Originally posted by twhiteheadI'll have to come back to this one.
Well first I think you should help us to understand what it is all about. Can you break down the different functions of govt?
1. Taxes.
2. Company ownership.
3. Infrastructure
4. Internal security
5. External security
6. Laws
etc etc.
Most laws have to do with interactions between people. If the laws are not common to all then are you barred from ...[text shortened]... m trying to understand the concept. I cannot propose solutions before I understand the concept.
Originally posted by twhiteheadI find this comment HIGHLY interesting.
Does each govt maintain its own army? Don't forget that an army is one of the largest slices of tax.
What are you basing this factual statement on? Are your figures from only one country - or world wide?
Please give country(ies) and their budgetary numbers, so I may study them.
Thanks.
Originally posted by MacSwainSorry I don't have facts and figures and I based my statement on what I know of my home country (Zambia).
I find this comment HIGHLY interesting.
What are you basing this factual statement on? Are your figures from only one country - or world wide?
Please give country(ies) and their budgetary numbers, so I may study them.
Thanks.
However this story:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/2/story.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=10387291
says world military spending is 2.5% of world GDP.
But I dont know how tax compares to GDP etc.
Military spending is at least significant even though I might be wrong about its size in proportion to the total tax.
Originally posted by rwingettMy point is that your initial description made people think that you were talking about various systems of government when in truth you are talking about various economic systems. Quite a different thing. And most peoples objections are based on the 'systems of government' idea.
I'm not just talking about the availability of social services. I'm talking about parallel economies. A capitalist economy would be physically intermixed with a socialist economy, but each maintains their separate status. If it's only the use of the term "government" which is causing you problems, then feel free to drop it. As long as you grasp the concept, I don't care what you call it.
You can have a dictator ship which is capitalist or socialist. A democracy which is capitalist or socialist.
Your system is essentially a form of democracy where capitalist or socialist systems exist together (China maybe?).
The idea of different systems of government just doesn't work as most systems of government are simply incompatible and your idea is in itself a system of government. It made me think of the various religions which claim to unify all other religions and be compatible with all other religions. Simply impossible.
I still think that the basic over all concept of different economic strategies already exists to some extent in some countries whenever social services etc are optional.
1 edit
Originally posted by rwingettAll of the things that panarchy provides can be found in federalism, and all of the problems with panarchy are also eliminiated in federalism.
This is a term coined in 1860 by Belgian economist Paul Emile de Puydt. Basically what it means is that citizens get to choose what government they will live under and that all the various possible types of government have to compete for citizens. This would require the end of territorially based governments and usher in an era of extra-territorial ones. In ...[text shortened]...
Sounds good to me.
moderators: could you move this to debates? I put it in the wrong forum.
With federalism, each state government can be a different possibility or experiment in whatever form or level of government we can think of. And that's not counting local governments each doing their own thing as well.
The problems associated with panarchy, such as people following different speed limits and other laws in the same area are avoided in federalism by way of using state boundries.
The only drawback to federalism as opposed to panarchy is that you would actually have to move your feet and go to a different state, if you didn't like the form of government you were currently in, whereas panarchy allows you to stay in place (of course, staying in place with multiple forms of government around you also causes problems, as we have figured out, which federalism avoids with state boundries).
Of course, all of that only works if federal government stays limited.
http://www.afreecountry.blogspot.com