First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next  Last
Post Reply What's the best system of government?
Posted 10/27/14 , edited 10/27/14
From Wiki
Anarchy has more than one definition. Some use the term "Anarchy" to refer to a society without a publicly enforced government. When used in this sense, anarchy may or may not be intended to imply political disorder or lawlessness within a society. For more go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchy


Anarchy is an umbrella term for many ideologies lying all across the political spectrum

It often takes the form of radical capitalist privatization with little or no central government. And yes, strong city-states with little or without a strong cohesive federal government are dangerous in a time of war. This is the setting of Suikoden II. The Jowston Confederation would or could not unify to repel the invading Highland Kingdom and they fell, one after another after another. The protagonist had to bring together the survivors under one banner, and save the land. That example being faced with a strong foreign power is a good reason why anarchy and similar ideology is dangerous ...
30236 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
It doesn't matter.
Offline
Posted 10/27/14
War is a government thing so it's only dangerous if a dangerous government declares war on the anarchists.
35037 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F
Offline
Posted 10/27/14
But this is the point that I'm trying to drive home: there can be a government in an anarchy. Anarchists aren't saying they don't want governments, they're saying they want more governments. Lots more. The anarchist capitalist doesn't want to get rid of property rights or laws which enforce them. The anarchist capitalist is saying that such laws should be established and maintained by the activities of private firms in competition with one another, that there should be more than one judicial system and that each should be in competition with the rest within the same territorial boundaries. The anarchist socialist doesn't want to get rid of labor laws or wage standards, but rather simply wants freely associated workers' councils to decide what these are instead of a state.
3910 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / Pandemonium
Offline
Posted 10/27/14 , edited 10/27/14

Sir_jamesalot
Most people don't want to rape and murder each other so they are able to exercise self control.
Having no rules doesn't mean people will be the worst that they can get away with.


Actually, it does. Maybe not for the model citizen, but for many others, it does indeed.
Let's say someone is in deep financial trouble. Do you really think that they will not start stealing in order to save themselves if there are no negative repercussions for it? Do you not think that things like bank robberies would be far more common if there was no law enforcement? Of course it would.
To say that fear of consequences plays no role in preventing crime for people who might be predisposed towards commiting crimes is incredibly naïve.

And it's not just about preventing first time crime. It's also about preventing repeat offences. Like serial killers for instance. Or child molesters.

And let's not forget organized crime. Forget mere gangs, there will be warlords with small private armies, roaming around and terrorizing people, just like the huns did.
And with no law enforcement or even laws to say that what they were doing is not okay -- no one would be able to stop them.
922 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / Pretoria, South A...
Offline
Posted 10/27/14
NO SYSTEM WILL EVER WORK.. WE ALL SCREWED.. It's up to you to just make the best of your situation and find your own reasons to smile..
30236 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
It doesn't matter.
Offline
Posted 10/27/14

Syndicaidramon wrote:


Sir_jamesalot
Most people don't want to rape and murder each other so they are able to exercise self control.
Having no rules doesn't mean people will be the worst that they can get away with.


Actually, it does. Maybe not for the model citizen, but for many others, it does indeed.
Let's say someone is in deep financial trouble. Do you really think that they will not start stealing in order to save themselves if there are no negative repercussions for it? Do you not think that things like bank robberies would be far more common if there was no law enforcement? Of course it would.
To say that fear of consequences plays no role in preventing crime for people who might be predisposed towards commiting crimes is incredibly naïve.

And it's not just about preventing first time crime. It's also about preventing repeat offences. Like serial killers for instance. Or child molesters.

And let's not forget organized crime. Forget mere gangs, there will be warlords with small private armies, roaming around and terrorizing people, just like the huns did.
And with no law enforcement or even laws to say that what they were doing is not okay -- no one would be able to stop them.


You're not giving people enough credit.
No one would trade unless they felt sufficiently protected,
the violent ones would more than cancel each other out because heroes and villians are the enemies of villians.
Gangs are a hierarchy and separate from anarchy.
35037 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F
Offline
Posted 10/27/14

Syndicaidramon wrote:

Actually, it does. Maybe not for the model citizen, but for many others, it does indeed.
Let's say someone is in deep financial trouble. Do you really think that they will not start stealing in order to save themselves if there are no negative repercussions for it? Do you not think that things like bank robberies would be far more common if there was no law enforcement? Of course it would.
To say that fear of consequences plays no role in preventing crime for people who might be predisposed towards commiting crimes is incredibly naïve.

And it's not just about preventing first time crime. It's also about preventing repeat offences. Like serial killers for instance. Or child molesters.

And let's not forget organized crime. Forget mere gangs, there will be warlords with small private armies, roaming around and terrorizing people, just like the huns did.
And with no law enforcement or even laws to say that what they were doing is not okay -- no one would be able to stop them.


Forget petty criminals and nomadic warlords, it'd be even scarier if anarchist capitalism functioned as planned. In an anarchist capitalist society the people with the most negotiating power (that is, the individuals who own the means of production) would have a clear incentive to write employment contracts such that they'll never, ever lose a dime even if they still have to pretend to pay you. And they could do that because they'd either be the paying customer of whatever private insurance/arbitration/security firm enforces contracts or would be that series of firms themselves. Company stores, company dormitories, company currency, personal conduct standards of any sort and to any extent they want, at-will employment for any and all positions, they would literally own massive swathes of the population.
3910 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / Pandemonium
Offline
Posted 10/27/14 , edited 10/27/14

Sir_jamesalot wrote:


Syndicaidramon wrote:


Sir_jamesalot
Most people don't want to rape and murder each other so they are able to exercise self control.
Having no rules doesn't mean people will be the worst that they can get away with.


Actually, it does. Maybe not for the model citizen, but for many others, it does indeed.
Let's say someone is in deep financial trouble. Do you really think that they will not start stealing in order to save themselves if there are no negative repercussions for it? Do you not think that things like bank robberies would be far more common if there was no law enforcement? Of course it would.
To say that fear of consequences plays no role in preventing crime for people who might be predisposed towards commiting crimes is incredibly naïve.

And it's not just about preventing first time crime. It's also about preventing repeat offences. Like serial killers for instance. Or child molesters.

And let's not forget organized crime. Forget mere gangs, there will be warlords with small private armies, roaming around and terrorizing people, just like the huns did.
And with no law enforcement or even laws to say that what they were doing is not okay -- no one would be able to stop them.


You're not giving people enough credit.
No one would trade unless they felt sufficiently protected,
the violent ones would more than cancel each other out because heroes and villians are the enemies of villians.
Gangs are a hierarchy and separate from anarchy.


I am giving people the exact amount of credit that they deserve. Perhaps more than they deserve, even.
Let me ask you something -- if crime is still so common and widespread today, WITH law-enforcement -- what makes you think there would be less crime in a society WITHOUT law-enforcement?

And even if gangs are a hierarchy, they still exist in the same world as everyone else. They would still exist among the people who live in anarchist society. And what they did would impact the others.
And no, they would not cancel each other out. No more than gangs, cartels and warlords do today.





BlueOni
Forget petty criminals and nomadic warlords, it'd be even scarier if anarchist capitalism functioned as planned. In an anarchist capitalist society the people with the most negotiating power (that is, the individuals who own the means of production) would have a clear incentive to write employment contracts such that they'll never, ever lose a dime even if they still have to pretend to pay you. And they could do that because they'd either be the paying customer of whatever private insurance/arbitration/security firm enforces contracts or would be that series of firms themselves. Company stores, company dormitories, company currency, personal conduct standards of any sort and to any extent they want, at-will employment for any and all positions, they would literally own massive swathes of the population.


Indeed.
30236 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
It doesn't matter.
Offline
Posted 10/27/14

Syndicaidramon wrote:
Let me ask you something -- if crime is still so common and widespread today, WITH law-enforcement -- what makes you think there would be less crime in a society WITHOUT law-enforcement?


Without law, crime would not exist.
3910 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / Pandemonium
Offline
Posted 10/27/14

Sir_jamesalot wrote:


Syndicaidramon wrote:
Let me ask you something -- if crime is still so common and widespread today, WITH law-enforcement -- what makes you think there would be less crime in a society WITHOUT law-enforcement?


Without law, crime would not exist.


You know what I meant.
Posted 10/27/14

Sir_jamesalot wrote:


Syndicaidramon wrote:
Let me ask you something -- if crime is still so common and widespread today, WITH law-enforcement -- what makes you think there would be less crime in a society WITHOUT law-enforcement?


Without law, crime would not exist.


haha, a world without law would be the closest thing to mind reading. all interaction will eventually be discouraged.
30236 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
It doesn't matter.
Offline
Posted 10/27/14

severticas wrote:


Sir_jamesalot wrote:


Syndicaidramon wrote:
Let me ask you something -- if crime is still so common and widespread today, WITH law-enforcement -- what makes you think there would be less crime in a society WITHOUT law-enforcement?


Without law, crime would not exist.


haha, a world without law would be the closest thing to mind reading. all interaction will eventually be discouraged.


another survivalist that thinks living in a bunker is preferable to human interaction.
Posted 10/27/14 , edited 10/27/14
if seriously deviant, would you really see the power that someone else holds? mind blocks are not necessary. only when there is law enforcement, is there a need to take risks only because many are scared of consequences? so the few that take it, do mostly do it because they can afford to? are risks taken to maintain status quo? what will it do to motivation?
30236 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
It doesn't matter.
Offline
Posted 10/28/14

Syndicaidramon wrote:


Sir_jamesalot wrote:


Syndicaidramon wrote:
Let me ask you something -- if crime is still so common and widespread today, WITH law-enforcement -- what makes you think there would be less crime in a society WITHOUT law-enforcement?


Without law, crime would not exist.


You know what I meant.


I think you meant that even though lots of people are super violent by nature,
there is still slim chance of them running into each other with conflicting goals.
8156 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
39 / M / Connecticut, USA
Offline
Posted 10/29/14
The best from of governance is self governance!
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.