What Form Of Government Would You Prefer?

[Anarchist Patriot]

What system of government would you like to live under? I have given this question some serious though.

I have given this some though. Basically I find the lure of anarchism to be very compelling. This does not mean I don't doubt its practicality. For one thing, relying on the purist form of democracy depends on an enlightened populace and would require people to abandon their ignorance. This may be a very tall order indeed.

Aside from this I have seen the Danish and Swedish models of democracy to be highly appealing. Denmark is a very libertarian society in which the basic needs of people are provided for, including education at a university level.

Sweden is also appealing though this society does have some paternalistic laws (prohibition has long been in effect).

Any thoughts on this?

[Section 8]

Were the hell is pure communism? I guess I'll vote for anarchism then, because communism leads up to anarchy.

[Fallen Angel]

I like whats happening in Germany, very industrious nation that will become the powerhouse of Europe, ironic considering.

[Ainbhlinn]

I don't think the United States is a good example of laissez faire free market capitalism, what with all the corporate bail-outs by the government (which are rampant btw), and lobbying exploitation. I don't know what you would call the United States - a mild coporatist state?

[Impenitent]

laissez faire capitalism has never existed nor has communism...

all government is repressive

anarchy devolves into tyranic rule by the strongest immediately...

what keeps the bullies of the world in check? repressive government

at least lassez faire capitalism is honest about the greedy nature of people...

[GreatWyrm of Babylon]

Impenitent
You are not following the trendy redefinition of anarchy as socialism? How dare you, lol.

I have to agree with Ainbhlinn. And add that we Americans need to kick the government out of the charity business. Charity is not something that should be done at swordpoint or by tax collecters.

[Ainbhlinn]

Originally posted by Impenitent all government is repressive

True.

anarchy devolves into tyranic rule by the strongest immediately...

That is true, but anarchy, as in the economic/social system, exists within many organizations to this day. It is a valid and attractive system, unless you are unreasonably wealthy and/or powerful.

That said, I don't see why repressive bullies would want to keep themselves in check, be they powerful bourgeois, or successful politicians.

[Godsmom]

The set of buttons is not complete. What about theocracy? Or Crony Capitalism? Or benevolent dictatorship? Or letting me take over!

[Geoff332]

Or benevolent dictatorship? Or letting me take over!

I assume these are different things...

The US is usually described as a free-enterprise socio-political system. It's version of capitalism is based on collective entitites, which are protected along with individuals, under law.

Under an anarchistic, what would ensure that individuals' rights are protected?

[Ainbhlinn]

Originally posted by Geoff332 Under an anarchistic, what would ensure that individuals' rights are protected?

Anarchism isn't what you think it is. Under democratic control, there is no limit to the ways that individual's rights can be protected.

[Joe]

Anarchism never works. There is never full Anarchism you have to have some sort of structure. and really Anarchism is an oxymoron cus it is the system of chaos.

I think the british have it going well for them. Beside the dumb things they did to screw there empire over they are doing well. Thy allow things so they don't have many problems.

I kinda feel that the goverment needs to take a stand in some places and stay out of others. that is a perfect govemrnt. Give the fredom of choice.

[Section 8]

Joe, there are two main definitions of anarchy.

Anarchy as complete chaos and destruction. For example nihinlism

Anarchy as a economic/social system. There is a structure, and you are pointing out common misconceptions. There is a wealth of information on the internet, and I suggest you check this site out.

http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archi...ives/index.html

On your part about government, it can never be perfect, as only communism and anarchy offer full freedoms, by tha abolition of government. Control is the very opposite of freedom.

Also, could one call the US a very mild tolatarianistic government. They represent the opinion of the government, are very naitonlistic, and censor some radical opinions and/or protests. It also supports the rule of the upper class over the lower classes.

Shalom

[G. Adams]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Joe,)
Anarchism never works. There is never full Anarchism you have to have some sort of structure. and really Anarchism is an oxymoron cus it is the system of chaos.

I think the british have it going well for them. Beside the dumb things they did to screw there empire over they are doing well. Thy allow things so they don't have many problems.

I kinda feel that the goverment needs to take a stand in some places and stay out of others. that is a perfect govemrnt. Give the fredom of choice.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

Err, no, we don't. It sucks to be here. It could be worse, much worse, but just look at our system of government. No real constitution. We can have a dictatorship in this country legitimately, as the powers of the monarch are totally in the hands of the PM, without any restraint (well none that he can't take away overnight). Hell look at what Churchill did. The powers in his hands if used against our people, as they are now and then, would make this place like Nazi Germany.

As an example of a decent life, look to the Scandinavian countries. They have it right, well as long as capitalism is kept.

[castille]

I would prefer a controlled capitalism, perhaps a moderated Japan. Japan present is far too restrictive; it is difficult for small business to compete against the Mitsubishi/Toyoda/Honda monopolies.


Ultimately, I see the government as simply a "control device" (preventing crimes and regulating the economy). Any government that tells me what I can and can't do (reasonably) doesn't have my vote.


The problem with Scandanivia is the lack of opportunity. Would YOU want to give up 90% of your hard-earned income so some bum on the street gets another dollar to buy beer with? Their "living standards" are high (Norway is the highest, but Sweden and Finland are lower than the US), but whats the point of living well if you are not free to achieve your goals?

[G. Adams]

Yes, I would. My goals in life do not include skimming slices of money made by workers and putting it into my own pocket. I want happiness, as vague as that sounds. And, I believe, the Scandinavian models would be better for that than the ones employed in my own country of Britain. And as for Sweden and Finland having lower quality of life than the US, I doubt that. I'd have to see what the pollsters were judging quality of life on before believing it.

[Section 8]

Government serves to protect the upper class, and keep the rich richer. In communism you can achieve your goals, unless they are things such as stealing, murder, etc.

[Impenitent]

wait wait wait... no government... no police... who will stop your communal "brothers" from killing and stealing and raping? government serves to protect who?

[G. Adams]

why would be people suddenly start killing each other? is it just me who doesn't have this urge to kill people that is only prevented by the government and their arms?

[castille]

Well *I* know of a lot of people who will instantly kill and steal if no laws are given.

How many murders occur each day? Do YOU want a serial killer to stalk your family, without any police to stop him?


I myself would feel free to take what I like from people, given there is no law or police.

[G. Adams]

I don't think people who are serial killers are really deterred by police. if someones going to kill my family, he's going to do it, provided he's not an idiot.

And just because there would be no police doesn't mean there would be no protection at all. Many communists and socialists argue that, at least until a utopian state is achieved, democratically elected citizens militia would protect the people. As a safety net against the militia becoming a 1'st tier power, all citizens would be allowed to arm. This also prevents minorities taking power.