The Anarchy thread - Page 2

On March 05 2010 00:50 DustySwedeDude wrote: I think the main "problem", except the obvious in that there's always a bunch of faggots fucking everything up and that a system without a way to deal with them (ie: use of force) will be fucked up really fast, is that people would just turn into groups and create small "communities" with their own rules etc (anarcho capitalism?) and from there on it would be survival of the fittest and say what you want about industrialists and commerce; but they bring on growth and they need a basic system of property rights and then you'd sooner or later have a capitalistic system of some kind anyway. Basically; a system without a way to defend itself and force itself upon the individuals will only survive if it's inherently stronger then any other system AND not threatened by some outside force (ie: invading army). In my opinion anarchy fails the first point since after a certain point of population you'll need the incentive private ownership gives for hard work etc.

yes... faction

It's funny that 'teh mod' is so excited with the idea of anarchy. How about we do it here, just for one day so i can temp-ban you as you did to me (for repost in rofl thread).

And internet has nothing to do with anarchy (from Greek: anarchía, "without ruler" ). There's always someone in charge. If you still think so: how about www.liquidpoker.net 'shows finger' to Internic/ICANN and/or doesn't pay for the domain. Can you guess what'll happen?

On the other hand if you think of 'internet anarchy' in terms of (figure of speech) 'mass confederation' as opposed to totally centralized power typically in hands of one man, then I'll agree with you that the former is ton better.

On March 05 2010 04:44 anheway wrote: It's funny that 'teh mod' is so excited with the idea of anarchy. How about we do it here, just for one day so i can temp-ban you as you did to me (for repost in rofl thread). And internet has nothing to do with anarchy (from Greek: anarchía, "without ruler" ). There's always someone in charge. If you still think so: how about www.liquidpoker.net 'shows finger' to Internic/ICANN and/or doesn't pay for the domain. Can you guess what'll happen? On the other hand if you think of 'internet anarchy' in terms of (figure of speech) 'mass confederation' as opposed to totally centralized power typically in hands of one man, then I'll agree with you that the former is ton better.

Except that this is a private corporation with hierarchy in it, it is not a form of government, if it were a government you would have to give us money, if you refused we had the right to kidnap you, and then we would use that money as we see fit.

On March 04 2010 21:15 Liquid`Drone wrote: Show nested quote + On March 04 2010 20:51 Baal wrote:   On March 04 2010 20:07 Liquid`Drone wrote: you may choose to attribute somalias growth to them being an anarchist society you could also argue that it certainly didnt help bring stability.. security is the original reasoning behind the existance of states, if you fail there then well, the rest doesn't really matter. you can certainly argue that some democracies also fail at maintaining security, but there are also multiple examples of it succeeding. but no large society with surrounding states without a completely homogenous population has ever succeeded in maintaining security for its citizens and the state. You mean that there is no example of big anarchy society surrounding with states taht have provided stability?. So are you saying that the only threat to a anarchy are foreign states that will try to overtake it? im not saying that's the only threat. internal security is also a problem, but that CAN be avoided through the population being small and "equal minded". however, any state with a small population historically will have had quite significant problems with external security..

Because anarchy is usually set in the midst of chaos and not a chosen method, also about risk of external invasion, well your country is totally unable to defend itself against a big military force, like germany.

On March 05 2010 00:35 noface wrote: I was about to craft an elaborate argument, but just got my fucking shit pushed in at the poker tables so I'm going to try to make it short and go play GTA. I would simply like brother Baal to respond to the problem of factions with respect to Anarchy. Before the Constitutional Convention James Madison spent several weeks furiously reading and studying about Ancient governments. What he discovered is that factions commonly destroyed Republics. He defines a faction as: "a number of citizens, whether amounting to a minority or majority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adverse to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community." Anarchy on a scale as large as a country is going to leave people seriously fucked up. Because what i found extremely fascinating when studying American Government is that I believe Ancient Republics were governed and formed on the premise that you would be good to your neighbor and do what is best for your community. People are "ambitious, vindictive, and rapacious," said James Hamilton, and to structure a government on the belief that people are good is foolish. Getting longer than I wanted but I will leave one more quote by Madison: "The lesson we are to draw from the whole is, that where a majority are united by a common sentiment, and have an opportunity, the rights of the minor party become insecure. In a republican government, the majority, if united, have always an opportunity. The only remedy is, to enlarge the sphere, and thereby divide the community into so great a number of interests and parties, that, in the first place, a majority will not be likely, at the same moment, to have a common interest separate from that of the whole, or of the minority; and in the second place, that in case they should have such an interest, they may not be so apt to unite in the pursuit of it. It was incumbent on us, then, to try this remedy, and, with that view, to frame a republican system on such a scale, and in such a form, as will control all the evils which have been experienced." If someone responds, I will come back and participate.

Heh funny that you mention it, but thats is exactly why anarchy is not only the best method but its necessary, and that is based on the fact that mankind is evil, there are many naturally twisted men in seek of personal gain at any cost.

And here comes the failure of your system which the only thing it does is to make these people more powerful! who do you think its going to seek a spot in a privileged power position? an easy going relaxed man of good, or a money hungry ruthless man?

So in the end all democracy do is actually provide evil with power, for fucks sake just open your eyes and see the world and tell me im wrong, seriously tell me that so many world leaders are the representation of the darkest and most evil people in their respective countries

good and evil Baal? seriously? O_o
On another note,
anarcho capitalism is so different from the other forms of anarchism that most of the "other" anarchists consider it even more repulsive than capitalism.
That's also one of the sad little details about anarchism... There's no real plan,there are major differences between those labeled as anarchists to the extent that they fight each other,there's no visible way of stabilization (applying such a new model in a national scale would mean failure due to external factors so the whole world would have to wake up in anarchy one day for this to work). At some time I started wondering wtf so many anarchists don't care about having a more social attitude,why aren't they struggling with the unsolved theoretical problems of what they fight for,why some of them haven't even bothered to think of the consequences of their general mottos... It doesn't take long to figure out some ugly shit about the motivations of many of the people who endorse anarchy/ism.
The psychological pleasure of throwing negativity at the rest of the world,the explicit pleasure of pointing a finger at everyone with the stance of a cardinal (very similar in what they promise too),the aspect of transforming from a social reject to an enlightened evil fighter- the peak of stroking your own cock- apparently are more than enough reasons to blindly accept the following rules
a)no state
b)no god
c)let's go after the cops

of course cops suck balls very often and the chances of a god existing are really slim,but that is no real reason to behave like a monkey every time you see a dude wearing a uniform. The implications of no god existing don't even seem to introduce the concept of skepticism to many anarchists... it's just another way to point a finger to the rest of the society and become zealots for another kind of utopia, re-baptizing good and evil according to what your new set of friends believe.
Anarchist groups are no truth-worshipers too. Just like any other political movement they will manipulate information in their own benefit,they will fight over trivialities against each other,they will not care that people with the mindset of hooligans have entered their ranks,because they believe they're stronger that way. Help make the world a better place? They'll have to sort out their own problems first ( or resort to the ol' "fire brings cleansing and a new start" )

Could the world operate without a state mechanism (+would it be a better place)? that's a subject of a huge debate and multiple conflicting answers. My point is that the people who genuinely search for the truth will not rush into taking sides/pointing fingers and the fact that the anarchist movement isn't composed by scholars in a way speaks by itself.

Baal, I actually agree with your premise. In fact, I quoted this in another thread I made recently and I think it applies perfectly here.

Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

However, based on that same premise, I come to an entirely different conclusion which is that instead of advocating an elimination of government, we should be working towards better government.

You advocating anarchy as a solution to corruption and the evils of power is in many ways similar to the tea partiers and the austrian school's advocating smaller government and eliminating regulation and government oversight. This approach actually makes some sense since I am also a firm believer that it is human nature for power to corrupt.

However, that line of thinking overlooks another source of power other than government and that is wealth. Wealth also produces power and the evils of greed by private citizens and corporations is in many ways similar to the evils of power by government officials. In a power vaccum of an anarchy, it will be the wealthy members of society that step in to seize much of that power.

Government agencies often get much heat for being inept at their mission which is often true. The SEC has gotten a lot of criticism for failing to uncover the Bernie Madoff scam. But how many more Bernie Madoffs would be out there if there were no SEC at all? The SEC shuts down countless number of fraudulent operations, boiler rooms and pyramid schemes. The mere presence of the SEC also discourages countless more would be scams from occuring in the first place.

I recently created a thread about the airline industry and the safety issues at regional airlines where I criticized the FAA for lax standards. While I feel as though the FAA can do a lot better, I also think that we would be a lot worse off without any agency at all looking out for public safety. How many more corners would profit driven corporations make if there were no standards and no regulations?

Free markets are generally good and they work remarkably well. However, there are undeniable failings of free markets which is rooted in human greed and is explained best by the tragedy of the commons.

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

The problem is that the governments setup to protect society from that greed oftentimes end up being a bigger problem. While there is no perfect government, there are some governments that work better than others. The following link is a list of the corruption index:

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

Baal, you made a legitimate point in that Somailia is probably better off in anarchy than under government. Somailia also happens to be dead last in terms of corruption so that isn't so much a proof to the qualities of anarchy as it is a testament to how god awful Somailia's government is. If you were to ask people in New Zeland, Denmark, Singapore, Switzerland and the other countries that rank high on that list if they would prefer anarchy over their current form of government, they would surely say no. All the countries that rank below a 3 or a 4 might be better off in anarchy than under their existing corrupt governments. However, that does not mean that they should strive for anarchy, rather they should work towards improving the system and transparency of their governments so they rise to the top of the list. I know that is easier said than done, but anarchy is definitely not the long term answer.

this is an example of a current anarchist community getting together to evict hard drugs after the police had failed to do so for them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freetown_Christiania#Eviction_of_.27hard_drugs.27

also paragraph below also gives an example of them evicting a bike gang that came into the community to overtake the cannabis market.

"Around 1984 a Copenhagen-resident biker gang called Bullshit arrived in Christiania and took control of a part of the cannabis market. Violence in the neighborhood increased and many Christianites felt unsafe and unhappy with the new residents. This resulted in sabotage acts directed towards the bikers as well as the publication of several provocative manuscripts urging the Christianites to throw out the powerful and armed bikers. This tension culminated when the police found a murdered individual who had been sliced to pieces and buried beneath the floor of a building. Christiania reacted with two colossal community meetings—one outside the building—where it was agreed that the bikers had to leave." -- hmm it actually doesnt say whether they had police help them out or not. But I think its clear that all the community was against the bike gang and would evict them with or without the police help anyway.


They use people power!!!!

I want to add a spiritual quote

“God don’t care about you. Don’t care about me. In all of everything we don’t mean nothing. He don’t know us. We be. And that’s the onliest thing He did. But that’s good, that’s why we’re free. But free ain’t easy. Free is real. And real’s a motherfucker."
-drew bundini brown (a black jewish man with a bald scalp hooked on heroine) LOL

On March 05 2010 06:14 Baal wrote: Show nested quote + On March 05 2010 00:35 noface wrote: I was about to craft an elaborate argument, but just got my fucking shit pushed in at the poker tables so I'm going to try to make it short and go play GTA. I would simply like brother Baal to respond to the problem of factions with respect to Anarchy. Before the Constitutional Convention James Madison spent several weeks furiously reading and studying about Ancient governments. What he discovered is that factions commonly destroyed Republics. He defines a faction as: "a number of citizens, whether amounting to a minority or majority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adverse to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community." Anarchy on a scale as large as a country is going to leave people seriously fucked up. Because what i found extremely fascinating when studying American Government is that I believe Ancient Republics were governed and formed on the premise that you would be good to your neighbor and do what is best for your community. People are "ambitious, vindictive, and rapacious," said James Hamilton, and to structure a government on the belief that people are good is foolish. Getting longer than I wanted but I will leave one more quote by Madison: "The lesson we are to draw from the whole is, that where a majority are united by a common sentiment, and have an opportunity, the rights of the minor party become insecure. In a republican government, the majority, if united, have always an opportunity. The only remedy is, to enlarge the sphere, and thereby divide the community into so great a number of interests and parties, that, in the first place, a majority will not be likely, at the same moment, to have a common interest separate from that of the whole, or of the minority; and in the second place, that in case they should have such an interest, they may not be so apt to unite in the pursuit of it. It was incumbent on us, then, to try this remedy, and, with that view, to frame a republican system on such a scale, and in such a form, as will control all the evils which have been experienced." If someone responds, I will come back and participate. Heh funny that you mention it, but thats is exactly why anarchy is not only the best method but its necessary, and that is based on the fact that mankind is evil, there are many naturally twisted men in seek of personal gain at any cost. And here comes the failure of your system which the only thing it does is to make these people more powerful! who do you think its going to seek a spot in a privileged power position? an easy going relaxed man of good, or a money hungry ruthless man? So in the end all democracy do is actually provide evil with power, for fucks sake just open your eyes and see the world and tell me im wrong, seriously tell me that so many world leaders are the representation of the darkest and most evil people in their respective countries

you just need to alter politics. for example give politicians non-extravagant salaries, give pretty long quarantenes for politicians after they quit politics so they can't work with anything they directly influenced, don't appoint too much power to individual politicians. basically make it an unattractive position for power and moneyhungry evildoers and make it an attractive position for idealists who genuinely want to make the world a better place.

I think most norwegian politicians belong in that group.

baal sounds christian

On March 06 2010 05:41 Liquid`Drone wrote: Show nested quote + On March 05 2010 06:14 Baal wrote:   On March 05 2010 00:35 noface wrote: I was about to craft an elaborate argument, but just got my fucking shit pushed in at the poker tables so I'm going to try to make it short and go play GTA. I would simply like brother Baal to respond to the problem of factions with respect to Anarchy. Before the Constitutional Convention James Madison spent several weeks furiously reading and studying about Ancient governments. What he discovered is that factions commonly destroyed Republics. He defines a faction as: "a number of citizens, whether amounting to a minority or majority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adverse to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community." Anarchy on a scale as large as a country is going to leave people seriously fucked up. Because what i found extremely fascinating when studying American Government is that I believe Ancient Republics were governed and formed on the premise that you would be good to your neighbor and do what is best for your community. People are "ambitious, vindictive, and rapacious," said James Hamilton, and to structure a government on the belief that people are good is foolish. Getting longer than I wanted but I will leave one more quote by Madison: "The lesson we are to draw from the whole is, that where a majority are united by a common sentiment, and have an opportunity, the rights of the minor party become insecure. In a republican government, the majority, if united, have always an opportunity. The only remedy is, to enlarge the sphere, and thereby divide the community into so great a number of interests and parties, that, in the first place, a majority will not be likely, at the same moment, to have a common interest separate from that of the whole, or of the minority; and in the second place, that in case they should have such an interest, they may not be so apt to unite in the pursuit of it. It was incumbent on us, then, to try this remedy, and, with that view, to frame a republican system on such a scale, and in such a form, as will control all the evils which have been experienced." If someone responds, I will come back and participate. Heh funny that you mention it, but thats is exactly why anarchy is not only the best method but its necessary, and that is based on the fact that mankind is evil, there are many naturally twisted men in seek of personal gain at any cost. And here comes the failure of your system which the only thing it does is to make these people more powerful! who do you think its going to seek a spot in a privileged power position? an easy going relaxed man of good, or a money hungry ruthless man? So in the end all democracy do is actually provide evil with power, for fucks sake just open your eyes and see the world and tell me im wrong, seriously tell me that so many world leaders are the representation of the darkest and most evil people in their respective countries you just need to alter politics. for example give politicians non-extravagant salaries, give pretty long quarantenes for politicians after they quit politics so they can't work with anything they directly influenced, don't appoint too much power to individual politicians. basically make it an unattractive position for power and moneyhungry evildoers and make it an attractive position for idealists who genuinely want to make the world a better place. I think most norwegian politicians belong in that group.

There are some obvious serious flaws in your proposals. For example with low salaries you lose the smartest/brightest individuals to industry. Another problem is the people who are passionate about a subject may not be the best people to have in government despite being smart. So idealist are a majority of who you end up with after taking away decent salary and benefits. This creates obvious problems like I said.

On March 05 2010 07:55 TenBagger wrote: Baal, I actually agree with your premise. In fact, I quoted this in another thread I made recently and I think it applies perfectly here. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. However, based on that same premise, I come to an entirely different conclusion which is that instead of advocating an elimination of government, we should be working towards better government. You advocating anarchy as a solution to corruption and the evils of power is in many ways similar to the tea partiers and the austrian school's advocating smaller government and eliminating regulation and government oversight. This approach actually makes some sense since I am also a firm believer that it is human nature for power to corrupt. However, that line of thinking overlooks another source of power other than government and that is wealth. Wealth also produces power and the evils of greed by private citizens and corporations is in many ways similar to the evils of power by government officials. In a power vaccum of an anarchy, it will be the wealthy members of society that step in to seize much of that power. Government agencies often get much heat for being inept at their mission which is often true. The SEC has gotten a lot of criticism for failing to uncover the Bernie Madoff scam. But how many more Bernie Madoffs would be out there if there were no SEC at all? The SEC shuts down countless number of fraudulent operations, boiler rooms and pyramid schemes. The mere presence of the SEC also discourages countless more would be scams from occuring in the first place. I recently created a thread about the airline industry and the safety issues at regional airlines where I criticized the FAA for lax standards. While I feel as though the FAA can do a lot better, I also think that we would be a lot worse off without any agency at all looking out for public safety. How many more corners would profit driven corporations make if there were no standards and no regulations? Free markets are generally good and they work remarkably well. However, there are undeniable failings of free markets which is rooted in human greed and is explained best by the tragedy of the commons. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons The problem is that the governments setup to protect society from that greed oftentimes end up being a bigger problem. While there is no perfect government, there are some governments that work better than others. The following link is a list of the corruption index: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_Perceptions_Index Baal, you made a legitimate point in that Somailia is probably better off in anarchy than under government. Somailia also happens to be dead last in terms of corruption so that isn't so much a proof to the qualities of anarchy as it is a testament to how god awful Somailia's government is. If you were to ask people in New Zeland, Denmark, Singapore, Switzerland and the other countries that rank high on that list if they would prefer anarchy over their current form of government, they would surely say no. All the countries that rank below a 3 or a 4 might be better off in anarchy than under their existing corrupt governments. However, that does not mean that they should strive for anarchy, rather they should work towards improving the system and transparency of their governments so they rise to the top of the list. I know that is easier said than done, but anarchy is definitely not the long term answer.

about eh part that if you ask a 1st world country if they chose anarchy they would say NO it means absolutely nothing you have to agree that the vast majority of people are absolutely ignorant about true anarchy, also the vast majority of people are scared shitless of really radical changes such at this when they are in a stable condition.

For example, again ill use my shitty country, if u ask a mexican (where our corruption levels are close to somalia) if they would choose anarchy everybody would say NO, so it really doesnt mean much.


Your main argument against capitalist anarchy is that it will turn into corporativism but i have two comments for you:

- Dont you agree that is our current situation? corporations rule the world and now they are even so powerful that they can manipulate (lobbing ftw) governments into doing their bidding making them even stronger than they would be in a free market society.


- If you fear corporativism and also agree that power corrupts then logic would dictate that your ideal economic model should be something like a socialist-anarchist yet i dont think you are.

On March 06 2010 05:41 Liquid`Drone wrote: Show nested quote + On March 05 2010 06:14 Baal wrote:   On March 05 2010 00:35 noface wrote: I was about to craft an elaborate argument, but just got my fucking shit pushed in at the poker tables so I'm going to try to make it short and go play GTA. I would simply like brother Baal to respond to the problem of factions with respect to Anarchy. Before the Constitutional Convention James Madison spent several weeks furiously reading and studying about Ancient governments. What he discovered is that factions commonly destroyed Republics. He defines a faction as: "a number of citizens, whether amounting to a minority or majority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adverse to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community." Anarchy on a scale as large as a country is going to leave people seriously fucked up. Because what i found extremely fascinating when studying American Government is that I believe Ancient Republics were governed and formed on the premise that you would be good to your neighbor and do what is best for your community. People are "ambitious, vindictive, and rapacious," said James Hamilton, and to structure a government on the belief that people are good is foolish. Getting longer than I wanted but I will leave one more quote by Madison: "The lesson we are to draw from the whole is, that where a majority are united by a common sentiment, and have an opportunity, the rights of the minor party become insecure. In a republican government, the majority, if united, have always an opportunity. The only remedy is, to enlarge the sphere, and thereby divide the community into so great a number of interests and parties, that, in the first place, a majority will not be likely, at the same moment, to have a common interest separate from that of the whole, or of the minority; and in the second place, that in case they should have such an interest, they may not be so apt to unite in the pursuit of it. It was incumbent on us, then, to try this remedy, and, with that view, to frame a republican system on such a scale, and in such a form, as will control all the evils which have been experienced." If someone responds, I will come back and participate. Heh funny that you mention it, but thats is exactly why anarchy is not only the best method but its necessary, and that is based on the fact that mankind is evil, there are many naturally twisted men in seek of personal gain at any cost. And here comes the failure of your system which the only thing it does is to make these people more powerful! who do you think its going to seek a spot in a privileged power position? an easy going relaxed man of good, or a money hungry ruthless man? So in the end all democracy do is actually provide evil with power, for fucks sake just open your eyes and see the world and tell me im wrong, seriously tell me that so many world leaders are the representation of the darkest and most evil people in their respective countries you just need to alter politics. for example give politicians non-extravagant salaries, give pretty long quarantenes for politicians after they quit politics so they can't work with anything they directly influenced, don't appoint too much power to individual politicians. basically make it an unattractive position for power and moneyhungry evildoers and make it an attractive position for idealists who genuinely want to make the world a better place. I think most norwegian politicians belong in that group.

give politicians non extravagant salaries? who... who should give them that if they get to decide their own fucking salaries? why would they sabotage themselves? why havent USA done than then?


And yeah in Norway corruptions levels are extremely low and government is relatively efficient however but that is not a government's success, its as a whole society, your society is way way ahead of the rest of the world, so basically if you removed your government even if its not corrupt you would have a much higher living standard and all the personal freedom you do not enjoy today.

On March 06 2010 06:23 Funktion wrote: Show nested quote + On March 06 2010 05:41 Liquid`Drone wrote:   On March 05 2010 06:14 Baal wrote:   On March 05 2010 00:35 noface wrote: I was about to craft an elaborate argument, but just got my fucking shit pushed in at the poker tables so I'm going to try to make it short and go play GTA. I would simply like brother Baal to respond to the problem of factions with respect to Anarchy. Before the Constitutional Convention James Madison spent several weeks furiously reading and studying about Ancient governments. What he discovered is that factions commonly destroyed Republics. He defines a faction as: "a number of citizens, whether amounting to a minority or majority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adverse to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community." Anarchy on a scale as large as a country is going to leave people seriously fucked up. Because what i found extremely fascinating when studying American Government is that I believe Ancient Republics were governed and formed on the premise that you would be good to your neighbor and do what is best for your community. People are "ambitious, vindictive, and rapacious," said James Hamilton, and to structure a government on the belief that people are good is foolish. Getting longer than I wanted but I will leave one more quote by Madison: "The lesson we are to draw from the whole is, that where a majority are united by a common sentiment, and have an opportunity, the rights of the minor party become insecure. In a republican government, the majority, if united, have always an opportunity. The only remedy is, to enlarge the sphere, and thereby divide the community into so great a number of interests and parties, that, in the first place, a majority will not be likely, at the same moment, to have a common interest separate from that of the whole, or of the minority; and in the second place, that in case they should have such an interest, they may not be so apt to unite in the pursuit of it. It was incumbent on us, then, to try this remedy, and, with that view, to frame a republican system on such a scale, and in such a form, as will control all the evils which have been experienced." If someone responds, I will come back and participate. Heh funny that you mention it, but thats is exactly why anarchy is not only the best method but its necessary, and that is based on the fact that mankind is evil, there are many naturally twisted men in seek of personal gain at any cost. And here comes the failure of your system which the only thing it does is to make these people more powerful! who do you think its going to seek a spot in a privileged power position? an easy going relaxed man of good, or a money hungry ruthless man? So in the end all democracy do is actually provide evil with power, for fucks sake just open your eyes and see the world and tell me im wrong, seriously tell me that so many world leaders are the representation of the darkest and most evil people in their respective countries you just need to alter politics. for example give politicians non-extravagant salaries, give pretty long quarantenes for politicians after they quit politics so they can't work with anything they directly influenced, don't appoint too much power to individual politicians. basically make it an unattractive position for power and moneyhungry evildoers and make it an attractive position for idealists who genuinely want to make the world a better place. I think most norwegian politicians belong in that group. There are some obvious serious flaws in your proposals. For example with low salaries you lose the smartest/brightest individuals to industry. Another problem is the people who are passionate about a subject may not be the best people to have in government despite being smart. So idealist are a majority of who you end up with after taking away decent salary and benefits. This creates obvious problems like I said.

wrong the smartest and brightest individuals in the industry in the area of GOVERNING OTHERS care not about money, also a honest hard working government with ideals is million times better than the most intelligent one with perverse goals.

classic logic
governement sucks, lets get rid of it

Well the governement does suck, it does a lot. people are getting fucked so bad its like modern slavery

People are always getting paid less than what they "produce"
People pay more for goods than what they're truly worth
People pay huge taxes, big parts of these taxes are given back to the richs business mens who get taxe credits, subventions etc. When people realize this, they ask to lower the taxes, and governement just compensate by reducing every services which is even worse
When you deposit money, your interest rate is low, while people who needs loans needs to pay big interest rate..... no wonder banks are so rich lol

We are getting fucked in so many ways its not funny

Its possible anarchy would be better than capitalism.... its not really hard to do better than capitalism. But i doubt it would be the ideal system.

I think the best thing that can be done is "sharing" the ways of productions. doesn't have to be communist, but just make sure people get paid properly for their work.

On March 08 2010 19:13 Floofy wrote: classic logic governement sucks, lets get rid of it Well the governement does suck, it does a lot. people are getting fucked so bad its like modern slavery People are always getting paid less than what they "produce" People pay more for goods than what they're truly worth People pay huge taxes, big parts of these taxes are given back to the richs business mens who get taxe credits, subventions etc. When people realize this, they ask to lower the taxes, and governement just compensate by reducing every services which is even worse When you deposit money, your interest rate is low, while people who needs loans needs to pay big interest rate..... no wonder banks are so rich lol We are getting fucked in so many ways its not funny Its possible anarchy would be better than capitalism.... its not really hard to do better than capitalism. But i doubt it would be the ideal system. I think the best thing that can be done is "sharing" the ways of productions. doesn't have to be communist, but just make sure people get paid properly for their work.

"sharing" is socialistm and u fail in general.

yea it is. so what?
Social countries ALL suffer much less from economic crisis than capitalism ones.

Instead of just saying you fail, why dont you point out where "i fail". this is just stuff i learned at university and u can't say its wrong, its just so true the way we are getting exploited by rich corporations

On March 08 2010 19:26 Floofy wrote: yea it is. so what? Social countries ALL suffer much less from economic crisis than capitalism ones. Instead of just saying you fail, why dont you point out where "i fail". this is just stuff i learned at university and u can't say its wrong, its just so true the way we are getting exploited by rich corporations

this thread will not discuss socialism its a complex issue but its clearly not the ideal economic model as u can see a list of socialist countries:

-Cuba
-China
-North Korea
-Laos
-Vietnam
-Venezuela
-Nicaragua

Nobody ever implemented real socialism
These are just poor attempts

Even if it was, its just like poker, its not because AA loose a few times that its not a good hand

Also, these countries were horrible in the first place. Cuba actually somewhat improved.... but it was shit in the first place. and it is not real socialism.

Anyways what i am advising is not rock hard socialism, its just sharing the ways of production

instead of rich business mens exploiting the workers, workers would share their benefits. theres nothing wrong with this.