Originally posted by rhbThar's the problem though. It requires all to be like minded. There are a lot of systems that would work if all were like minded. The problem is that's not how humans work. We need a system that will work despite corruption and other human barriers to successful government.
(I know this was adressed to Shavixmir)
My earlier post about the short term view taken by political parties also applies to business leaders.
A Globally (semi)Altruistic Communist minded government might be a good place to start. Would be one big job to organise though, but not impossible if all were like minded.
Originally posted by AThousandYoungback to Anarchy then?
Thar's the problem though. It requires all to be like minded. There are a lot of systems that would work if all were like minded. The problem is that's not how humans work. We need a system that will work despite corruption and other human barriers to successful government.
😕
Originally posted by rhbNo, because that just turns into a governmental system; possibly a fuedal one. If there's no government, who's going to stop a government from forming?
back to Anarchy then?
😕
I think the system in the U.S.A is pretty good. Possibly some of the European socialist systems, like Norway, might be better.
1 edit
Originally posted by AThousandYoungWasn't the US system proven to be flawed when George Dubllya first got voted in? The 'cherts' farce?
No, because that just turns into a governmental system; possibly a fuedal one. If there's no government, who's going to stop a government from forming?
I think the system in the U.S.A is pretty good. Possibly some of the European socialist systems, like Norway, might be better.
I am not familiar with the Eurpoean socialist systems, but understand countries like Norway and Sweden *edit* seem to */edit* have things pretty well sorted.
Originally posted by AThousandYoungWhy would anarchy just turn into a government system? And why a feudal one? Only the people themselves could stop a government from forming.
No, because that just turns into a governmental system; possibly a fuedal one. If there's no government, who's going to stop a government from forming?
I think the system in the U.S.A is pretty good. Possibly some of the European socialist systems, like Norway, might be better.
Just because anarchists are opposed to "government" doesn't mean they're opposed to organization.
Originally posted by shavixmirYou gave this some good thought.
It seems to me there are various points I would like to make:
One is being ruled by the majority opinion. Surely this is still better than being ruled by minority opinion?
Another is that "government" was set up by whom? By the rich and powerful of their day. Do you seriously think that these people created a system which wasn't going to benefit ...[text shortened]... that that the theory of democracy is good, but that the execution of it is terrible.
[/b]
I guess my only reply is that you make the mistaken assumption that there are "rich and poor" and "owner and workers".
This was absolutely true in the first 100 years of the industrial revolution. I think that it was not avoidable because of what I think of as the "distribution lag" imposed on the move from agro-based economies and industry-centers economies -- which pretty much defines the growth of western civilization up until T. Roosevelt.
About that time, we began to suspect for the first time that Dickens from 20 years before, might be right. So we began to limit and break-up what had become "slave-like" industry.
This movement has now lead to a world where not only are we free from the 'owner/managers", but they must spend billions each year trying to entice the "worker" with better and better "benefits packages" to stay with the company and not leave for better pastures.
I will offer a challenge. Name me a single worker in all of Europe or the US or Austrailia that isn't free to start their own business or to move jobs. If you can do that, I will surrender to your notion that we are "stuck in 1890".
We are not. Some parts of the world are though. And some, like India will be stuck there forever, because of the built in "Caste System".
Communism failed because it didn't recognize the basic nature of all humans as being "self-centered". Maybe Marx and Engles would have been served to consult with a few psychologists before declaring that they could "murder and kill" their way to egalitarianism.