also believe that if bussiness is left unrestricted, workers will simply unionize, and eventually figure out that if they don't like the way the bussiness is run, collectively they have enough money to create their own.

ideally: technocratic anarcho-communist communitarianism

but RL/every-day, just kinda generally left-leaning mish-mash of policies mostly favouring the public sector

I didn’t like your system…

Your question asks, effectively, what state based system we would like to see, our ideal, here is mine:

Economics:
The state moves as much as is reasonable away from being a service provider and a market player. Instead the state takes on a two headed role in the economics of the society, firstly as a quality controller (in a very EU fashion), and secondly (and independently) as an investor, through portfolios managed by the civil service and not the government of the day - see the UK’s wine investment scheme since the turn of the last centaury, they buy French wine straight out of the vineyards and put them in to storage for twenty years, at the end of that period, they use some of it on state functions and slowly sell the remainder at the best possible price, achieving three things, a self funding hospitality service, keeping the price of good French wine high (by taking large quantities out of the market) and generate profit which is then used to invest in other such projects (art, gold, timeshares... whatever)

Politics:
Mandatory voting. As widely dispersed political system as possible, separating power from central offices and wresting it in the hands of at least two competing legislative houses through committees and quangos. Separation of Legislative and Executive (unlike in Britain) and political Education in schools from the earliest age.

Religion:
Separation of Church and state, enforces secularisation of all branches and the promotion of intellectual criticism of faiths.

Foreign Policy:
Militant Democratisation….

What I aim for is a society free from any kind of oppression, misery, needless sufferings. A society where people work together, supporting each other, sharing ressources. A society that leaves no one behind, that grants to everyone access to water, food, housing, healthcare, education. A society of enlighted and compassionate human beings, free from oppression, misery and fear of misery. A society where the goal is "going farther together" and not "going farther than you", a society in which helping the ones in need is the norm.

For that, as a first step, we need a strong public services network, in housing, education, healthcare, transports, enegry, ... that is kept completly outside a market system and controlled by the people, the most directly as possible. For that, we also need to abolish capitalist ownership of means of production, the modern form of oppression, and promote cooperatives. For that, we need, at the same time, to change the working of the political systems to allow a real form of democracy.

In the long term, with the progress of technology on one side, and the evolution of mentalities inside a more human, fair and compassionate society on the other side, we'll reach a point in which even money would be useless, and the "governement" will dislove itself inside a permanent direct democracy system. People will be free and equal, every single human being having the possibility to fullfill himself, to do what he likes, to live without fear of misery and without oppression.

We will then have reached the "Time of Cherries" as it was called by the Communards, the classless society, the age of "communism".

How about "Ordoliberalism"? Sounds pretty neat to me...

Have a look:
http://www.walter-eucken-institut.de/en/index.htm

I wholly believe in the power of the free market to provide true freedom to all people.
did I fool anybody?

I wholly believe in the power of the free market to provide true freedom to all people.
did I fool anybody?
http://www.strangepersons.com/images/content/110877.jpg
(you sure had me going for a minute there... ;-) )

^ Hear, hear!

http://www.strangepersons.com/images/content/110877.jpg
(you sure had me going for a minute there... ;-) )
Onwards to libertarianism!and slavery!

Decentralized democratic socialism, very strongly influenced by anarchism, Council Communism, and general libertarian socialist theory.

All the means of production would be owned and operated by the working class, in a manner as direct and democratic as possible while still retaining sufficient efficiency.

The police forces would be community-based and under the decentralized control of the worker's councils.

^ what he said.

http://www.strangepersons.com/images/content/110877.jpg
(you sure had me going for a minute there... ;-) )

LMAO :D

http://www.under.ch/SansTitre/Archives/Images/Capitalism/Images/CapitalismIsLife.gif

What I aim for is a society free from any kind of oppression, misery, needless sufferings. A society where people work together, supporting each other, sharing ressources. A society that leaves no one behind, that grants to everyone access to water, food, housing, healthcare, education. A society of enlighted and compassionate human beings, free from oppression, misery and fear of misery. A society where the goal is "going farther together" and not "going farther than you", a society in which helping the ones in need is the norm.

For that, as a first step, we need a strong public services network, in housing, education, healthcare, transports, enegry, ... that is kept completly outside a market system and controlled by the people, the most directly as possible. For that, we also need to abolish capitalist ownership of means of production, the modern form of oppression, and promote cooperatives. For that, we need, at the same time, to change the working of the political systems to allow a real form of democracy.

In the long term, with the progress of technology on one side, and the evolution of mentalities inside a more human, fair and compassionate society on the other side, we'll reach a point in which even money would be useless, and the "governement" will dislove itself inside a permanent direct democracy system. People will be free and equal, every single human being having the possibility to fullfill himself, to do what he likes, to live without fear of misery and without oppression.

We will then have reached the "Time of Cherries" as it was called by the Communards, the classless society, the age of "communism".
what he said plus...

Decentralized democratic socialism, very strongly influenced by anarchism, Council Communism, and general libertarian socialist theory.

All the means of production would be owned and operated by the working class, in a manner as direct and democratic as possible while still retaining sufficient efficiency.

The police forces would be community-based and under the decentralized control of the worker's councils.
what he said, too.

throw in a bit more tehcnocracy, abolish money and take a nice reformist approach to the whole lot, and you got me licked :)

the UDCP pretty much perfectly represents my ideals


edit: i like this (http://www.eyeballsun.org/capmikee/checks/Capitalism.jpg)... (yeah i'm flicking through google image seaches...)

...take a nice reformist approach to the whole lot...


Dammit man!

Dammit man!
hahaha :D

if it wasn't for the whole violence thing...

hahaha :D

if it wasn't for the whole violence thing...

Yes, if only...such an approach wouldn't be necessary if those in power weren't willing to use violence to keep it... :p

I'd ideally like to avoid violence, but I don't see a new society emerging without bloodshed, unfortunately.

Yes, if only...such an approach wouldn't be necessary if those in power weren't willing to use violence to keep it... :p

I'd ideally like to avoid violence, but I don't see a new society emerging without bloodshed, unfortunately.
yes, good point, but that's unfortunatley why (i believe) a new society will take potentially a long time/period of reform to emerge :(

Yes, if only...such an approach wouldn't be necessary if those in power weren't willing to use violence to keep it... :p

I'd ideally like to avoid violence, but I don't see a new society emerging without bloodshed, unfortunately.

o.0

is someone agreeing with me?

i believe that no idiology, economic theory, or system of belief, can or will prevent tyranny; but rather that all become sources and excuses of and for it when prioritised ahead of the kind of world we all have to live in. precisely as the fanatical, so called 'conservative' falloweres of each and every one tend to do.

i believe the environment, is first and formost the foundation of experiential qualities of living and of course of live itself. that neither of the dominant idiologies of the last couple of centuries adiquitely take this into account.
that future shortages and consiquences of current practices will, in less then the span of a single human lifetime from now, reach a kind of critical mass that will force everyone to take this into account.

i have also observed that while comfort zones that few living in more fortunate societies are willing to give up or allow to be diminished depend utterly on tangable infrasturcture and that in turn, as it always has, upon some degree of social organization, that social organization, no more depends upon hierarchal soverignty now or in the future, then it ever did in indigenous hunting and gathering times.

i also see coming the day when creative skill with tecnology will replace money the way money replaced land and land replaced skill at the hunt.

these are my 'political beliefs': that the kind of world we all have to live in is what matters, not trying to impress each other nor the pseudo sophestries of excitement addiction and that creating and exploring are what gratify, and that therefor no existing idiology will prove adiquite to humanity's future, even more then a very few decades hence.

=^^=
.../\...

Yes, if only...such an approach wouldn't be necessary if those in power weren't willing to use violence to keep it... :p

Saddly, they always did, and will continue to do so :/

I'd ideally like to avoid violence, but I don't see a new society emerging without bloodshed, unfortunately.

I mostly agree, but I don't think a bloodshed is needed. We can't totally give up violence, since the capitalists will try to use it to crush us. But we don't need a bloodshed either. It's harder and harder, for the capitalists, to use violence against us, at least in "western" countries... I don't think something like the Bloody Week (slaughter of Paris' Commune) would be possible in nowadays Europe, for example. A Franco-like coup seems also very unlikely in nowadays Europe.

Even US imperialism has more and more troubles to use direct violence; they were able to do it in Irak because Saddam was obviously a dictator, but they can't invade Venezuela or Bolivia. Sure, they did try to do a coup in Venezuela, and they'll probably try again and/or try in Bolivia, but they failed until now, and without a bloodshed. We will need a moerate amount of violence to defend ourselves against imperalism, but a very limited amount would be enough... at least, I hope so.

yes, good point, but that's unfortunatley why (i believe) a new society will take potentially a long time/period of reform to emerge

I don't think reform is going to work at all. The present model of democracy isn't capable of getting a socialist government elected with enough power to change things. As soon as the elites feel their power being taken away, they'll clamp down upon it.

o.0

is someone agreeing with me?

Yeah, as far as that goes, anyway. :p

I mostly agree, but I don't think a bloodshed is needed. We can't totally give up violence, since the capitalists will try to use it to crush us. But we don't need a bloodshed either. It's harder and harder, for the capitalists, to use violence against us, at least in "western" countries... I don't think something like the Bloody Week (slaughter of Paris' Commune) would be possible in nowadays Europe, for example. A Franco-like coup seems also very unlikely in nowadays Europe.

I'm not talking about bloodshed on our part though - I don't advocate that at all. It's just inevitable that such a drastic change in society would drive those opposed to it to extreme measures. While it's true that a modern western "democracy" would have a hard time clamping down on a worker's movement violently, what happens when society is in the midst of change and the former institutions preventing that no longer exist? I am not naive enough to believe that everyone is going to take it in good stride...

I don't think reform is going to work at all. The present model of democracy isn't capable of getting a socialist government elected with enough power to change things. As soon as the elites feel their power being taken away, they'll clamp down upon it.



the present form of capitalism and democracy has seen improvements and socialisation over the last 100/200 years, and that's the timescale i'm talking about for the future. workers' conditions and rights have improved vastly, industries are nationalised (or, have been :(), tax systems are progressive, there is more wealth (in terms of historical materialism i believe we're not quite at the turning point yet, but getting close)...

sure, not everything has improved - far from it - and Thatcher and the following spate of right-wing leaders (from Reagan and Bush to Blair and Chirac for example) definatley set the whole process back in a big way, but things will get back on track...
we still sell our souls to greed, and the banks still own us, and the rich still keep the poor under their thumb, and the bourgoise still rule the rest of us with laws, money, necessity, violence and the police, consumerist culture may be getting worse, but things are better than they once were in terms of the timescales i'm talking about. i think its reasonable to assume that in the next 200 years, similar progress can be made. (unfortunatley in the last 30 years since Thatcher - queen of all that is evil - income from the lowest paid jobs, even on minimum wage, has dropped to about 70% of the 1975 level... i advise anyone to read this (http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0747564159/qid=1144073808/sr=8-1/ref=pd_ka_1/202-6786892-4100627)book.)

I don't think reform is going to work at all. The present model of democracy isn't capable of getting a socialist government elected with enough power to change things. As soon as the elites feel their power being taken away, they'll clamp down upon it.

I'm not that sure about it; western democracy is far, far from perfect and make things very hard for us, but I don't think it's impossible either. A strong, anti-capitalist wave is growing here. We said "No" to the EU Constitution, we have a very strong movement right now against attacks to the working code, and most polls are very promising: they say french people have a bad opinion of capitalism, don't trust free market, think that completly free healthcare or public transports are both desired and possible, want everyone to be given a roof, ... Sure, it's hard to have that transformed into a vote for a "communist" party, but that's what we are working at. The same wave is growing in other european countries, even if less intensive yet. And don't forget South America ! ;) The Bolivarian Revolution is a drastic change, and it came to power through a bourgeois democracy.

I'm not talking about bloodshed on our part though - I don't advocate that at all. It's just inevitable that such a drastic change in society would drive those opposed to it to extreme measures. While it's true that a modern western "democracy" would have a hard time clamping down on a worker's movement violently, what happens when society is in the midst of change and the former institutions preventing that no longer exist? I am not naive enough to believe that everyone is going to take it in good stride...

Well, in Venezuela, they manage to do it. They had some violence (a failed coup attempt, ...) but it's kept to a moderate level; that's what I think we can acheive. I don't think total non-violence would work, if we are no ready to stand up and defend ourselves, we'll get Allende'd, but we can manage to keep violence level low.

Ideally we should have all the civil liberties possible. No censorship, no drug laws, no restrictions on who can marry. The government and police should exist to prevent people harming one an other or animals. Let people take all the drugs they want. If they become addicted and turn to crime, kill them. Let people make and watch all the porn and violence they want. but if they try to actually fuck/hurt anyone without consent, or get kids involved, kill them. and no goddamn fox hunting or whaling.

Public services should not be privatised. Business is fine but if something is a necessary service for the people then the government should control it. Education and healthcare especially. Healthcare must be free for all, as there will always be a minority who cannot aford to pay. No one should profit from other peoples illness. The government should also cover the costs of research and production of new drugs.

We should stay out of wars, but maintain a military to defend ourselves, and a nuclear arsenal.

The government should be secular and church and state completely seperate. Schools should teach all religions but not present any as fact. Churches can pay taxes like everyone else.

sure, not everything has improved - far from it - and Thatcher and the following spate of right-wing leaders (from Reagan and Bush to Blair and Chirac for example) definatley set the whole process back in a big way, but things will get back on track...

Well, that's a real problem of too much "reformism". The more reforms you do, the better the people live, so the less they unionize and such. Which make it very easy for the capitalists to undo the reforms, and so on. A purely reformist approach will, IMHO, always end up in loops: the situation goes better, the working class starts to stop struggling, then the right counter-attack and undo the reforms, then the situation becomes so bad that people uprise, and so on.

Also, don't forget that the most positive "reforms" were done after WW2, when the capitalists were afraid of the USSR threat, and accepted those reforms in order to prevent the communists to take power in Europe. The tragedy of WW2, and the role that misery played in the raise of Hitler to power, also forced some capitalists to accept the social measure, to prevent another Hitler. And for us in France, the role played by the PCF in the Resistance, forced De Gaulle to accept to put many ideas from the communists in the "Programme du Conseil National de la Résistance" (program drafted by the resitance during 1944, which was both a call for a general uprising against the nazi, and a program of what will be done once the nazis are kicked out). That Paris was liberated by such an uprising, organized by the FTPs (communist resistance network), also played a major role in making De Gaulle to keep his promises.

The situation is different now, and it'll be harder to make the capitalists to accept our "reforms". On the other hand, that's true, we now have the proof that such social reforms are possible, and that they work pretty well. People who claim "we can't do that, we don't have money" are forced to shut up when remembered what we were able to do in the ruins of 1945.

That's where I think the strategy of the PCF is wise (even if I'm not sure if it'll work, since it was never tried): our goal is to do at the same time "reformists" and "revolutionnaries", to do "reforms" that, by themselves, do not only make things better on the short term (like most "reforms" do), but "reforms" which goals are to change, in deep, the structures of the society, and that are very hard to undo. It's much more complex than doing "reforms" to fix problems on the short term, but I feel it's the only possible way to go beyond capitalism.

Anarchist, probably anarcho-communist more specifically. Obviously, that entails support for gay rights, legalizing marihuana, and so on, but also the abolition of capitalism (an aspect of anarchism most are unaware of).

I am big on

- separation of church and state (for real this time)

- paid maternity and paternity leave

- legalization and regulation of prostitution

- pro-choice, pro-gay marriage, pro-animal rights

- aaaand I firmly believe that everyone should be mandated to take birth control (here I'm thinking IUD, for simplicity/convenience's sake) as soon as they hit puberty. Then when they are at an okay parenting age (maybe 22 at earliest) they take a bunch of tests to see if they would be fit parents. If you fail, you're not allowed to have kids and you have to take some rigorous parenting classes. If you fail 5 times in 5 years (one test per year) you get sterilized. People with disabilities or mental health issues might be able to be parents if they could prove that they had a lot of hands-on support.

Seriously!

- Oh yeah, and no more than 4 kids per mother. After 4, you're sterilized. And no replacing them if they die! If 4 kids of yours die, there's something going on and you can't have more.

...also the abolition of capitalism (an aspect of anarchism most are unaware of).

Let's go establish some temporary autonomous zones, that'll bring down the state for sure.

Well, in Venezuela, they manage to do it. They had some violence (a failed coup attempt, ...) but it's kept to a moderate level; that's what I think we can acheive. I don't think total non-violence would work, if we are no ready to stand up and defend ourselves, we'll get Allende'd, but we can manage to keep violence level low.

Hugo Chávez is a reformist. We will be waiting a long while before the Bolivarian Revolution smashes capitalism; it may be stopped before it does. Electorally-based reformism has never worked, though it may have potentially come close in Chile under Allende.

Then again, the track record of armed revolution is no better.

We definitely should not be initiating violence, but beyond that I'm not sure of the proper means. It depends a good deal on the situation in question.

Let's go establish some temporary autonomous zones, that'll bring down the state for sure.

Or instead maybe we could join a Trotskyist revolutionary organization, they have an excellent track record of success.

Communism without oppression, where everything is subsidized but individuals enjoy great personal freedom. Call me crazy.

Or instead maybe we could join a Trotskyist revolutionary organization, they have an excellent track record of success.

:D
Touche.

:D
Touche.

We need to start rethinking our approaches, and the place to start is with the acknowledgement that, so far, we've all been failures.

We need to start rethinking our approaches, and the place to start is with the acknowledgement that, so far, we've all been failures.

Except for the Russian revolution which was successful for a brief period. Until the whole "stalin thing"

Except for the Russian revolution which was successful for a brief period. Until the whole "stalin thing"

Which is to say, it was successful - until it failed.

Like the Spanish Revolution of 1936 and the Paris Commune of 1871.

Because they failed to create long-lasting, sustainable socialist systems, I don't count them as successes.

Which is to say, it was successful - until it failed.

Like the Spanish Revolution of 1936 and the Paris Commune of 1871.

Because they failed to create long-lasting, sustainable socialist systems, I don't count them as successes.

I would count the Russian Revolution a success in itself though. The state afterwards could ultimately be seen as a failure but it was a successful workers' revolution at the time.

My ideal society:

A 100% unregulated economy. No wage controls. No price controls. No subsidies to businesses, farmers, or anyone. No tariffs. No business regulations. No environmental laws, worker safety laws, minimum wage laws, etc. No income tax. No social welfare programs. Complete non-intervention in healthcare and education. Everyone would be allowed to rise or fall based on his or her own merits.

All recreational drugs would be legalized. However, drugs would be strongly regulated, to ensure that no one abused them, sold lethal doses, etc.

All censorship laws would be abolished. Parents could prevent their kids from seeing smut, but not prevent consenting adults from enjoying it.

All gun control laws would go. Virtually all weapons would be fully legal, except nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons.

Governmental corruption would be punishable by firing squad (if they are found guilty).

The writ of habeus corpus, the right to an attorney (provided by the state if the person could not afford one), trial-by-jury, a speedy trial, and "innocent until proven guilty" would all be the norm.

There would be no "civil unions." Instead, gay marriage would be legalized. People could marry whoever they wanted, or as many people as they wanted, provided all partners consented and were of age (at least 16, unless parents gave permission, in which case it would be 14).

The military would be strong and well-funded, but no larger, stronger, or better funded than is necessary to protect the people.

Foreign policy would be non-aligned, neutral, pro-peace. Commercial and diplomatic relations would be established with every nation on Earth, regardless of ideology. However, hostile nations would be exceptions to this. Arms could only be traded with nations that are demonstrably friendly.

There would be almost unlimited free speech (the only exceptions being threats to kill people, shouting "fire" in a crowded place, etc.).

Private property rights would be vehemently protected.

Abortion policies would be left for local communities to decide upon, via referendum.

There would be no elections of any kind. However, most major issues (except economic ones) would be left up to individual communities, via referendum. People could discuss, debate, and advocate any kind of ideology they wished, except they could not vote.

Rape, murder, treason, and other serious offenses would be punishable by death. All executions would be public, and attendance would be voluntary, though recommended.

Except for the Russian revolution which was successful for a brief period. Until the whole "stalin thing"

What about Lenin? He increased the size of the secret police sixteenfold, imprisoned or killed thousands, caused widespread famine (so bad he had to resort to his NEP), etc.

What about Lenin? He increased the size of the secret police sixteenfold, imprisoned or killed thousands, caused widespread famine (so bad he had to resort to his NEP), etc.

Lenin took repressive measures because the country was being invaded from the outside and capitalists were attempting to overthrow the workers from within at the same time.

The famines are hardly Lenin's fault. There were huge famines in Russia for years as it was still emerging from feudalism. In times of war food shortages tend to be pretty damn commonplace, especially in backward countries such as Tsarist Russia, so it is hardly suprising that there were still problems with food shortages post-revolution.

Democratic socialist, not to be confused with social democrat. Here is a nice wikipedia article that very very vaguely outlines my ideals, which are also fairly close to Soheran's:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_socialism